that no
been shown towards the traffic forecasts. This is perhaps unfair; the promoters of the tunnel have based their estimates on reports produced by the authoritative and independent Road Research Laboratory of Britain. The pessimists believe matter how eminent the traffic consultants who made the forecasts, any prediction of long-run transport trends must be open to serious qualifications. The range of im- ponderables that cannot be quantitied in such estimates, these critics argue, is so wide that the forecasts must be regarded as no more than crude indicators of the future.
All that the Tunnel Company can reply in its own de- fence is that having spent $10 million on studying the project and having come to the conclusion as sound and successful businessmen that the venture will prove profitable, its case deserves respect. Furthermore, its critics have to face the fact that the Road Research Laboratory has considerable experience in the transport field, and there is no reason for Hongkong to be attacked by a sudden fit of doubt when the Laboratory is prepared to endorse as professionally acceptable traffic pro- jections for the Colony. Opposition to the tunnel project has yet to suggest some more acceptable yardstick than that used by the Road Research Laboratory in 1959-60 in its original survey. However, the estimates, last revised in 1966, could do with fresh scrutiny, particularly in the light of the new information thrown up by the Bi-census.
Another headache for the Tunnel Company is the actual construction costs and the length of time it will take to bring the tunnel into operation. The Company is budgeting for a total bill of $280 million with traffic using the tunnel within 2 years from the start of building operations. Any miscalculation here will put the venture under considerable pressure, because the ECGD is expected to demand that re- payment of any loan should begin 31⁄2 years after construc- tion work commences, with repayment completed within seven years. The Company itself is confident it can meet these deadlines.
On the cost side, an allowance has been made for $25 million to cover any unforeseen engineering contingencies. The promoters are optimistic that if more finance were re- quired, the money could be raised from a public share issue once work on the tunnel had actually begun. In any case, the Company believes in its own estimates about the project's future profitability. If the worst did come to the worst, Colonel J. D. Clague is on record as pointing out that the project could be made less elaborate. However, Mr P. O.
Ferries like these carry 12,000 vehicles across the harbour each day; the Tunnel Company believes that despite the pessimists, a tunnel would be used by 25,000 vehicles daily as soon as it is completed.
FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC
REVIEW· September 5, 1968
Scales, speaking for the Tunnel Company, claimed that the engineering contract would be drafted so that the contractors were tied to a maximum price. Any rise in costs would pre- sumably fall on the shoulders of Costains if it accepted the
contract.
A strong body of opinion is still unconvinced that the efficiency of Hongkong will be significantly increased by link- ing Hongkong to Kowloon and eliminating the present "dual economy". Now that the project has gone this far, what is more important from a transport point of view is the long delay in announcing definitely whether or not the project. will be undertaken. The official line is that the public works programme has not been held up by the delay because new road schemes have been designed so that they will contribute to the solution of the Colony's transport problem whether or not a cross-harbour tunnel is built. In practice, what this approach means is that the planners have designed their projects so that they can slot in neatly to any change in traffic patterns which would follow the opening of the tunnel.'
Sketchy Proposals
The official view is not entirely convincing however. The Canal Road flyover was held up for several months so that it could be redesigned in order to make it possible for the flyover to cope with any additional traffic in the area should the tunnel be built. And in theory, it is hard to sec. that new roadworks can be efficiently planned when they have to be made flexible enough to allow for either acceptance or rejection of the tunnel project. Certainly, present sketchy proposals for a mass rapid transport system for the future are based on the assumption that a tunnel will be constructed; plans will have to be drastically altered if the tunnel fails to materialise.
These arguments might suggest that the tunnel must go through at all costs. Furthermore, pressures are already mounting in favour of the tunnel on the grounds that the project represents such a gesture of confidence in Hongkong's future that it would be damaging not to go ahead at this stage. In reality, such comments are little better than red herrings. After the success with which the economy of Hong- kong passed through the political confrontation of last year, "confidence symbols" seem rather irrelevant (although this was not so true in the summer of 1967). In the end, there are two points which are open to debate. Firstly, will the tunnel prove to be as financially successful as its promoters claim? As long as they are risking only their own capital, this is strictly a matter for the Tunnel Company.
The second point is more complex: should public funds be used to purchase a substantial block of shares in the Com- pany? The important consideration here is not merely how large a return will the Colony get from its investment (though it would help if the Government could be guaranteed that it would not be called upon to make good any deficits on the project). The real issue is whether a cross-harbour tunnel merits the use of public funds for which so many other services of direct value to the community as a whole (housing, education, raedicine and social welfare) are com- peting already. It is not the responsibility of the Cross- Harbour Tunnel Company to offer a satisfactory answer to this question; it is the function of the Legislative Council in public debate to establish whether or not official funds should be diverted from other fields to the construction of the tunnel. It is this debate for which Hongkong is still waiting...