§ 9. Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Transport what recent studies have been carried out into the feasibility of a Channel Bridge.
§ Mr. MarshThe British and French Governments decided in 1966 that if a fixed cross-Channel link were to be provided it should take the form of a rail tunnel. There has been no subsequent joint study of a Channel Bridge and there is no reason to suppose that one would be worth while.
§ Mr. SheldonIs my right hon. Friend aware that what causes a considerable amount of concern is the quality of the decision in the light of technological progress? Since the original studies in the early 1960s things have changed very rapidly. If we are to spend hundreds of millions of pounds, it is up to the Ministry to make it clear that its proposal is based on the latest possible technological grounds.
§ Mr. MarshThe disadvantages of a bridge compared with a tunnel, are, first, the length of time it would take to get international agreement, and, second, and even more important, the cost differential, which is so high that it is almost inconceivable that there could be benefits today. The 1963 Report costed the idea of a bridge in terms of the expected economic return discounted over 50 years at 7 per cent. The tunnel achieved more than twice the rate of return on the bridge. This means that there would have to be incredibly big differences to justify going back on this.
Mr. Gresham CookeApart from the cost of the bridge being almost double that of the tunnel, is not it true that fog and high winds would affect traffic on the bridge, making it unusable for many days in the year when the tunnel would be usable?
§ Mr. MarshMy hon. Friend referred to technical developments, and this is the sort of field in which the protagonists of a bridge say that there are major changes. I still think that the hazards and difficulty would be very real. The sheer cost is so enormously higher that I do not think that there would be any justification for reworking the figures.