topic
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Weakest link
SINCE the White Paper on a Channel link was published 10 years ago the estimated cost of the tunnel has gone up by 150 per cent from £143m to £366m. Even when the fall in real value of money is taken into account, these are dramatic figures. There is growing pressure for another look at the project which the authorities appear to be pursuing with the purblind dedication of the mole.
Progress with the various preliminary studies has fallen behind schedule. Much of the information needed for a final assessment is lacking. Opponents of the tunnel are making good use of the vacuum created by the lack of news.
Mr David Crouch, Conservative MP for Canterbury, has asked for a commission to carry out a thorough investigation into whether the tunnel is still necessary. Relevant to this demand are reports by consultants on the technical feasibility, commercial uncertainty, environmental effect, the growing relative importance of air and sea ferries and the decision to site the third London airport in the Thames estuary.
The Minister for Transport Industries, Mr. John Peyton, has refused the demand. But on the benches behind and facing him material is being collected for the next occasion when the subject of the tunnel is debated. Only a few days ago Mr I. L. Prescott, Labour MP for East Hull, put down a string of awkward questions on such points as a social cost benefit analysis of the project and the cost of the rail connections.
What the Government must see looking ahead is the accusation that they, or their predecessors a decade ago, took the worst possible decision. With hindsight the opinion is growing that it would be preferable not to have a link of any kind. If it was at one time more generally thought desirable, the fact remains that after looking at the possibilities, the Government chose the weakest link.
There was not even a proper comprehensive analysis. The 1963 White Paper was concerned only with the rival claims of a tunnel and a bridge. The ultimate decision in favour of a tunnel was substantially affected by the views of shipping interests with their automatic objection to any construction in the Channel.
Railway interests also played a part. The tunnel would be exclusively for rail and its supporters have even tried to turn this damning drawback into a virtue. They have seen through the tunnel the salvation of the railways from their present economic and financial decline and the dawn of a new railway age.
Little or no attention was paid to plans for a link which would be partly above and partly below the water and which, b reducing the ventilation problem, woul make it possible to accommodate roa vehicles as well as a railway. In spite c discouragement, the supporters of such project have continued to put it forward. recent opportunity was provided by th Royal Society of Arts to Prof A. L. I Baker, professor of concrete structure an technology, Imperial College of Science an Technology.
Prof Baker would build his link betwee Folkestone and the French coast net Boulogne. The distance would be 21 milt instead of the 34 miles for the proposed ra tunnel; and land on both sides of th Channel would be saved by arranging fc the crossing to begin as a pier, extendin from the coast. The structure would sior down into the deep water which has a widt of four miles on the British and five miles o the French side. The central bridge sectio would cross and join two large banks i mid-Channel which are at present shipping hazard.
The under-water sections would b prefabricated and lowered to the seabed. A each tunnel would be no more than fiv miles long, there would be no difficulty i providing adequate ventilation for petrt and diesel enginecl road traffic. Th gradients, according to Prof Baker, need b no steeper than 1 in 60 and this shoul present no difficulty for the railways.
Two -lane motorway
The total cost Prof Baker puts I about £230m, plus between 20 and 30 IN cent to take account of recent price rise For this money there would be a two-lan motorway and two rail tracks, whereas th bored tunnel would take only a double ra track.
If this tunnel is built, says Prof Baker, th need for a cross-Channel motorway will sti arise towards the end of the century. : could have steeper gradients and an obstructions in the Channel could be sti further reduced, but the two projects woul cost considerably more than a sing) structure.
Sceptics who regard the idea of Channel link of any kind as an aberratio will remain unconvinced. They see th tunnel or the bridge as an instrument fc accelerating the pull of trade and commerc towards the South East. Those people Elvin near the site of the proposed launching poir equally deplore the inevitable effect on the environment. If the subject does com round again for official study, the committe appointed for the purpose should fin examine whether a link is necessary in an case.
by Janw.