Jump to content

The Bressay Bridge


admin
 Share

Do you think we should build a bridge to Bressay?  

118 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think we should build a bridge to Bressay?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      70
    • We need more information
      12
    • Don't know/don't care
      8


Recommended Posts

I have a solution...

 

...forget the bridge, forget the tunnel, hell even forget the ferry! Bump up the living costs on Bressay, call it a 'haven' or 'paradise', offer the existing residents a lump sum to leave, or let them stay and sweat it out. Market it to the mainland and the rest of the world, let the poor buggers that buy islands now and again battle it out for a plot of land.

 

The revenue brought in by the rich folk living in Bressay (who can all afford their own boats) coupled by the savings from no bridge/tunnel/ferry would be a win/win situation.

 

We could further it by recommisioning the cannons at the fort and offering tourists potshots at the rich and famous for 50p a go.

 

:twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Other than to save on revenue expenditure across all public services in the long term, I'm fairly sceptical about the economic or social benefits of a fixed link between Yell and Unst. I don't think the economy of either island is big enough to bring enough new gains to the other to offset the loss of ferry jobs and the inevitable sharing/merging of services. Even if the recommendation to close the secondary department of the Baltasound School doesn't happen now, it will be very hard to resist (or similar mergers of the likes of health centres, leisure centres, care centres, police/fire stations whether in Yell or Unst) if and when a fixed link is put in place. That may very well suit those holding the public purse strings but is that what folk in Unst and Yell really want? Is industry and commerce in Unst really hampered to such a degree by the short (and now free) crossing to Yell that renders a fixed link (as opposed to increased ferry capacity through bigger boats on Bluemull Sound) so necessary? Unless Lerwick was where Brae is, I can't see that it would make a huge difference to the accessibility of the town for folk in Unst either, whether for work or social purposes - they still have to get from Yell to the Mainland by ferry after all.

 

Although I've never advocated the existence of Council services purely to create employment, my own view is that basing the ferry in Belmont (as I understand was meant to be the case at the start) could be more beneficial to Unst than improved access to (what?) jobs in Yell or the Mainland or any benefits a fixed link will bring in the way of an added incentive for new industry to set up in Unst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhoo, It's only a shame about the ferry jobs if someone can justify their existance, ie. bressay would not become a desolate ghost island without the ferry jobs, like eg. foula would.

 

 

this might have been said already, if so i apologise, but considering the amount of people living on the island the percentage of ferry crew is very low. Most of the islanders have to commute to get work, so changing the way they commute wouldn't really make them want to leave...would it?

 

(sorry my wording is awful!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
The LPA has millions of pounds of decommisioning work coming shortly, and a lot of it is depending on the North harbour being dredged, now the council have stopped them, with an interdict. So millions of pounds could be lost to Shetland, because of the cooncils pigheadedness. :twisted:

 

I still don't see the problem about the height of the bridge.

All ships can enter Lerwick harbour through the (infamous) SoothMooth.

How much room there is at the North Mouth should not really matter.

 

Most harbours have only one way in; think how narrow the entrance to Aberdeen harbour is.

As long as all those enormous ships of the future can get in past the Bressay light, Alan Wishart should be happy enough. Why do they need to be able to get in and out from the NOrth too?

 

Maybe we could save a lot of money by building a small and low bridge that lifts open in the middle. Whenever one of these enormous ships is trying to get in, a few blasts on the horn and hurray, the bridge opens!

Lots of other harbours manage to do it like this - I don't see why we need the Shetland Forth Road Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Another rupture .... *sproot*

 

Written by Hans J. Marter and published on shetland-news.co.uk

 

THE PEACE talks between Shetland Islands Council and Lerwick Port Authority over the proposal to build a controversial bridge to Bressay have failed.

 

Shetland Islands Council now plans to receive planning permission for the Bressay bridge via a private bill in the Scottish Parliament.Following four workshop sessions over a 12 month period in Aberdeen, the two sides could only "agree to disagree" whether a bridge or tunnel should connect the island to Lerwick.

 

Both sides are bogged down in a complex legal argument over the proposed £23 million bridge. The row has forced the port authority to stop essential dredging work in Lerwick harbour's north mouth, seen as vital to encouraging further oil rig decommissioning work to Lerwick.

 

Speaking before a meeting of the council's infrastructure meeting this morning (Tuesday) the SIC's executive director for infrastructure Graham Spall was adamant that the council had tried very hard to come to a joint solution with the port authority.

 

But harbour chief executive Allan Wishart said the council had only been interested in the facilitation talks as a means of getting the LPA to withdraw its objections to the bridge.

 

Mr Wishart said the council's solicitor Ewan MacLeod of law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn had revealed all when giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Local Government and Transport Committee, on 5 September.

 

At the committee Mr MacLeod is reported as saying: "The council, as a responsible local authority, undertook significant consultation and discussion with the port authority, and has embarked on a process of facilitation in an effort to remove the port authority's concerns and ultimately to remove its objection to the proposals." (www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/lg/or-06/lg06-2002.htm)

 

But Mr Spall passionately refuted any suggestion that SIC had not tried to find a solution.

 

"Why would I sit down with the port authority and work with them for a year trying to find a solution?" he demanded.

 

"We were unable to get an agreement. Of course we have tried. We have tried for years to find some combination of an agreement that would allow for the proposal of the bridge and the LPA's dredging to co-exist. We haven't been able to do that.

 

"It has been agreed that there is no prospect of a facilitated outcome with respect to the current bridge. Further, the LPA has stated that there is no bridge that is acceptable as long as they feel there is a viable tunnel alternative," he said.

 

Currently the costs for a bridge to Bressay are quoted to be £22.4 million while the tunnel option would cost £29.9 million. These figures are disputed by LPA, saying the bridge design is far from being at an advanced stage.

 

The council will now embark on what is called the STAG (Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance) process, a vital precondition for the local authority's plan to get permission to build the bridge via a private bill.

 

Meanwhile the port authority is to hold a special meeting of its board this afternoon to discuss its next step in the damaging row that has been going on since 2003.

 

Mr Wishart said: "It is stopping the dredging and development of the harbour and damaging Lerwick's image and its prospects of attracting trade."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently the costs for a bridge to Bressay are quoted to be £22.4 million while the tunnel option would cost £29.9 million. These figures are disputed by LPA, saying the bridge design is far from being at an advanced stage.

 

so much to pick on but this is one thing that always seems to get over looked..

 

Without fail a bridge will go over budget.. I have never heard of a project similar to this that hasn't gone over budget.. but the same goes for a tunnel..

LPA use the reasoning that the bridge will go over the £22.4 million but don't accept that the same is very highly likely to happen with the tunnel.

 

Even if a tunnel and a bridge were both valued at £22.4 million and both were built ( for what ever reason ) I would place a fairly hefty bet that the tunnel would still end up costing more than the bridge.. purely because of the number of unknowns greatly out weigh those unknowns related to a bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if a tunnel and a bridge were both valued at £22.4 million and both were built ( for what ever reason ) I would place a fairly hefty bet that the tunnel would still end up costing more than the bridge.. purely because of the number of unknowns greatly out weigh those unknowns related to a bridge.

 

But the potential extra cost of the tunnel might be justified on the grounds that a tunnel would never have to shut due to high winds. ( If a bridge is built, will there still have to be a backup ferry ? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the potential extra cost of the tunnel might be justified on the grounds that a tunnel would never have to shut due to high winds. ( If a bridge is built, will there still have to be a backup ferry ? )

 

The design criteria of the bridge is such that it is not to be closed any more than the number of times the ferry does not run at the moment.

 

I'd expect the maintenance cost of a tunnel to be lower than that of a bridge, but I'm just guessing about this.

 

Depends on many things. With what i know of the current design of the bridge.. most maintenance such as replacing straining cables ( for want of the proper technical term ) can be carried out from within the bridge.. meaning that the bridge wont need to be closed to traffic.. where as i expect any maintenance of the tunnel would mean closing the tunnel.. or work doing it during the night.. which on any other contract Ive been aware of drastically increases the cost of anything.. due to the unsociable hours regulations etc etc

 

as for an exact correlation of costs Ive no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the potential extra cost of the tunnel might be justified on the grounds that a tunnel would never have to shut due to high winds. ( If a bridge is built, will there still have to be a backup ferry ? )

 

The design criteria of the bridge is such that it is not to be closed any more than the number of times the ferry does not run at the moment.

 

Fair enough, but the tunnel wouldn't have to close at all, as far as bad weather is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twerto wrote

The design criteria of the bridge is such that it is not to be closed any more than the number of times the ferry does not run at the moment.

 

This is another yes........but. What is "closed". Seems to me that the Forth, Tay and Erskine bridges are frequently closed to "high sided vehicles" and often to vans and motorcycles. I find it hard to imagine that such closures would happen less on a Bressay bridge than on the others I have named.

 

I also ponder about who would enforce partial closures. The police need to be out on Ned patrols so I guess it would fall to the council to have someone at each end.......added to the running costs. Unless there is a secret plan to have bridge tolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah and due to location of the bridge in the north of the harbour. it maybe more than teh forth or erskine bridge..

 

As far as i am aware the forth bridge ( not been over it in years ) doesnt have modern wind breaking barriers.. that are planned to be used on the bressay bridge.. So in my opinion it would only be your highsided vehicles suchs as artics that would be stopped more often than not.. but of the top of my head that si 1 maybe 2 vehicles a day.. which maybe go up to 5 - 10 depending on what growth occurs on bressay after a fixed link is in place.

 

but in reality at worst it would mean they dont get across for an hour at the peak of a gale rather than fro a whole day.. just a gusstamit..

 

as for who ensures if it is closed or not.. i would expect it would be the roads inspectors that are in control of closing any road at the moment. but again just by thoughts.. weather they ahve secret palns for a toll or not ive no idea :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can safely bet that with both of them the price is going to ramp up. With all the toing and froing they will lose the money from Europe as far as I understand it needs to be used by a certain date but not sure what that date is.

 

I've always wondered if they would put a toll on the bridge but with what happened with the Skye Bridge not sure if the council would want to go down that route or not. If they don't do something then I can see it happening, as they will be losing (what little) revenue they are getting from the ferry and where will they get the money for maintaining the money for bridge/tunnel? Put up Council Tax? Will they get the same subsidy for the bridge/tunnel as they do for the ferry?

 

They really do need to get the roads on the Bressay side done as it's single track and with the amount of amount of traffic will be significantly increased which means the roads will need to be maintained a lot more regularly, where is that come from? I think there will be cars racing about the whole of Bressay but to be honest I don't know what can be done about it. Where would cars be policed at?

 

As to bridge closing I think wind would be a major problem not too clued up on it but my thoughts are if it's windy on the ground it gets windier the higher up you go and it's quiet often on the radio that I hear the something about Forth Road Bridge and the weather (I live about 10 miles from the Bridge) but this would probably (maybe not completly) be negated if the council were to go for the tunnel option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...