Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Boring solution is best

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 January 2008
Neil Craig's suggestion of using Eliza Jane, the tunnel boring machinery, to tunnel under the Forth (Letters, 9 January) was a breath of common sense.
On a recent visit to Tromso, Norway, I saw a tunnel, under a fjord, constructed to relieve congestion on the bridge linking the two parts of the city, which was proving to be a solution. There was no toll, and at least some finance had come from an i
ncrease in the local price of petrol.

Because of extreme wind, both the Forth and Tay road bridges were closed to traffic on Wednesday: with a tunnel there would be an option for travel, and if a tunnel were flooded, the bridge would be an alternative.

As a naive, ordinary Scot, I would find it interesting to see a direct comparison of costs for the construction of a bridge and a tunnel. Why cannot we use what appears to be a successful piece of equipment such as Eliza Jane to improve our road system?

ANN LYLE
Whitehouse Road
Edinburgh
High winds close the bridge again. It just shows what it will be like if they build another bridge instead of a tunnel.

Can the government not see that the quango which should be under its control has squandered money right, left and centre on improperly designed schemes and has apparently no foresight?

Information so far released about the new bridge gives no-one confidence that it will meet the requirements of today's traffic, never mind the future.

ROY ALDER
Harbour Place
Kirkcaldy, Fife

If any more persuasion were needed in support of a Forth tunnel, surely the recent high winds and lengthy traffic jams would justify reconsideration of the recent preference for yet another Forth road bridge.

MARGARET CAMPBELL
Dovecot Loan
Edinburgh

Neil Craig (Letters, 9 January) wonders why Eliza Jane can not be deployed in cutting a tunnel under the Forth at a fraction of the £4.2 billion projected spending for a new Forth road bridge.

In theory he is right in thinking that a tunnel would be more practical than shuffling paper until 2012 and then starting to build a bridge. However, he forgets that even with a tunnel there will still be the cost of shuffling mountains of paper about while the underlying costs increase and contractors increase their charges.

Just look at the projected cost of £2 million for removing the tolls on the present road bridge, when in the real world the cost would be about £100 for seven pieces of rope to secure the toll barriers in the open position.

SANDY GEMMILL
Mertoun Place
Edinburgh



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 January 2008 7:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Seannair,

Oban 11/01/2008 00:52:23
Our Scandinavian neighbours seem to have a much more pragmatic approach to crossing fiords and stretches of sea. The Norwegians appear to be the tunnel champions of Europe and they have a variety of differing models, particularly on their west coast to faciltate movement on and off islands.
The Danes and Swedes combined recently to complete an impressive link between their countries, comprising in the main of a barrage with a central fairly short tunnel to allow the unimpeded passage of shipping.
We have so much to learn about taking control and the
use of natural resources for our own benefit. Mind you these are only small separate independent countries on the edge of Europe whereas we are part of a genuine World Power; how they must envy us.They enjoy high standards of living and medical services that we dare not hope to aspire to but then again they are not nuclear powers; surely they must envy us!
2

D Napier,

11/01/2008 08:46:45
As a civil engineer I am amazed at the number of members of the public who think that they know better when it comes to the choice for the new Forth crossing.

The recommendation for a new bridge has been made on sound engineering grounds by engineers with vast experience of bridges and tunnels internationally.

Modern bridges of the type to be constructed across the Forth are built with wind shielding so that traffic is not affected by strong wonds. For example, the second Severn Bridge has this shielding and has NEVER had to close for strong winds.

The closure of the Forth Road Bridge on Wednesday was due to the roisk to traffic of falling debris from a maintenance cradle which was damaged by freak winds. This cradle was designed to withstand far stronger wionds but seems to have been the victim of freak conditions.

#1 Seannair. I'm afraid you are wrong with your description of the fixed link between Denmark and Sweden. There is no barrage, but a cable stayed bridge over the majority of the length with a tunnel section on the Danish side as the towers of a bridge at that location would have been a hazard to aircraft using the nearby airport.
3

Zander G,

EDINBURGH 11/01/2008 09:40:34
As a member of the public I am amazed as to the number of civil engineers who are unable to clearly demonstrate which option for crossing the Forth is the most cost effective and then carry out that work in the most cost effective way.
4

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 11:45:10
So does anyone have any links to the actual reports that draw the conclusions Mr Napier makes?
5

D Napier,

11/01/2008 12:36:15
#4 Guthrie. Suggest you look here:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/headlineprojectpage.aspx?pageID=722
6

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 13:15:16
Thanks, thats very helpful.
7

Neil,

Glasgow 11/01/2008 13:17:26
Sandy you are a cynic but unfortunately we live in a political world where cynicism is justified.

I'm not sure what Scallywag's point is. If it is that our civil servant nannies know best then I would require some real evidence of this.
8

Neil,

Glasgow 11/01/2008 14:23:08
Scallywag you are yet again arguing from authority rather than bringing any facts to the table.

The fact is that the Norwegians have been cutting tunnels like this for decades at a tiny fraction of the £4.6 billion we are told a tunnel costs. The laws of physics are the same on both sides of the North Sea so it is incumbent on anybody saying that it won't work here, to say exactly why. "Because we say so, so stop asking" is not an answer to that question.

If you have an answer give it? This applies to anybody else reading the Scotsman.

I have blogged quite extensively on this, with links to history & costings & nobody from your engineering company has chosen to dispute my conclusions.

How the official tunnel costing is made up http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/10/forth-tunnel-price-fakery.html

Some comparative costings of bridge & tunnel http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/06/building-project-costs.html

The only explanation I have seen of rising costs http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/12/forth-bridge-42-billion-counting.html

A proposal for a Scottish Tunnels Project http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/12/scottish-tunnel-project.html
9

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 15:27:58
Two of the issues with a tunnel that they didn't like were that hazardous goods would have to use Kinkardine bridge rather than a tunnel, and that it would cost more.
Now, I have yet to delve deep enough to work out why a tunnel would cost more than the currently astronomical bridge costs.
The hazardous goods issue is one that a tunnel will always have problems with. Should there be a crash inside it, there is no real way for anyone to avoid it and the tunnel would fill up with fumes or smoke, whereas on a bridge this would be blown over the side.
10

Upbeat,

11/01/2008 16:44:03
#2 D Napier.

Your contribution might have been more authoritatoive if you had realised that the Oresund bridge is actually a composite structure.

The whole crossing is just over 10 miles (16.4 km)long. The bridge section is only a part of this, and tyhe cable stayed section is a thrid component.

The copmplete crossing comprises a 2.5 mile ( 4 km) tunnel, a made made island , and a concrete pillar platform bridge. The actual cable stayed section, admittedly one of the longer bridges of its type in the world , at 490 meters, is just a small part of this longer bridge. Most of the bridge is in fact a very standard reinforced prestressed concrete platform similar in composition to hundreds of autobahn, freeway , and motorway bridges around the world. The real astonishing technical feature peculiar to this engineering feat was that it was accomplished within a busy area of international shipping ,in a hostile and sometime stormy environment across the open sea.

You may have known all this, but in view of the instructive the tone of your post it might have been better to have been clear.
11

Upbeat,

11/01/2008 16:45:42
# 15 sorry about unfortunate typos my glasses were elsewhere. !
12

Neil,

Glasgow 11/01/2008 16:47:00
Presumably a bridge is also madness for the reasons you gave in your post #10.

Possibly a giant catapult would suffice.
13

Scottish then British,

Corstorphine 11/01/2008 19:40:04
Logic says it should be a "TUNNEL" why? it`s already been said our weather closes the bridge.
Cost - cheaper in the long run than a bridge and no cables to rust

The government says it will be a bridge why do these overpaid people voted in by us always think they are right.
Is it because a bridge costs more and fingers are already hovering over the till.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.