Boris Bridge across channel

[TooMany2cvs]

Graemsay said:

The tunnel was accessed by a pair of artificial islands, which contained a spiral ramp to get vehicles below sea level.



It didn't happen because of cost, as it was three times as expensive as the tunnel. But it does have a very science fiction look to it.

In the "boringly efficient" stakes, I think the Scandis have the edge...


(It'd also be a doddle to put the traffic cross-over on one of those)

But I suspect the channel might be a bit weatherier. Which begs the question - where do very big waves go...? There's probably a very boring answer, just lots of big grates in the road surface, going to bilge pumps.

[Ross1988]

Ali G said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Nice idea, but Boris failed to replace that horse and cart tunnel in east London called Blackwall, and tried to claim credit for delivering a new Thames crossing in the shape of a stupid cable car.

Tower Bridge, Rotherhithe Tunnel, Blackwall Tunnel, Woolwich ferry?

Blackwall is the premier choice for river crossers - 'too high...' too late.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvertown_Tunnel

This is one of Boris' I think.

Delayed by 6 months, but my company and a lot of others have already invested time in it, I think it's a good idea.

[swamp]

Out of interest, why build a bridge instead of another tunnel?

Is it cost, safety, or what?

[TooMany2cvs]

swamp said:

Out of interest, why build a bridge instead of another tunnel?

Is it cost, safety, or what?

Bling.

Dressed up with a bit of "But some people are scared of tunnels" <ignore the minor detail this will need to include tunnels>.

[mko9]

Witness the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, 22 miles long, opened in 1964. Most of the US Navy's major surface combatants (including 5 aircraft carriers) sit behind that bridge-tunnel. It's not that hard. I suppose the weather in the channel might be worse than the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, though. Although there is the matter of multiple hurricanes up the east coast of the US every year.

Whether it needs to be done is certainly a valid question. Whether it can be done is obviously, yes. Pretty easily given we have been doing it for over 50 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_Bridg...

Edited by mko9 on Monday 22 January 15:24

Edited by mko9 on Monday 22 January 15:28

[PositronicRay]

Everyone's overthinking this


http://www.vendee-guide.co.uk/passage-du-gois.htm

[SpeckledJim]

PositronicRay said:

Everyone's overthinking this


http://www.vendee-guide.co.uk/passage-du-gois.htm

That's a straight-forward idea.

You could have a small gap near to each coast, crossed by a relatively short bridge, to allow for coastal boats. Then a wider gap in the shipping lane 2-4 miles wide, say, and crossed by either a high bridge, or a tunnel.

Would the tidal flow through that gap be an insurmountable problem?

[The Dangerous Elk]

SpeckledJim said:

Would the tidal flow through that gap be an insurmountable problem?

Look at the tidal forces due to the Isle of White. Basically yes, they would be humongous

[SpeckledJim]

MartG said:

It would be a bit more complex than a normal, shorter bridge - emergency services would be needed at certain intervals along it for instance.

Why? We don't have emergency services posted at short intervals along the motorway? If someone breaks down or crashes, emergency services from either or both sides could be there in 10 minutes. Just like on the M6.

MartG said:

And don't forget that, due to its location, 90% of the time it would be closed to high sided vehicles due to wind

I suspect that's a gross exaggeration, but if it was a serious problem, couldn't the design of the bridge include shelter from the wind?

Edited by SpeckledJim on Monday 22 January 16:22

[SpeckledJim]

The Dangerous Elk said:

SpeckledJim said:

Would the tidal flow through that gap be an insurmountable problem?

Look at the tidal forces due to the Isle of White. Basically yes, they would be humongous

Maybe more gaps required then. Could it be 50% bridge/tunnel and 50% dams?

If the material used for the dams was dredged/extracted from the gaps, then the overall surface area of east-west waterway might not be drastically different.

[TooMany2cvs]

SpeckledJim said:

MartG said:

It would be a bit more complex than a normal, shorter bridge - emergency services would be needed at certain intervals along it for instance.

Why? We don't have emergency services posted at short intervals along the motorway? If someone breaks down or crashes, emergency services from either or both sides could be there in 10 minutes. Just like on the M6.

10 minutes...? I admire your optimism, given it's going to be tricky to put any emergency services access points along, so anything's going to have to fight through the entirety of the solid traffic backlog.

SpeckledJim said:

MartG said:

And don't forget that, due to its location, 90% of the time it would be closed to high sided vehicles due to wind

I suspect that's a gross exaggeration, but if it was a serious problem, couldn't the design of the bridge include shelter from the wind?

You'd need very high sides to it - and probably a lid to prevent odd circular gusting, as well as to provide strength to sides that tall.
Obviously, any openings in the sides would be distracting to drivers. as well as letting wind in, so they'd need to be solid. Sort of a box. At which point, you get rid of the "claustrophobia" argument against a tunnel...

[SpeckledJim]

TooMany2cvs said:

SpeckledJim said:

MartG said:

It would be a bit more complex than a normal, shorter bridge - emergency services would be needed at certain intervals along it for instance.

Why? We don't have emergency services posted at short intervals along the motorway? If someone breaks down or crashes, emergency services from either or both sides could be there in 10 minutes. Just like on the M6.

10 minutes...? I admire your optimism, given it's going to be tricky to put any emergency services access points along, so anything's going to have to fight through the entirety of the solid traffic backlog.

Like the M6 then. The M6 doesn't have an ambulance station every 5 miles, or 10 miles. If this bridge has one at each end I think it'll be better served than the vast majority of motorways?

SpeckledJim said:

MartG said:

And don't forget that, due to its location, 90% of the time it would be closed to high sided vehicles due to wind

I suspect that's a gross exaggeration, but if it was a serious problem, couldn't the design of the bridge include shelter from the wind?

You'd need very high sides to it - and probably a lid to prevent odd circular gusting, as well as to provide strength to sides that tall.
Obviously, any openings in the sides would be distracting to drivers. as well as letting wind in, so they'd need to be solid. Sort of a box. At which point, you get rid of the "claustrophobia" argument against a tunnel...

Dunno. But is it really a huge issue? Are the winds at, say, 60 feet above the channel much worse than in other places, or on other bridges?

[PositronicRay]

SpeckledJim said:

PositronicRay said:

Everyone's overthinking this


http://www.vendee-guide.co.uk/passage-du-gois.htm

That's a straight-forward idea.

You could have a small gap near to each coast, crossed by a relatively short bridge, to allow for coastal boats. Then a wider gap in the shipping lane 2-4 miles wide, say, and crossed by either a high bridge, or a tunnel.

Would the tidal flow through that gap be an insurmountable problem?

As on the Noirmoutier causeway, I'd also expect high tide escape poles. (hours of fun for the locals, not a lot to do on Noirmoutier)

[swamp]

We'd have to build the island causeway thing a bit to the side, otherwise we might squash the Channel Tunnel.

[V8 Fettler]

The income generated by cross-Channel traffic was never going to be sufficient to repay the construction costs of the Chunnel, same will apply to Bozo's bridge.

[The Dangerous Elk]

V8 Fettler said:

The income generated by cross-Channel traffic was never going to be sufficient to repay the construction costs of the Chunnel, same will apply to Bozo's bridge.

As a long-term national infrastructure project, there is more to it/made from it than just the fee's paid to cross it. (or any type of crossing)

Some people here have all the foresight/understanding of a BigMac seller

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Monday 22 January 22:25

[mx5nut]

The Dangerous Elk said:

V8 Fettler said:

The income generated by cross-Channel traffic was never going to be sufficient to repay the construction costs of the Chunnel, same will apply to Bozo's bridge.

As a long-term ██████ ████████ project, there is more to it/made from it than just the fee's ████ █ ███ █. (█ ██ ██ █ ████)

Never thought I'd see the day

Edited by mx5nut on Monday 22 January 22:11

[The Dangerous Elk]

mx5nut said:

empty headed troll post by MX5 again, move on chaps

Edited by mx5nut on Monday 22 January 22:11

[V8 Fettler]

The Dangerous Elk said:

V8 Fettler said:

The income generated by cross-Channel traffic was never going to be sufficient to repay the construction costs of the Chunnel, same will apply to Bozo's bridge.

As a long-term national infrastructure project, there is more to it/made from it than just the fee's paid to cross it. (or any type of crossing)

Some people here have all the foresight/understanding of a BigMac seller

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Monday 22 January 22:25

Some fine and noble words. Who is going to pay for Bozo's Bridge?

[The Dangerous Elk]

V8 Fettler said:

Some fine and noble words. Who is going to pay for Mr Johnson's proposed Bridge?

Do you think the planning has got that far yet ?

(had to edit your post, you made some typo's)