Click to get your own widget

Monday, September 05, 2011

Holyrood must see the light on tunnels - Scotsman article

  I was on holiday last week when, on Thursday, the Scotsman published my article on the Scottish Tunnel Project. It is essentially an abbreviated version of the article on Brian Monteith's ThinkScotland and here. I am very proud of this (and of my description as a "policy advisor to ThinkScotland").  Without Brian's pushing this would not have got into the MSM.

Comments on ThinkScotland have been uniformly supportive. Less so on The Scotsman where they were limited to 1 "environmentalist" assuring that building any roads was a no-no because we will have run out of oil before it is available - something which was clearly untrue even before the technological improvements that made shale oil competitive. A couple of other comments from Greens of the same nature showed a certain lack in reading comprehension. That they were limited to that proves they could come up with no serious objection.

The good thing is that there has been no dispute whatsoever that the programme is technically possible.

Alex Neil, the relevant minister, and Alex Salmond have contacted me promising an assessment from their officials. Though I am somewhat cynical of officialdom's Not Invented Here Syndrome I will write of it when it comes. 

Neil Craig: Holyrood must see the light on tunnels

By Neil Craig  

A major, mainly self-funding, programme to create new transport links could utterly transform huge tracts of Scotland

OVER the past two decades the Norwegians have revolutionised their transport infrastructure by cutting 900 tunnels with a total length of 750km. They have done these at the remarkable cost of under £4 million per km, which means the entire process has cost about the same as the new Forth crossing is promised at.
How is this possible, and why does it matter to Scotland? It is possible because tunnelling technology has improved and is still improving year on year.
Despite finance secretary John Swinney's assurance to Holyrood that a 2km Forth tunnel would cost £6.6 billion (half the cost of the proposed rebuilding of the Panama Canal and about 200 times what an equivalent Norwegian tunnel would be likely to cost), it is possible to build at these prices if we simply do it without spending years on paperwork and lawyers.
We have already done it with the Glendoe Hydro Scheme (£140m), which suggests that the 14km of tunnels must have been cut at about Norwegian prices.
What is needed is simply to hire a tunnel drilling company, possibly a Norwegian one on a fixed-price contract, with the act endorsing it giving the company total freedom to build, with a waiver of any further government or regulatory interference within, say, 500m of the tunnel heads. No involvement needed from Transport Scotland or other Holyrood bodies.
Would it improve Scotland's infrastructure as much as Norway's has been? No. We would gain far more.

However good Norway's roads, the distance from the capital, Oslo, to Tromsø will always be 700 miles, whereas the driving distance from Gourock to Dunoon can be reduced from more than 100 miles to less than two (they do have a ferry but, in another example of Scottish progress, on 30 June it was reduced to passengers only).
The history of human progress is closely related to the history of the reduction in travel times. One thousand years ago the most powerful parts of Scotland were the islands, and roads were little more than cattle tracks. The early Scots kingdom was built around the West Highland's islands and shores.
Thorfin the Mighty, Earl of Orkney, warred on more than equal terms with the King of Scots. Sutherland gained its name because it was to the south of the centre of power.
These small communities could be wealthy because the important lines of transport lay on sea lanes. The sea was a highway not a barrier.
The Highland Clearances happened because the Central Belt had better communications. Time and again development plans for the Highlands and Islands failed because of the expense introduced by poor or non-existent communications. The improvement in tunnelling technology means we can reverse that trend.
Map of Scotland showing possible tunnels
Islay (population 2,000) was once the seat of the Lord of the Isles, far more important than the slightly smaller Isle of Man (population 80,000).
Iona is perhaps the ultimate example of the importance of the change of transport patterns - the burial place of Scottish kings, as central as Westminster Abbey is to English history, it was chosen because it was in the midst of the sea highway of the Scots kingdom. Now it would hardly be more remote from most of us if it were in Australia. It could become a 120-mile, two-hour road trip from Glasgow.
Cutting these tunnels and building these roads would nearly double the accessible shoreline of Scotland. The economic effects are, by their nature, not really classifiable and would grow over the years in line with growing populations. People routinely live in Glasgow and work in Edinburgh, or vice-versa, a distance of 44 miles. Glasgow to Tarbert, Mull of Kintyre, could be the same and Islay only another 25 miles.
The thing to remember is that, despite Scottish Government projects routinely costing eight to 200 times their estimates, there is no question that this can be done at the costs given. If something has been done at a defined cost before then, by definition, it is possible to do it for that cost, when the political will is there.
Assuming that Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Orkney (which has an oil fund) would pay for 90 per cent of their connections to Scotland, which would be tunnels going from the south-west of our coast, that leaves us with about 120km, most of them dualled and about the same again in new connecting roads. At £4m per km of tunnel and assuming half that for traditional roads would require a budget of £1bn or less.
Working from formulae used by the Scottish Government to calculate the economic impact of roads being opened or closed, I estimate providing up to ten new routes would be likely to increase Gross National Product by £40bn.

While that estimate looks too good to be true, it is clearly as reliable as other estimates the government bases decisions on - but even if it were out fortyfold, it would still make economic sense.
There are, however, zero-cost options Holyrood could consider:
• The tunnels could be made toll roads, as the Norwegians have done. I think tolls are an inefficient system, though they have the advantage of being transparent. Possibly the civil disobedience of the people of Skye, in objecting to tolls on a bridge, may have scunnered any future use of tolls.
• Land capture tax could be applied, by charging, say, £10,000 on any new-build house beyond a tunnel that has risen in value after the tunnel is completed, and reserve it to the builders. The difference in value between agricultural land and building land is many times that £10,000 per plot.
• A temporary land tax on sales of land made accessible by these tunnels could be introduced. These would be considerably more valuable when they can be reached. A bond issue could then be made with this revenue allocated to paying it off.
• Companies cutting the tunnels and roads could be allowed, as payment, to purchase land beyond the tunnel either from government or compulsorily at fair value; with automatic full planning permission; a waiver on all possible government regulations; and the option on a permanent rates waiver so long as the owner provides all council services. I suggest 1sq km for each kilometre of tunnel cut. This costs us absolutely nothing and could kickstart the building of new communities.
The environmental effect would be minuscule. Possibly 300km built adding to 78,772km across Scotland. It would also produce areas that are effectively Enterprise Zones. Seeing tycoon Donald Trump has, so far, spent five years on his project with little to show for it, I suspect these ideas would get both transport infrastructure and new communities built quickly.

None of these ideas is set in stone, for ground conditions or traffic layout might mean a few should be moved along the coast a few miles.
The Iona link might well be better done by a causeway. I have taken the Arran crossing by the "back door" because it is the shortest way, but a link from Bute or even Ayrshire might, though costing more, provide a better cost-benefit ratio.
I have also made no suggestions for tunnels purely on land, because none of them would have nearly such a spectacular impact as island tunnels. Most Norwegian tunnels are, however, on land and the same potential exists in Scotland. The A90 is a less than straight route because the Grampians get in the way, but they need not be always be so impassable. Technology is progressing, particularly in the strength of materials, so longer, faster and cheaper tunnelling is coming. It is time we gave it full consideration.

• Neil Craig is a policy adviser to

Labels: , , ,

For Gods's sake, man, you'll have the buggers digging a tram tunnel from Haymarket to St Andrew's Square.
Hi Neil - I'm afraid you are fighting well entrenched duplicity that will spend fortunes of other people's money rather than admit their own limitations (to put it kindly ) Check out Transport Scotlands website and you will find a report from Faber Maunsel (Nov 2007 ) called a comparison of Bridges and Tunnels, where they were stupid enough on page 6 to state that a 7.5 km tunnel being dug in China would be "the worlds longest bored tunnel underwater". News of the channel tunnel ( 50.45 km ) has not reached them yet, though it was completed in 1994, and had the occasional headline making problems since ( fires ). The report says absolutely nothing about Norwegian tunnels, nor the Milau viaduct, (cable stayed like the proposed new bridge, but hugely higher and built for less than £500 million )Reading that report was like the game "top trumps" where trivial statistics are used as comparitors of equal status. There seem to be interests in or around the establishment who are determined to get their greedy cut, regardless of the cost and / or consequences to the country. If the democratic process was working properly this should be much more difficult than it appears to be. regards Sandy Henderson
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.