The Lemon Fool

Boris has suggested a bridge to connect Scotland to Ireland and at only £15B, what could possibly go wrong with that?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -engineers

Chris Wise, the engineering designer of the 2012 Olympic velodrome, said he supported the principle of connecting the two countries but raised a series of question marks over the practicality of the proposal. “It’s socially admirable but technically clueless,” he told the Guardian. “If Boris wants to stay prime minister he needs to stop promising figures before he can deliver them.”

RC

There was an article on this subject, looking at the possible options, which included multiple suspension spans and/or a pontoon section. A floating submerged tunnel is another possibility. The deep trench in the middle of the channel is an obvious difficulty.

How typical of the Grauniad to be dismal Jimmies on the subject. It's a challenge, but not insurmountable.

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:How typical of the Grauniad to be dismal Jimmies on the subject. It's a challenge, but not insurmountable.

TJH

Feasible isn't the same as sensible!

Isn't this a bridge to nowhere? The parts of Scotland passing close to NI are remote, mountainous, connected only by small roads. Nearest centre of population, economic activity and transport routes is probably the Glasgow conurbation, but how much more is a fast or high-capacity connection to there going to cost? And how many would use such a roundabout route in preference to existing ferry services?

Thought experiment: would you build a bridge Holyhead-Dublin? How would the cost of that compare to HS2? 'Cos at least that's a route that serves mainstream trade and travel, albeit not on a comparable scale to Channel or North Sea crossings.

tjh290633 wrote:There was an article on this subject, looking at the possible options, which included multiple suspension spans and/or a pontoon section. A floating submerged tunnel is another possibility. The deep trench in the middle of the channel is an obvious difficulty.

How typical of the Grauniad to be dismal Jimmies on the subject. It's a challenge, but not insurmountable.

Here's another, much shorter, bridge:

BBC News

A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.

XFool wrote:

tjh290633 wrote:There was an article on this subject, looking at the possible options, which included multiple suspension spans and/or a pontoon section. A floating submerged tunnel is another possibility. The deep trench in the middle of the channel is an obvious difficulty.

How typical of the Grauniad to be dismal Jimmies on the subject. It's a challenge, but not insurmountable.

Here's another, much shorter, bridge:

BBC News

A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.

Presumably Boris meant that £15bn was the sum he would spend on the plan before leaving office when it would be cancelled by his successor?

Surely this is all just backstop bollox? At a time when Boris is being challenged to decide whether or not his border posts are going to be in the middle of the Irish Sea, he's just spinning a line that might fudge the issue?

Mark my words, there'll be a tollbooth in the middle of this here bridge, where anyone who can recite the necessary fulsome oath of allegiance to de Pfeffel, ideally in Latin, can get in without further hindrance. No classical emperor would have settled for less.

"Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair." Nothing changes, does it?

BJ

This is Johnson tossing another dead cat onto the table, just like his claim to have a hobby of making model buses. While foreign secretary (it seemed an incredible appointment at the time) he suggested that a bridge should be built across the straits of Dover.

From what does he need to distract us?

The channel crossing bids in the mid 1980s included a bridge. It never had any serious commercial backing and the DfT review (under a certain Parkinson) showed the security and financial risks were insurmountable.

Furthermore, there has to be a major market for a crossing. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the potential revenues for this fanciful suggestion would financially or even economically justify the potential costs? The Boris Bridge can go into the same dustbin as Boris Island. Yet another proposal to deflect from the reality of the situation. About time that some Fools realise what Johnson is about - you surely have had enough evidence to demonstrate the trumped up nature of this person?

T7

terminal7 wrote:The channel crossing bids in the mid 1980s included a bridge. It never had any serious commercial backing and the DfT review (under a certain Parkinson) showed the security and financial risks were insurmountable.

Furthermore, there has to be a major market for a crossing. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the potential revenues for this fanciful suggestion would financially or even economically justify the potential costs? The Boris Bridge can go into the same dustbin as Boris Island. Yet another proposal to deflect from the reality of the situation. About time that some Fools realise what Johnson is about - you surely have had enough evidence to demonstrate the trumped up nature of this person?

T7

The suggested route is approximately Larne to Stranraer, which would replace the Larne to Cairnryan ferry. This is the principal freight route from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. There is also thee Belfast to Heysham ferry, which would probably lose traffic to a new bridge.

Don't dismiss Boris Island. It makes more sense than expanding Heathrow.

TJH

Don't dismiss Boris Island. It makes more sense than expanding Heathrow.

I do indeed dismiss the Johnson proposal for an airport in the estuary - as indeed do the majority of the detailed reviews of this scheme and similar previous schemes, As London mayor, Johnson spent considerable time and costs promoting his scheme and flying around the Far East trying to interest airport operators and potential investors - all to no avail. Maybe you could enlighten us on why we should not dismiss this unfundable scheme?

T7