This is part of a report to Birkenhead Borough Council in March 1964 by Brian Colquhoun and Partners, consulting engineers, entitled Alleviation of the River Mersey Cross River Traffic Problems.

It sets out four options for relieving the traffic congestion affecting the existing Mersey Tunnel between Birkenhead and Liverpool.

Briefly, the choices put forward were:

1. A new tunnel from Wallasey to Liverpool.
2. A tunnel linking the dock entrances of the existing tunnel between Birkenhead and Liverpool.
3. A new tunnel from Tranmere to Liverpool.
4. A new tunnel from New Ferry to Liverpool.

As we know, the eventual decision was for a new Wallasey tunnel, which was the most expensive option. But it’s interesting to think what might have been.

I’ve done my best with reproducing the pages and I hope they are legible. I can only fit so many pages to a posting, so I'll put the others on a second posting ..
.

Here are the remaining five pages ...

Thanks, yoller, most interesting. (I see you spotted the duplicate page in part 1)

I see that the decision on the Wallasey option was pretty rapid (1965).
I found this info on the site "Mersey Tunnel Users Association"

Wallasey Tunnel
At the same time as the work alleviating some of the road congestion around the Tunnel entrances, it was decided that a second crossing would be needed. Consultants were appointed and they recommended a 6 lane bridge. Because of the cost, and uncertainty as to which was the best route for a bridge, the authorities decided on a 2 lane tunnel. The new tunnel would run from just north of the old tunnel on the Liverpool side, and on the Wirral side would come out at Seacombe (Wallasey). The Wallasey approach would make use of a disused railway cutting to link up to what would be the M53.

The construction cost (excluding land) was estimated at less than £14 million, and an Act was passed in 1965 authorising the construction. Wallasey joined Birkenhead and Liverpool on the Mersey Tunnels Joint Cttee in September of 1965. The provisions in respect of Tolls were changed so that neither the old Birkenhead Tunnel nor the new Wallasey Tunnel would become free of Tolls till the debts on both tunnels were paid off.

It was later decided to add another 2 lane tube to the Tunnel. It would share the Approach roads etc of the first 2 lane tube. This was provided for in a 1968 Act. The estimated construction cost for this second tube was £7.5 million.

Compared with the construction nearly 40 years earlier of the Birkenhead Tunnel, that of the Wallasey tunnels was far more mechanised. Use was made of huge mechanical moles to excavate the tunnel tubes. They could excavate a 200 foot length in a week.

The final cost for both tubes was over £37 million including £3.5 million for land. Apart from any other factor there had been the usual "unexpected" difficulties that seem to occur with Tunnels and other large construction projects. Adjusting for many years of inflation can not be accurate, but the Wallasey tunnel appears to have cost about 20% more in real terms than the Birkenhead tunnel. This is probably because any savings in construction costs of Tunnels were more than offset by the substantial spending on approaches.

The Wallasey Tunnel was officially opened by the Queen on 24 June 1971. On Sunday 27th there was a charity walk through the tunnel, and it was really opened to traffic from midnight on 27th. About the same time, the Tunnel toll was raised from 10p to 15p.

Many thanks yoller. Interesting stuff indeed.

Sorry about the original duplicate page. I don't know if it's technically possible, but if someone at Wikiwirral could put all the pages on one file, it would be handy.

I think the number of files you can attach depends on whether you're User Plus. If you are, I think you can attach more, and larger, files.

The "Mole" was originally built to bore the spill-way tunnels for the Mangla (spelling)dam project in Pakistan,as I remember.
Nutall-Atkinson,main contactors for the tunnel boring, assembled the machine in the portal area just off St Pauls Road.This used to be a play area prior to this,in which I can remember enjoying the jerker and witches hat.I had a fair few photos of the Mole being assembled,but,they disappeared along with ex wives!
A significant bit of engineering for Wallasey,and it used a piece of redundant rail cutting,thus saving a lot of money.

We're still paying for it now it's a fuc ing joke

If the tunnels were free there would be extra traffic and just be one massive traffic jam. It will be interesting to see what difference the new bridge makes to tunnel traffic.

Do people really avoid going through the tunnel just because of the toll?

Put it like this, if the ferries were free don't you think they would be used a lot more than they are now?

I think the comparison with the ferries is unreasonable. Using the ferry could be viewed as a pleasant experience and I do think that if they were free, they would be used more. I don't think using the tunnel could be seen in the same way.
My own view, and I speak, of course, as a non-local, is that if they were free, that the slight increase in volume of traffic would be offset by the removal of the requirement to stop at the toll booths.
Any increase in traffic would presumably come from commuters switching from bus or rail, but then they would have to be able to park on the other side, which would be extremely difficult. I would imagine that some would try it for a while, but would revert to public transport.
Oh, I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but talking of the ferry: a single ferry fare from Woodside to Pier Head is £5.50. An all areas Saveaway, which includes the ferries and all buses and trains as far as Chester and Southport only costs £5.10.

I think there would be a substantial increase in traffic partly from local shoppers, freight and commuters and also the traffic in the more southern parts of the Wirral that travel to Liverpool (and further afield) via Runcorn as that route is more cost effective.

I'm sure some study will have done an estimate and I will keep an eye out.

I strongly disagree with the Tunnel Tolls but I also don't want to see traffic jams backing up to Tranmere Rovers as happened in the past and the associated side-street route dodging.

The Tunnels are very jammed in the mornings with commuter traffic now - I spent four years commuting to Liverpool in the last ten. The jams are the tunnel side of the toll booths.

It must be remembered,under river tunnels leak! Even with the best construction in the world,they still leak. It costs money to pump the water out,exhaust foul air and supply fresh.Emergency vehicles have to be provided and manned year around.General taxation? I don't think so.
As much as I hate tolls,I can see why an income for the project is needed.Don't forget they're now getting on a bit,and we'd be lost without them.

They'd all be like the old Royal Iris,things cost money to keep going,especially old things,especially boats!

Ferries cost us a pittance compared to buses and trains who are very heavily subsidised. The ferries get a relatively small historic subsidy from the tunnels.

The accounts in recent years have been written in such a way as to make reality almost undecipherable and internal money transfers within Merseytravel departments are not obvious.

I don't know anyone who goes via Runcorn to get to Liverpool. The M56 is always busy, more dangerous (there's a crash almost every day, including one yesterday)

http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-m56-m53-crash-causes-9694436

And the Runcorn expressways and the bridge are also heavy with traffic, especially as there are roadworks at the moment.

Factor in the time and fuel taken, its hardly cost effective at all.

You might want to check your figures on that. Start with staff - how many people on a ferry compared to a few buses?

Deck crew salary is £15k-£17k & shift or weekend allowance.

Then look at maintenance costs and spare parts. How much to maintain a radar system for example

When I did my stint with the Corpy and we had to go to Scotty Road area for parts various (which happened quite regularly), our manager used to tell us to fill the van with diesel and go over the Runcorn bridge because he couldn't be arsed arranging petty cash for the tunnel fare.Isn't it good to know your Council tax is being spent so judiciously?

Great times Lud - Off to Fenton's Flues and Fixings for a couple of screws!!
With your love of driving and me riding shotgun, knocking the ZZZZZs out!!!
You could write a book -seriously.

I do - I have been in correspondence with the Council and Merseytravel a number of times.

Using the 2012/2013 figures (the last year before they jumbled the figures up), rounded figures to millions.

Trains cost us £97 million (plus £18 million in fares etc)
Buses cost us £22 million (plus £10 million in fares etc)
Tunnels cost us nothing (except £37 million in tolls etc)
Ferries made money for us (except £12 million in fares etc)

Even if the Ferries make a small loss it is chicken-feed compared to what the buses and trains cost us.

Ferries:
Running cost £12 million
Income £12 million
Subsidy/Grant NIL (made a profit)
Council tax levy NIL (made a profit)

Tunnels:
Running cost £37 million
Income £37 million
Subsidy/Grant NIL (didn't make a loss)
Council tax levy NIL (didn't make a loss)

Buses:
Running cost £31 million
Income £10 million
Subsidy NIL
Council tax levy £22 million

Trains:
Running cost £115 million
Income £18 million
Subsidy £96 million
Council tax levy £1 million

The only hidden figure is the historic subsidy that the tunnels pay the ferry which I think is about £1 million.

Even if the Ferries make a small loss it is chicken-feed compared to what the buses and trains cost us. Yet its always the ferries under threat to save money????

Yes Parky , I'm still thinking about writing a book about my time with W.B.C. I've got to be wary of litigation obviously, but I could write about all the lovely people that work there, and the bottom feeders (N.M.) all the funny stories, and of course I know where all the bodies are buried. I hope I manage to write it before old age, decrepitude and excessive wine consumption take their toll. By the way , are you still wearing lead underpants?

You need to clarify - do your bus figures include all the buses in the region, or just the ones which do the same job as the ferries?

The ferry is now a novelty, nothing more than a tourist attraction, with maybe a little support from cyclists who don't want to use the trains.