On 08/10/2012 11:29, d wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:52:05 +0100

And the tunnel was paid for by central government as per the rest of the road
system and should never have had tolls in the first place.

The tunnels were neither built nor paid for by central government.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:09:54 +0100
Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 08/10/2012 11:29, d wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:52:05 +0100

And the tunnel was paid for by central government as per the rest of the road
system and should never have had tolls in the first place.

The tunnels were neither built nor paid for by central government.

So who did pay for them in 1963? Private finance in the early 60s? Pretty
bloody unlikely.

B2003

In message , at 11:14:19 on Mon, 8 Oct
2012, d remarked:

So who did pay for them in 1963?

The two county councils.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:47:36 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:19 on Mon, 8 Oct
2012, d remarked:

So who did pay for them in 1963?

The two county councils.

Still government, not a private company.

B2003

In message , at 13:22:41 on Mon, 8 Oct
2012, d remarked:
So who did pay for them in 1963?

The two county councils.

Still government, not a private company.

Sure, local government. The bridge was built by a private company
though.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/10/2012 12:14, d wrote:
So who did pay for them in 1963? Private finance in the early 60s? Pretty
bloody unlikely.

They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you
probably don't remember the good old days when County Councils did
useful things like that).

But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid for
the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would become
free of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now dead,
unfortunately.


--
Clive Page

In message , at 12:29:37 on Tue, 9 Oct
2012, Clive Page remarked:
They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you
probably don't remember the good old days when County Councils did
useful things like that).

But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid
for the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would
become free of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now
dead, unfortunately.

In general I am also cynical, but in this case I don't think the County
Council project ever had a hope of breaking even, and had to be bailed
out. In which case, the original promise has little relevance.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:29:37 on Tue, 9 Oct
2012, Clive Page remarked:
They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you probably
don't remember the good old days when County Councils did useful things
like that).

But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid for
the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would become free
of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now dead,
unfortunately.

In general I am also cynical, but in this case I don't think the County
Council project ever had a hope of breaking even, and had to be bailed
out. In which case, the original promise has little relevance.

why would a county council scheme have significantly more chance of failing
than a commercial one?

tim

On 09/10/2012 17:27, tim..... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:29:37 on Tue, 9 Oct
2012, Clive Page remarked:
They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you probably
don't remember the good old days when County Councils did useful things
like that).

But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid for
the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would become free
of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now dead,
unfortunately.

In general I am also cynical, but in this case I don't think the County
Council project ever had a hope of breaking even, and had to be bailed out.
In which case, the original promise has little relevance.

why would a county council scheme have significantly more chance of failing
than a commercial one?

It's the M25 which has made the Dartford Tunnel into big business.

Thirty and forty years ago it carried far less traffic.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 09/10/2012 17:27, tim..... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:29:37 on Tue, 9 Oct
2012, Clive Page remarked:
They were paid for jointly by Essex and Kent County Councils (you
probably
don't remember the good old days when County Councils did useful things
like that).

But it was explicitly promised at the time that when they tolls paid
for
the cost of construction (and interest etc.) the tunnels would become
free
of charge. I expect all those making the promises are now dead,
unfortunately.

In general I am also cynical, but in this case I don't think the County
Council project ever had a hope of breaking even, and had to be bailed
out.
In which case, the original promise has little relevance.

why would a county council scheme have significantly more chance of
failing
than a commercial one?

It's the M25 which has made the Dartford Tunnel into big business.

Thirty and forty years ago it carried far less traffic.

but why would a commercial organisation take it on if they didn't think that
the traffic would grow so as to cover their costs?

And if they thought so, why wouldn't the councils