§ Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has considered the estimate in Appendices VI, VII and VIII of the 1963 White Paper on the Channel Tunnel that the number of accompanied vehicles crossing a bridge comprising a road capacity of six lanes and two emergency lanes as well as a double track railway would be 10 per cent. greater than accompanied vehicles through a double track railway tunnel; and what account has been taken of this estimate;
(2) what estimate he has made of the comparison between the annual tonnage of goods crossing a Channel bridge or tunnel;
(3) what estimate he has made of the comparison between the number of un-accompanied
218W
§ Mr. MarshThe nationalised transport undertakings submit annual investment budgets covering a five-year period, on the basis of which ceilings are imposed on their capital expenditure for an appropriate period ahead.
Within these ceilings, projects are subject to individual authorisation above a specified level of cost. The detailed information is as follows:
passengers crossing a Channel bridge or tunnel.
§ Mr. MarshThe assumptions given in the 1963 White Paper (Cmnd. 2137) about the relative levels of traffic demand for a Channel Bridge and Tunnel were incorporated in the calculation, described in Chapter 5 of the White Paper, of the comparative economic benefit of the tunnel, the bridge and the established means of crossing. Over the whole range of assumed levels of traffic, the tunnel gave more than twice the economic return of the bridge. The White Paper assumed that there would be no appreciable difference in demand for the bridge and the tunnel in respect of train passengers and goods; I see no reason to doubt the validity of these assumptions.