Channel Bridge (Hansard, 3 February 1969)

§ 8 and 33. Mr. Sheldon
asked the Minister of Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of a Channel Bridge; and

§ Mr. Marsh
In 1963 British and French officials estimated that a steel Channel bridge would cost about £300 million—more than twice as much as a rail tunnel. No detailed study has been made of a pre-stressed concrete bridge, as the difference in cost between steel and pre-stressed concrete would not be significant in this context.

§ Mr. Sheldon
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the design of 1963 is quite out of date and the estimates of traffic on a bridge are now hopelessly inadequate since the study was carried out in 1963, or even earlier? Does he realise that what concerns many people is the level and quality of decision which is being taken? When several hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent, will he say whether the public feel more assured then than we are at present?

§ Mr. Marsh
My hon. Friend has expressed his anxieties on this point before, but we are faced with having carried out a very detailed study which showed that a bridge would be about twice as expensive as a tunnel. A difference of that magnitude is so large that the important thing is to get on with carrying out a detailed technical appraisal of a tunnel.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
Should we not make up our minds that a tunnel would be the cheapest and most practical way for vehicles to cross the Channel and that therefore the best task is now to encourage the French and British Governments to press ahead?

§ Mr. Marsh
We are pressing ahead at the moment and we are about to embark on the tunnel study, which will be brought to the House to be decided upon. There seems no evidence at all 23 on any of the figures that a bridge is a serious proposition.

§ Mrs. Renée Short
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the viable alternative to a tunnel is a tunnel-bridge combined? He has never carried out feasibility studies into this, but it would give far more flexible use both for rail and road traffic. His proposal is cheaper because it is an inadequate solution.

§ Mr. Marsh
The fact that it is cheaper, only half as dear, is a factor which I have to bear in mind, but if we were to begin putting piers in the middle of the English Channel we would reach a situation in which a number of Governments would want to express their views and we would have the prospect of having to reach agreement with all the maritime nations.

§ Mr. J. H. Osborn
Have inquiries been made into traffic density in connection with a bridge instead of a tunnel? Will the Minister bear in mind that industries in the North see other methods of conveying passengers and goods to Europe and elsewhere?

§ Mr. Marsh
One of the things that makes a tunnel viable is the very considerable growth of cross-Channel traffic, but this is not the sole answer; there are many other methods of transport.