Boris Bridge across channel
Discussion
MXRod said:
triggerhappy21 said:
MXRod said:
Just been on news
The first storm or high winds , a super carrier or tanker out of control ,
And of course who pays , EEU wont after we leave . Non starter , bit of grandstanding by Boris again
I'm guessing you're not a civil engineer... People have been building 20mile+ bridges over busy, stormy shipping lanes for a long time. Don't remember many getting blown over or rammed over by ships!The first storm or high winds , a super carrier or tanker out of control ,
And of course who pays , EEU wont after we leave . Non starter , bit of grandstanding by Boris again
I like the thought of Britain starting large infrastructure projects like this, they can benefit societies for many, many years to come. Any financial outlay would be recouped over X years, and beyond that would provide a great benefit. Imagine the value to be gained from an unbroken road network between Britain & mainland Europe!
Unfortunately public opinion seems to lean towards that of the OP, who fails to see anything beyond the initial cost.
Sad really.
Nowhere did I say the project would be impossible , perhaps clumsily, impracticable.
The channel is one of the busiest seaways in the world ,so I believe my fears are justified regarding collisions , the cost , well when we can’t even fully support the needs of the population , who is going to bankroll it ,
People are unable to drive a few miles on land based motorways without falling into each other . how do you police driving . to stop tailgating endless lane changing etc ,assuming it would be more than a single lane dual carriageway
And I presume somewhere in the middle will be a crossover , like a railway , to change from driving on one side of the road to the other .
It won't get built, Borris doesn't really want it built, but as a way of presenting to Europe that Brexit isn't about breaking all ties with Europe its a decent bit of political posturing.
What says more to Macron and the Brexit negotiators that the UK government wants to stay in touch with Europe than plans to build a bridge?
What says more to Macron and the Brexit negotiators that the UK government wants to stay in touch with Europe than plans to build a bridge?
The Surveyor said:
It won't get built, Borris doesn't really want it built, but as a way of presenting to Europe that Brexit isn't about breaking all ties with Europe its a decent bit of political posturing.
What says more to Macron and the Brexit negotiators that the UK government wants to stay in touch with Europe than plans to build a bridge?
Seriously?What says more to Macron and the Brexit negotiators that the UK government wants to stay in touch with Europe than plans to build a bridge?
Never mind rolling back frictionless trade and the single market, we'll build a mahoosively expensive redundant dual carriageway?
It's almost like even BoJo's given up on the Thames island airport, and he simply fancies another vanity-project white elephant.
andymadmak said:
triggerhappy21 said:
MXRod said:
Just been on news
The first storm or high winds , a super carrier or tanker out of control ,
And of course who pays , EEU wont after we leave . Non starter , bit of grandstanding by Boris again
I'm guessing you're not a civil engineer... People have been building 20mile+ bridges over busy, stormy shipping lanes for a long time. Don't remember many getting blown over or rammed over by ships!The first storm or high winds , a super carrier or tanker out of control ,
And of course who pays , EEU wont after we leave . Non starter , bit of grandstanding by Boris again
I like the thought of Britain starting large infrastructure projects like this, they can benefit societies for many, many years to come. Any financial outlay would be recouped over X years, and beyond that would provide a great benefit. Imagine the value to be gained from an unbroken road network between Britain & mainland Europe!
Unfortunately public opinion seems to lean towards that of the OP, who fails to see anything beyond the initial cost.
Sad really.
It's well within engineering capabilities to make this happen. It was discussed on R4 this morning, with the introduction piece making it smugly clear that Boris was taking a shoeing on Social Media for proposing such a stupid thing - then the two senior engineer bridge experts that they interviewed said that not only was it entirely possible, that it had been done elsewhere, that there are feasible solutions to the sea lane traffic issues (two islands interconnecting tunnel) , and that also it was a highly desirable project.
Will it happen? Probably not in my lifetime. Never if the soshul meeeja experts are to be believed.
Sad
Can you really not think of anything more important we could possibly spend the money on?
mx5nut said:
Another Brexit troll post by MX5nut, is it a BoT ?
Is there anything in your life that makes you think outside a "generalised label" fits everything/everyone.The more infrastructure we have the better, trade with the Eu is good and will still be after we leave their political project. This may start the thinking for increasing the cross-channel capability, it always takes time to get going.
Too Drunk to Funk said:
The first mistake was the tunnel should have been a road link.
Don't agree.Having it as a rail link is by far and away the most sensible way to get maximum utilisation of that width of tunnel for three different types of traffic - "foot", car and freight - with minimum disruption. The two main bores are 7.6m diameter, a normal motorway lane is 3.65m wide. The current "smart motorway" wasn't possible when it was opened in 1994, so one lane plus shoulder? Or two lanes with no shoulder...?
Too Drunk to Funk said:
What exactly would be the point as we already have the tunnel, plenty of ferries and cheap flights to France etc? The first mistake was the tunnel should have been a road link.
Can you really not think of anything more important we could possibly spend the money on?
As was discussed this morning on the radio, quite a lot of people don't/won't go in the tunnel. The question of whether the bridge should have been built before the tunnel is moot, but I think you will find that quite a lot of engineers would agree with you. Can you really not think of anything more important we could possibly spend the money on?
As for your last question, at what point in may previous comment did I suggest that there were not more important things that we could spend money on?
Personally I'd rather see the money ploughed into Skylon. The UK could again be a world leader is passenger aircraft and high speed flight
The Dangerous Elk said:
mx5nut said:
Another Brexit troll post by MX5nut, is it a BoT ?
Is there anything in your life that makes you think outside a "generalised label" fits everything/everyone.The more infrastructure we have the better, trade with the Eu is good and will still be after we leave their political project. This may start the thinking for increasing the cross-channel capability, it always takes time to get going.
MXRod said:
And I presume somewhere in the middle will be a crossover , like a railway , to change from driving on one side of the road to the other.
I hope you are being sarcastic (and not petty).I personally think it is something that should have been built decades ago. Those who are saying it can't be done should google "Donghai Bridge China" and educate themselves.
Edited by r11co on Friday 19th January 09:19
Gameface said:
MXRod said:
Just been on news
The first storm or high winds , a super carrier or tanker out of control.
It won't happen but not because of the reason above.The first storm or high winds , a super carrier or tanker out of control.
Theres plenty of long bridges in typoon hot spots and tropical storm areas.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Is there anything in your life that makes you think outside a "generalised label" fits everything/everyone.
The more infrastructure we have the better, trade with the Eu is good and will still be after we leave their political project. This may start the thinking for increasing the cross-channel capability, it always takes time to get going.
So ... you want to increase cross-channel capability while enforcing border controls.The more infrastructure we have the better, trade with the Eu is good and will still be after we leave their political project. This may start the thinking for increasing the cross-channel capability, it always takes time to get going.
Interesting.
Where will all the traffic wait for your customs/security/cultural vetting?
k
mx5nut said:
Is there anything a Brexiteer could say that would be criticised by the faithful here, or do you feel the need to fight their corner no matter what?
The thread is about a bridge Troll boy, go to the Brexit thread or post about the possibility of a new crossing. People are getting quite sick of your idiocyklootzak said:
So ... you want to increase cross-channel capability while enforcing border controls.
Since when are those two things mutually exclusive?klootzak said:
Interesting.
Where will all the traffic wait for your customs/security/cultural vetting?
k
Cultural vetting? Really? Be careful you don't let that Remainer bitterness give you an ulcer. Where will all the traffic wait for your customs/security/cultural vetting?
k
klootzak said:
So ... you want to increase cross-channel capability while enforcing border controls.
There is already vast overcapacity. The issue is that despite the initial expense there will be significant long terms savings, not to mention avoid the complete shut down of crossings due to adverse weather or other extreme events.Ask yourself why we didn't just stick with steam railways.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff