On 10/10/2012 08:33, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
tim..... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote:
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?

The Trafalgar House deal was done after or very near to completion of the
M25. The M25 was feeding traffic into two two-lane tunnels and into much less
capacious dual two-lane access roads, so the deal was struck so as to provide
for doubling the capacity of the crossing by building the bridge for
southbound traffic and using both tunnels for northbound traffic.

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

Essex and Kent were not given a choice.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that residents of Essex and Kent (the whole
of the two counties, not just of the small towns nearest the tunnel portals)
should have been given permanent discounts on the tolls. After all, they had
made the original investment, stretching back over several decades.