ouE 12.90 Ofncial^oumal of the European Communities ^oCo532Bl4l 
^.2. ^oursubareasmav be singled out^ 
— soil fertilization and conservation, 
— animal feed, 
— energv production, 
— chemicals and industrial products. 
The first two haveadirect impact on farming and can 
help the farm economv, while the second two could 
also involve other sectors. 
foone at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
0.1. Theimpact of transporton thedailvlifeof 
Europeans isconsiderable.Forusersthemostimportant 
factors are safetv,^ualitv of service ^e.g.speedh the 
environment and the relative cost of transport modes. 
The ChannelTunnelismparticularasignificant step 
toward European landuse planning and hence ^uro 
pean integration. ^. Ar^o5.^o^^^^^ 
^.1. Improvementofcoldstoragetechniguesisalso 
verv important, given the steadv rise in per capita 
consumption and the growing roundthevear demand 
for seasonal farm products. 
^. Are^^,^^^^gr^ 
^.1. however, in view of the programme's low 
funding,astrong boost must be given to cooperation 
between research groups at EEC level, w^idedissemi^ 
nation of research findings should also be encouraged, 
not least among farms. 
T^eC^^^^ 
o^^eE^o^o^^^^^o^^Co^^^ee 
Alt^rro^A^oON^ 
0.2. The Committee sees this as the background to 
its Opinion on the ChannelTunnel and its transports 
policv amplications. 
1. h^roducnon 
1.1. CrossChannel freight and passenger traffic has 
expanded considerable over the last few vears and is 
expected to continue forging ahead, particularlv with 
the Single market of 1992 just around the corner. OwnDimnanveOp^onontheChaBBelTuB^elan^ 
t^90BCoB12B^ 
On 2^ Anarch 1990 the Economic and Social Committee, acnng under the fourth paragraph 
of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decidedto draw up anOpinion on the Channel 
Tunnel and its transport pohcvunplications. 
The Section forTransport and Communications,which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee'sworlo on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 September 1990, in the light of 
the report bv^lrPerrinPelletier. 
At its 2B9thplenarvsession ^meetingof 20September 1990^ the^conomicandSocial 
Committee adopted the following Opinion bvalargemajoritv,with^votes against and 
^abstentions. 
No C 332/142 Official Journal of the European Communities 31.12. 90 
1.2. By linking the road and rail networks of Great 
Britain with those of continental Europe and by offering 
an alternative to air and sea transport, the Channel 
Tunnel will gradually increase the capacity needed to 
meet demand between now and the beginning of the 
next century. 
1.3. Responsibility for designing, financing, con­
structing and operating the Tunnel lies with Eurotun­
nel, a private Anglo-French company. The tunnel is 
Europe's biggest infrastructure project financed wholly 
by private capital. The British and French governments 
have promised to do what is necessary to provide the 
complementary infrastructure needed to ensure a satis­
factory traffic flow. 
2. Progress of work on the Tunnel, traffic 
2.1. The Committee notes the events which led to 
the resurreciton of the plan for a fixed link between 
the United Kingdom and France. 
2.2. The Committee is aware that the driving force 
behind the relaunching of the Channel Tunnel project, 
and the technical decisions flowing therefrom, has been 
the political will of the two countries concerned; the 
Committee regrets that the Commission and the 
Council of Ministers have not openly played a more 
active role in the launching of the project. 
2.3. The Committee very much hopes that the pro­
gress of the work will enable the Tunnel to open in 
mid-1993, as originally planned, allowing for the tests 
and detailed arrangements needed for the grant of an 
operating licence (see appendix I). 
2.4. The Committee would draw the attention of 
governments, the concessionaire and promotor, Euro­
tunnel, and the contractors undertaking the construc­
tion work, to the problem of worker safety. After the 
recent accidents in the United Kingdom, the Committee 
hopes that appropriate measures have been taken to 
improve safety during the construction period. 
2.5. The Committee notes the cross-Channel passen­
ger and freight traffic forecasts and the share expected 
to be taken by the airlines, the ferries and the Channel 
Tunnel (see appendix II). 
2.6. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the 
distribution of traffic is expected to be reasonably bal­
anced so that the redeployment of labour as a result of 
the transfer of economic activities would not at the 
outset appear to pose any particularly difficult prob­
lems. 2.7. Particular attention should nevertheless be paid 
to the possible reduction in maritime traffic on the 
Straits of Dover-Nord-Pas-de-Calais routes, with both 
ferries and ports being affected. In the longer term, 
however, growth in traffic demand will probably 
redress the balance. This matter will be discussed in 
greater detail in the chapter on employment. 
2.8. The fact that the different transport modes will 
still compete with one another should also guarantee 
reasonable charges for use of the Tunnel. Eurotunnel, 
like the other modes of transport (road, air, sea and 
rail), must also respect Community competition rules 
and not operate dumping prices. 
3. Funding 
3.1. The Committee has been informed of the recent 
financial difficulties of the concessionaire, due essen­
tially it appears to cost overruns not envisaged by the 
public works contractors. 
3.2. Having said this, Eurotunnel's scheme for rais­
ing additional funds (increased bank borrowing and a 
further call on the public for equity capital) should now 
resolve this problem. 
3.3. The Committee is happy about the role played 
here by the European Investment Bank (EIB) which 
recently approved a 3 000 million FF credit line, in 
addition to the 10 000 million FF already granted 
(bringing the total to approximately 1 800 million 
ECU). 
3.4. A careful economic assessment needs to be made 
of the indirect advantages for the countries and regions 
concerned; the types of funding should take this into 
account (e.g. fixed level of Government, regional or 
Commission involvement in mixed funding schemes). 
4. Infrastructure and operation 
4.1. Infrastructure 
4.1.1. The Channel Tunnel has highlighted the vital 
need to integrate road and rail infrastructures on either 
side of the fixed link. 
4.1.2. This of course applies to any similar link 
across a major natural obstacle (narrow stretch of the 
sea, mountain range). 
4.1.3. A detailed description of the road and rail 
infrastructures on the two sides of the Channel is to be 
found in appendix III. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/143 
4.1.4. The Committee notes with satisfaction that 
the French and Belgian governements in particular have 
already taken the necessary steps to ensure proper road 
and rail access to the Tunnel, and to build new high­
speed rail tracks so that Europe's rail network can 
derive full benefit from the Channel Tunnel as soon as 
it opens. The Committee considers however that not 
enough has been done on the british side. 
4.1.5. The Committee also hopes that the German 
and Dutch governments' commitment to build high­
speed rail tracks will be followed as rapidly as possible 
by concrete action. 
4.1.6. The Committee is aware that the Channel 
Tunnel has been a major factor in the French govern­
ment's decision to go ahead with the TGV north net­
work. 
4.1.7. The Committee is conscious of the financial 
and environmental problems associated with the con­
struction of a dedicated high-speed line linking the 
Tunnel to central London but considers it highly regret­
table that no firm decision has yet been taken. 
4.1.8. The Committee considers that a dedicated 
high-speed line, to be opened as soon as possible, is 
absolutely vital if potential cross-Channel traffic is to 
be moved quickly from the British terminal to London, 
the regions north and west of London and Ireland. 
4.1.9. The Committee feels that this dedicated line, 
which should preferably offer high speeds comparable 
with the European network, must be provided before 
the end of the decade if capacity limitations between 
the Tunnel and London are not to restrict rail traffic 
growth and create intolerable conditions for South East-
London commuters. 
4.1.10. Having regard to the long lead time, the 
Committee urges the British government and British 
Rail to do everything in their power to ensure that 
the infrastructure in question is completed as soon as 
possible. Failure to do so will mean that international 
passengers, Kent commuters and people from the North 
of England, Wales and Scotland will be unable to 
benefit fully from the advantages of the Channel 
Tunnel. 
4.2. Operation 
4.2.1. The Committee has already expressed its 
views on the problems of harmonizing the operation of 
the railways of the Member States (1). 
4.2.2. The Committee notes the difficulties, high­
lighted by the opening of the Channel Tunnel, of inte­
grating continental and British railway networks 
smoothly. 
(l) Opinion of the ESC on the common rail policy adopted on 
4 July 1990; OJ No C 225, 10. 9. 1990, p. 27. 4.2.3. Differences in the dimensions of rolling stock 
and operating procedures (safety theories, driving prac­
tices, signalling, etc.) can only increase the operating 
costs of an integrated rail system in the Europe of 
tomorrow. 
4.2.4. The Committee therefore recommends that 
particular importance be attached to harmonization 
of the operation of the railways so that the level of 
integration is eventually comparable with that of air 
traffic. It recommends in particular the use of the 
UIC B + European standard gauge for the new railway 
lines in the United Kingdom and the adaptation of 
certain goods lines to the same standard. 
4.2.5. The Committee considers this point to be 
essential if Europe is to develop a high-speed rail net­
work as well as an effective combined transport system. 
5. Rules and regulatory bodies 
5.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the 
British and French governments have set up an Inter­
governmental Commission with the task of ensuring 
(a) that Eurotunnel abides by the terms of the con­
cession, and (b) that the users of this private transport 
system and infrastructure are afforded protection (see 
appendix I). 
5.2. Particular importance is attached to the role 
played by the independent safety authority. In this 
connection it would help if the various groups of users 
were properly informed of the safety measures planned. 
The Committee considers it important that a similar 
degree of safety should be assured in all respects for 
passengers travelling via the fixed link as is required 
for international transport modes generally, including 
air and sea. 
5.3. Nevertheless, the Committee urges that customs 
and immigration formalities for train passengers should 
be kept to the absolute minimum and that the same 
principles should apply to cross-Channel passengers by 
sea and air. In this context any measures which would 
increase journey time are considered to be inconsistent 
with a frontier-free Europe. 
5.4. In this respect, the measures proposed for Lon­
don's Waterloo station, which would be comparable 
with those of an international airport, would increase 
journey time and would seem to be inconsistant with 
a frontier-free Europe in which the movement of people 
and goods should be completed untrammelled in 
accordance with the principles of the Treaty. Conse­
quently the Committee hopes that, as with most other 
cross-frontier railway links, any passport or customs 
controls can take place on the train. However the 
Committee understands the concern for security and 
the need for thorough checks but hopes these can be 
No C 332/144 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
carried out efficiently and swiftly even at times of peak 
traffic levels. 
6. Employment and regions 
6.1. The Committee is pleased that the construction 
and future operation of the Channel Tunnel is having 
and will have a positive effect on employment. The 
Committee would like to see all necessary measures 
taken to ensure a continuing high level of employment 
once construction is complete. 
6.2. The Nord-Pas-de-Calais region and to some 
extent Kent have so far been the prime beneficiaries 
but the considerable number of subcontracts entrusted 
to Member State firms is also having a positive effect 
on employment in the Community. The Committee 
notes here that Eurotunnel and its consortium of con­
tracting firms have complied with Community rules 
and regulations. 
6.3. The Committee welcomes the development 
initiatives at the French terminal and in Kent. These 
developments, together with the operation of the fixed 
link itself, should offset any local job losses due to the 
reduction of cross-Channel ferry services mentioned 
earlier. 
6.4. The Committee would re-emphasize the vital 
importance for employment in the North of England, 
Wales and Scotland of adequate road and rail access to 
these regions from the Channel Tunnel. 
7. Combined transport 
7.1. The Commission of the European Communities 
has already drawn attention to the environmental ben­
efits of combined road/rail transport since some of the 
heavy-duty lorry traffic will be switched from the trunk 
and motorway networks to the railways. 
7.2. The Committee realizes that the Channel Tun­
nel should open up new possibilities by allowing a 
greater volume of freight traffic to be moved in and 
out of the United Kingdom by combined transport. 
Done at Brussels, 20 September 1990. 7.3. The Committee therefore recommends that the 
railways, road hauliers and combined transport oper­
ators take all necessary measures at European level 
to ensure that the combined-transport capacity of the 
Tunnel is fully exploited. 
7.4. The Committee would reiterate its recommen­
dations concerning the harmonization of wagon sizes, 
operational procedures and use of the UIC B+ Euro­
pean standard gauge in Britain. 
8. Conclusions 
8.1. The Committee considers that the Channel Tun­
nel is a project of undoubted Community interest. Its 
completion will coincide with completion of the Intern­
al Market and it will make a necessary contribution to 
the achievement of a common transport policy. The 
Tunnel is a good thing for Europe. 
8.2. The Committee recommends that the various 
Commission directorates concerned do all in their pow­
er to help see this vital European project through to a 
successful conclusion. Regulatory, technical and finan­
cial help is all needed. 
8.3. The Committee is of the opinion that it is absol­
utely essential that the efficiency and reliability of oper­
ations on both sides of the Tunnel, and through the 
Tunnel, be established during the early months after 
opening to enable successful commercial growth to be 
sustained. 
8.4. Finally, whilst noting with satisfaction the pro­
gress of the Eurotunnel project on the technical side, 
the Committee notes that much still remains to be done 
before the project is complete. It also regrets that the 
associated British infrastructure will not be fully in 
place by the time the Tunnel opens. 
8.5. The Committee recommends that all the autho­
rities concerned, in particular Eurotunnel but also the 
European Commission and the Council of Transport 
Ministers, act quickly so that all European countries 
can take full advantage of this most impressive project 
in the interests of the well-being of millions of Euro­
peans. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/145 
APPENDIX 1 
CONTROL OF THE FIXED LINK BY BOTH GOVERNMENTS 
1. Under the terms of the Treaty, an intergovernmental commission has been established to supervise, in 
the name and on behalf of the two governments, all matters concerning the construction and operation of 
the fixed link. 
2. The functions of the intergovernmental commission include: 
a) monitoring the construction and operation of the fixed link; 
b) undertaking necessary consultations with the concessionaires; 
c) taking decisions in the name of the two governments for the implementation of the concession; 
d) approving proposals made by the safety authority; 
e) drawing up, or participating in the preparation of, regulations applicable to the fixed link; 
f) considering any matter referred to it by the governments or the safety authority; 
g) giving advice and making recommendations to the two governments or the concessionaires. 
3. The intergovernmental commission is advised and assisted by a safety authority which is also set up 
under the terms of the Treaty. 
4. The safety authority's tasks are: 
a) to give advice or make proposals to the intergovernmental commission, at the request of the intergover­
nmental commission or on its own initiative; 
b) to participate in the drawing-up of any regulations applicable to the safety of the fixed link and present 
them to the intergovernmental commission; 
c) to discharge, within the scope of its own powers, any function delegated to it by the intergovernmental 
commission. 
5. The safety authority is also responsible for ensuring that the safety measures and practices applicable 
to the fixed link comply with the national or international laws in force, for enforcing such laws, monitoring 
their implementation, and reporting thereon to the intergovernmental commission. 
6. The activities of Eurotunnel are bound by the terms of the concession Agreement which was signed 
between the two governments and Eurotunnel. This document sets but the rules for the financing, develop­
ment, construction and operation of the fixed link and the intergovernmental commissions responsible for 
monitoring compliance. 
7. The general characteristics of the project, particularly those that are concerned with safety, security, 
defence and the environment are submitted to the intergovernmental commission for approval. 
8. Eurotunnel has also to submit to the intergovernmental commission for approval its proposed safety 
arrangements, operating rules and emergency procedures before applying for an operating certificate to 
commence passenger operations. 
APPENDIX 11 
TRAFFIC TRENDS AND IMPACT OF THE TUNNEL ON THE OTHER TRANSPORT MODES (*) 
I. Traffic trends 
It is estimated that there will be more than 80 million cross-Channel passengers (all modes of transport) in 
1993, just under 120 million in 2003 and 160 million in 2013. 
(*) Source: based on Eurotunnel's digest of studies carried out 
by different independent consultants. 
No C 332/146 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Eurotunnel should account for about 1/3 of this market, a share which is bound to rise as a result of the 
traffic induced by the existence of the new fixed link. 
Passenger traffic using the new Tunnel when it opens will be divided evenly between Eurotunnel's own 
transport system and the rail networks. The proportion of traffic taken by the railways will subsequently 
rise to 55%. 
Approximately 90 million tons of freight (excluding bulk oil products) should cross the Channel in 1993 and 
slightly less than 140 millions and 200 millions in 2003 and 2013 respectively. Non-bulk freight is expanding 
faster than bulk freight. 
Eurotunnel is expected to capture about 18% of cross-Channel freight traffic, 55% of which will be carried 
by shuttle trains and 45% by the rail networks. 
II. Impact of the tunnel 
The impact of the Channel Tunnel on the other transport modes varies a great deal. 
1. Maritime traffic (ferries) 
1.1. Passenger traffic is heavily concentrated on the Straits of Dover — Pas-de-Calais routes (Dover/ 
Folkestone-Boulogne/Calais/Dunkirk). 
The Tunnel could take about 2/3 of car and coach passenger traffic (Eurotunnel shuttles) and 90% of 
passengers travelling without cars (essentially those travelling on through trains). 
The longer crossings (Western and Northern sectors of the Channel) will be less affected. 
Freight traffic on the other hand is concentrated more on the Northern sector of the Channel (Belgian, Dutch 
and German ports), which means that the Tunnel should take no more than 1/4 of RoRo lorry traffic. 
In short, cross-Channel ferries in 1993 could lose about 2/3 of their passenger traffic (compared with 1987) 
whereas freight traffic will be much heavier in 1993 than in 1987, despite the arrival of Eurotunnel on the 
market. 
2. Air traffic 
2.1. Future high-speed trains will eat into the air traffic market, especially, where distances are short 
(London-Paris, London-Brussels). 
Approximately 10% of cross-Channel air traffic will switch to the railways when the Tunnel opens. This 
share will eventually increase with the expansion of a European high-speed rail network and the construction 
of a dedicated line from Folkestone to London. 
Given the diversity of the activities of European air companies (long-haul flights; tourist flights to the 
Mediterranean) and the estimated increase in air transport, the impact of the Channel Tunnel on air transport 
will probably be slight. 
The Channel Tunnel might even be beneficial insofar as the transfer of short-haul passengers from air to 
rail transport should ease the pressure on air space and congested airports. 
3. In conclusion, the Channel Tunnel will give a new dimension to road and rail traffic (both passenger 
and freight), will not significantly affect air transport, but will significantly diminish the activities of ports 
and ferries on the Straits of Dover-Pas-de-Calais crossings, especially in respect of passenger traffic. Maritime 
traffic will remain at a high level for the longer crossings and for freight traffic. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/147 
APPENDIX III 
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM 
1. Road and rail connections - Continent 
The Channel Tunnel's link-up with the high-speed network in Europe covers new and extended routes which 
the countries of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany have agreed to carry out jointly in the 
Paris-Brussels-Cologne-Frankfurt/Amsterdam project. 
In France, SNCF expect the high-speed rail connection for the TGV to be completed between Calais, Lille 
and Paris by the time the Tunnel opens. At any event, high speed trains will link London through the Channel 
tunnel with Paris and Brussels from the start. 
Two years later the connections from Lille to Brussels and the high speed rail route around Paris are due to 
be completed, connecting the London and Brussels links with the existing TGV links to Lyon, Geneva and 
Bordeaux and eventually linking up with the high-speed networks of Spain and Italy. 
This link will also have a station at Charles de Gaulle airport and the new Euro-Disneyland to be constructed 
east of Paris. By 1998 the high-speed links through Brussels to Amsterdam and/or Cologne-Frankfurt will be 
completed. High-speed trains will then travel to the Netherlands, Germany, Nice and the Italian border, and 
Bordeaux and the Spanish border. 
Rail freight in France will use the existing rail lines to Calais. The existing line from Hazebrouck to Calais 
will be electrified for this traffic. 
Roads connecting to Calais will include the already completed motorway A26 from Arras, Paris and Brussels 
together with a new coastal expressway (Rocade du Littoral) connecting Ostend, Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne 
and onwards further south to Le Havre and Paris. 
2. Road and rail connections - United Kingdom 
In the UK, the M20 from Folkestone to the M25 is scheduled to be complete by the time the Tunnel opens. 
The Department of Transport has included in this programme the two lane Maidstone by-pass section of 
the M20 to be widened to three or four lanes by the time the Tunnel opens. Since the public enquiry into 
this route was only completed in March 1990, there are some doubts that this will be achieved. 
Other trunk and country roads are also in the programme for improvement during the next decade but a 
firm programme and commitment to funding is still required. 
On the railways, the international passenger terminal at Waterloo station and other facilities are currently 
under construction and are likely to be complete by the time the Tunnel opens. Further works between 
Folkestone and London are in a railway works bill currently being discussed in Parliament. Within this bill, 
British Rail are also seeking powers to construct an international station at Ashford, to provide intercharge 
between international and local trains as well as for passengers wishing to join in Kent. However, no firm 
commitment to construct this station, vitally important for Kent, has yet been received from British Rail 
despite assurances to Kent and Parliament in 1986/87. 
British Rail's section 40 report (December 1990) sets out the international passenger train services proposed 
to destinations North of London, generally one train a day to each of Brussels and Paris, a service seen by 
many to mock even those regions fortunate enough to be included. However, the trains for these services are 
a modification of those to be used on the cross-Channel services to London; they have not yet been ordered 
and there is no assurance that these services will be operational by the time that the Tunnel opens. 
In the same report, British Rail sets out its plans for international rail freight services. Some will run from 
regional depots to continental destinations, whereas some will be assembled into train loads at centres such 
as Crewe and Willesden. With the Tunnel due to open in little more than 3 years, the lack of detail in these 
plans is a matter of concern given the need for planning and investment decisions for wagons, terminals, etc. 
by British Rail, local authorities and potentiel customers. 
No C 332/148 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
3. Present congestion 
The congestion on the roads in the UK is well documented. Road traffic has to pass through the South-East 
to reach the Channel Tunnel and congestion there is particularly bad. 
In Kent, the county surveyor has published a map setting out roads subject to severe congestion by the year 
2001, only 11 years away. This includes much of the M20 - M26 - M25, including part of the M20 at present 
being built. 
This congestion is expected to be caused primarily by a mismatch between the high level of economic activity 
and consequent demand for transportation and the available and planned infrastructure in the South East. 
The proportion of international traffic on the western part of the M20 is estimated to be of the order of 
10% of the total traffic. 
Congestion at airports and in the air, especially around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead, causes major 
delays and disruption to passengers throughout the year and there is currently little prospect of this improving 
in the near future. 
On the railways, Network South-East congestion is well documented. During the last four years, passenger 
traffic on the South-Eastern sector has risen by 25%, although it is now levelling out. 
The Confederation of British Industries (CBI) has estimated that transportation congestion is currently costing 
British industry about £15 billion per annum. This is double the total cost of the Channel Tunnel and 
probably 4 or 5 times the latest estimate of the total cost of the Channel Tunnel rail link. 
4. Channel Tunnel capacity 
The Channel Tunnel will have a capacity of 20 standard train paths per hour in each direction (400 train 
paths per day including an allowance for maintenance). This comprises both shuttle trains for road vehicles 
and BR/SNCF through passenger and freight trains. 
If the traffic forecasts are realized at the opening of the Tunnel, this will roughly equate to 40 % of this 
capacity, although the mix of different types of trains make this comparison difficult. 
The signalling system to be installed at the opening is capable of passing up to 24 trains per hour with a 
reduced operational margin. The signalling and other systems in the Tunnel are capable of upgrading to 
30 train paths per hour. 
Eurotunnel's present traffic forecasts indicate that this be necessary by 2013 although, if the demand warrants 
it, this date could be brought forward. 
5. The future 
Against a background of rapidly increasing cross-Channel traffic, and capacity and infrastructure soon to be 
in place both through the Channel Tunnel and on the continent, the problem of getting across the 'marsh' 
of congestion in South East England, as well as elsewhere in the UK, remains. 
Good reliable fast transportation links between the industrial heartland of Britain and the continent are 
essential if Britain is not to fall into the decline towards the lower standards of living that peripherality has 
inflicted on many of the Mediterranean parts of the Community. 
The concession agreement between the British and French governments and Eurotunnel, signed in March 1986, 
committed both governments to '... use reasonable endeavours to carry out infrastructure necessary for a 
satisfactory flow of traffic, subject to statutory procedures.' (clause 2.1). 
On the continent, it appears that the French government is honouring this commitment by the construction 
of the road and rail links described above. 
The responses by the British government are set out above. International trains would go from the Tunnel 
portal at Folkestone to London on the existing Network Southeast tracks. The Railways have undertaken to 
Eurotunnel to have available track and infrastructure to carry 17,4 million passengers and 8,1 million tons 
of freight in the first year of operation of the Tunnel. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/149 
Not surprisingly, during the select committee hearings on the Channel Tunnel bill, Kent County Council 
sought assurance from British Rail that the local commuter services would not be adversely affected by the 
introduction of the international trains. They received the following assurance from British Rail: 
'The Board ... confirm that existing (rail) services will not be curtailed in consequence of the need to find 
capacity for through international services.' (letter British Railways Board to Kent County Council, 23 July 
1986 - Common select committee report on Channel Tunnel bill). 
Since that time, Network Southeast's commuter traffic has increased by 25% and the transport users' 
consultative committee has recently criticized both the overcrowding and reliability of the services and called 
for high levels of investment to help alleviate the problem. 
The addition of international rail services onto the same system can only cause a further reduction in service 
for the commuters as well as a very inferior and unreliable one for international passenger and freight 
customers. 
6. What needs to be done 
Road, rail and air transportation systems must be developed together to get the maximum efficiency out of 
each as complementing or as alternatives to the others. Whereas road developments need to be implemented 
and funded in accordance with a firm committed programme, the Department of Transport along with many 
other has accepted that the demands of road traffic are such that they cannot always be met even for new 
road schemes. 
Congestion in the air will not be significantly reduced until improved air traffic control systems are installed 
and integrated throughout Europe. 
However the increasing demand for air travel, especially in the South-East, is such that it is unlikely that it 
will ever be fully met, due to the restrictions on runway, terminal and air traffic control systems. 
It follows that the means of transport available to meet a significant proportion of these demands, albeit 
with additional investment, are the railways. The railways are ideally suited for journeys of up to 300-
400 miles as well as for the carriage of long distance freight. They are the alternative to new motorways and 
new runways; they can work together with both road and air systems. 
A long term (20 year) transportation strategy for all three modes of transport should be prepared and worked 
to. Reference should be made to the recently announced 20 year strategy prepared by the French railways. 
Given the very long timescale generally required for new infrastructure, especially roads, it seems that the 
current system of planning, if any, is inadequate. In order to better serve the market's demand for transport 
some longer term thinking is required. 
This demand comes from business and industry throughout the UK; they are concerned to derive benefits 
from the Tunnel and the sea connections and to hold their own in a greater Europe that will be rationalizing 
throughout the ninetines around a centre of gravity well to the South East of Britain. 
Consideration must be given to all modes of transport. For example, can a rail solution provide a solution 
more quickly than a road ? Are the environmental effects of each properly compared and costed ? 
7. Immediate needs 
Some projects are now at a stage when the need for them and progress on their developments is such that 
they should now be given the firm go ahead to a fixed timetable. Such projects include: 
a) The high speed rail link between Folkestone and London. This must be constructed as a matter of 
urgency. There should be no further delays in the deposition of the bill to secure the necessary 
parliamentary powers. Even if the bill is deposited in the Autumn of 1990, the earliest operating date 
may be 1998 - already 5 years after the Tunnel opens. Any more slips and the project will not be complete 
until into the next century. 
No C 332/150 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
b) The second London International Rail Terminal must be constructed without delay and must fulfil the 
following criteria: 
— it must have good direct interchange to existing intercity services to the regions, preferably by direct 
cross platform interchange, 
— it must be capable of handling international through trains to the Regions North and West of London. 
These criteria are best met by Kings Cross, and there are 10 intercity trains every hour leaving Kings Cross, 
St. Pancras and Euston for the North. 
The Kings Cross bill is already working its passage through Parliament. 
c) Regional freight depots, strategically sited at good road/rail interchange points, are the best means of 
satisfying the needs of the Regions for effective rail freight services. 
Decisions about the location, provision of rail links and rolling stock are matters of urgency, particularly if 
private capital is to be involved in this development. 
Rail freight from the regions is planned to be carried on existing routes, where BR estimate that there will 
be adequate capacity, once the Channel Tunnel rail link comes into operation. Although this may be true at 
low levels of traffic, if the railways are as successful in attracting rail freight as many believe is necessary, 
BR should demonstrate a long term plan to carry much greater volumes of traffic through the congested 
network South-East without unreasonable delay. 
d) Improvement of infrastructure towards the North of the UK and Ireland. 
The above measures will significantly improve the effectiveness of cross channel rail services through the 
South East of the UK as well as encourage new rail freight services. However, it is vital that improvements 
to capacity and speed continue outside the South East. (For example, the capacity and speed of the West 
Coast main lines is likely to be inadequate.) Better access to Eire is also desirable with connections between 
Crewe and Holyhead. 
In the long term, the separation of high speed passenger trains, be they international or national, from freight 
trains will probably be necessary by the designation of certain routes for speed passenger and freight services 
and could also provide alternatives in the event of the main route being closed for any reason. Such designation 
of routes could also include the up-grading on certain lines to a continental loading gauge (UIC B +) to 
increase the flexibility of the UK part of the European rail system.