UserName

A Jersey man is promoting the idea of a road bridge between the island and Normandy.

Peter Walsh has been in discussion with senior civil servants and has also written to President Sarkozy of France to seek his support.

The idea of a bridge between Jersey and France has been suggested before but always dismissed as impractical.

But Mr Walsh said bridges from Denmark to Sweden showed a bridge could pay its way through tolls in 25 years.

He says the bridge would allow Jersey to expand its economy without creating local housing problems and there would also be huge savings on freight.

He also suggested that tidal electricity turbines could be attached to the piers of the bridge allowing the island to generate its own electricity.

UserName

The environ-mentalists will never let it happen. They'll worry about extra traffic to/from the bridge (coming ashore where? La Rocque? Fauvic? Gorey?) the effect at the coast.. wading birds, marine issues, fish being sucked into turbines or birds on wind ones... tidal flow changes.. etc etc

The toll would need to be expensive to pay for it, so commuting would be out of the question.

And then there's rabies coming over more easily, rats, colorado beetles...

David Rotherham

The Denmark to Sweden bridge is a misleading model. The hinterlands are substantial on both sides: All of Southern Sweden, and the Oslo region of Norway brought within a day's car drive, or two shifts in a truck, of all of Denmark and Northern Germany. A Jersey bridge won't have any significant through traffic, maybe just the odd bit of ferry traffic for Guernsey, and will have to depend on the local residents and visitors.
Maybe, if the tidal power scheme is really substantial, it can be the main earner, and joining the units up with a road bridge just a little extra.
Another catch in the economics, is that growing the economy with commuters residing in France will bring precious little local benefit, without some radical changes in our tax laws, and messing with them could well kill the finance industry that feeds us all, one way or another. What is the use to Jersey of money going out of the island in French wages, and untaxed or lightly taxed company profits, and precious little being spent here, bar lunchtime snacks and return tolls?

Haggis

**** driving it in sh*t weather!

__________________
You aint seen me, Roight...!

UserName

Even if they allowed 60mph on it, it would take quarter of an hour to get over.. I'd be bored out of my tree
Commute and waste half an hour a day driving?! No thanks.. I live in Jersey to avoid that kind of malarky!

Jsysco

I'd probably be a little bit more worried about the border control issues.

Access to the bridge would have to be patrolled as stringently as any other border, i.e. harbours and airports, to prevent illegal immigrants coming to Jersey as a stepping stone to the UK.

Aren't the customs department complaining enough about over-stretched staff at the airport?

Dicko

Agreed.

This would be a serious disaster for the safety of Jersey

Paul

I think it is a good idea, it should cut the cost of getting to mainland France down quite a bit. It would also cut the cost for companies in Jersey to bring goods to the Island. I agree it will have to be well policed at border control although I don’t think many immigrants will get into Jersey via a bridge. A bridge to Guernsey would be a good idea too.

Jsysco

A bridge.... ...to Guernsey???

The south-east coast of Jersey is designated as RAMSAR wetland, and I can't see the north-east having the correct infrastructure to complement a bridge of such size.
Also, the initial toll to cover the cost of construction would be extortionate, especially if the states were in charge - I'd see the cost perhaps getting below that of condor in maybe 20 years?

Having said that, IF a bridge was built with, consideration to the environment and available to use at low cost, it would certainly make life on the island a lot less...insular.

Just one question, at what point would you switch to the right hand side of the road?

UserName

I'm fairly sure the states, reviewing the idea, are about to say no

We'd be better off starting small : when the current reclamation site is full, start tipping rubble, from barges, into the sea to form the start of a new island. It would have to be a fair distance out to sea to protect the beaches, with a bridge to get there. You'd end up with the advantages of extra land and you could have two such islets with a hydro-electric generation scheme between them.

Fair enough you wouldn't get the bridge's easy imports advantages, but the extra land and power generation possibilities are well worth having at a fraction of the cost of the bridge.

The interior of the new island would be blank canvas to be developed to ease much of our housing requirements, with prestigous new property possibilities around the coast for the rich - their own pontoons for their gin palaces etc.

If it was a good 100m out from the low water line then it wouldn't exactly wreck the view, and there would be few issues about affecting our tidal flows, surely? And only the most ardent of environmentalists could moan about losing a bit of seabed that would be a mere spit in the ocean.