On 15/04/2024 20:18, Marland wrote:
> Why not reopen the Railway that linked from the Lymington Branch?
>
> After all it was on the map .
>
> <https://maps.nls.uk/view/97131110>
>
> Don’t this seriously.

An early but very well presented example of crayons on a map.
I particularly enjoyed the tunnel portal in the middle of a marsh and
the junction suspended above the Yar estuary.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How was your Ferry crossing? Both routes have been suffering from service
>>>>>> interruptions
>>>>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures. There was a
>>>>>> family featured on the local radio
>>>>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for a flight but were
>>>>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>>>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>>>>
>>>>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>>>> -isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>>>> ompt-independent-investigation/
>>>
>>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
>>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>>
>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>>
>> Robin
>>
> Why not reopen the Railway that linked from the Lymington Branch?
>
> After all it was on the map .
>
> <https://maps.nls.uk/view/97131110>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don’t this seriously.
>
> GH
>
>
>
>

Just dig an underground tunnel. After all, they’ve already got the rolling
stock…

On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:55:11 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
>>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>>
>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>
> Oh sure. I can't imagine funds for a 6 mile bridge to Portsmouth would
> ever be forthcoming! :)
>
>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>
> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.
>

I recall proposals for a link to the Isle of Wight when I was in primary
school in Dibden / Minstead - nowt happened then either!

--
Colin

On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:55:11 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
>>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>>
>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>
> Oh sure. I can't imagine funds for a 6 mile bridge to Portsmouth would
> ever be forthcoming! :)
>
>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>
> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.

For a road bridge, the mile of water may be less of a problem than the
miles of marsh and forest between Hurst Point and any existing road that
goes anywhere fast.

For a rail bridge, getting to the island might be relatively easy but
someone seems to have removed the line from Yarmouth to anywhere else.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:36:59 +0100
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
>Knowing this Government, they would probably want any bridge to be a
>toll bridge. The island has a population of about 140,000. The likely
>annual number of crossings might be too low to raise enough revenue
>unless the toll tax was uncacceptably high.

Bridge toll policy is a bit wierd in this country. No government of any
persuation has removed the dartford crossing tolls despite the inconvenience
they cause**, yet the tories say the severn bridge tolls removed without there
being a big fuss.

** Before it was jams caused by the booths, now its trying to remember
to pay the damn thing either in advance or after the event which when you
have 101 other things to remember if you're heading abroad can sometimes not
happen.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:15:08 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:55:11 +0200
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island. Though I
>
>>>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>>>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>>>
>>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>>
>> Oh sure. I can't imagine funds for a 6 mile bridge to Portsmouth would
>> ever be forthcoming! :)
>>
>>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>>
>> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
>> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.
>>
>
>I recall proposals for a link to the Isle of Wight when I was in primary
>school in Dibden / Minstead - nowt happened then either!

A bit like the Bakerloo line extension. Probably more energy used in talking
about it over the decades than would be required to actually build it.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:41:51 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
>> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.
>
>For a road bridge, the mile of water may be less of a problem than the
>miles of marsh and forest between Hurst Point and any existing road that
>goes anywhere fast.
>
>For a rail bridge, getting to the island might be relatively easy but
>someone seems to have removed the line from Yarmouth to anywhere else.

Beeching or some other short sighted wonk?

On 16/04/2024 09:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:41:51 +0100
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
>>> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.
>>
>> For a road bridge, the mile of water may be less of a problem than the
>> miles of marsh and forest between Hurst Point and any existing road that
>> goes anywhere fast.
>>
>> For a rail bridge, getting to the island might be relatively easy but
>> someone seems to have removed the line from Yarmouth to anywhere else.
>
> Beeching or some other short sighted wonk?

Closed 1953 due to traffic being seasonal and loss-making, according to
Wikipedia (which cites a book I don't have).

On 16/04/2024 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:36:59 +0100
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>>
>> Knowing this Government, they would probably want any bridge to be a
>> toll bridge. The island has a population of about 140,000. The likely
>> annual number of crossings might be too low to raise enough revenue
>> unless the toll tax was uncacceptably high.
>
> Bridge toll policy is a bit wierd in this country. No government of any
> persuation has removed the dartford crossing tolls despite the inconvenience
> they cause**, yet the tories say the severn bridge tolls removed without there
> being a big fuss.
>
> ** Before it was jams caused by the booths, now its trying to remember
> to pay the damn thing either in advance or after the event which when you
> have 101 other things to remember if you're heading abroad can sometimes not
> happen.

The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn and Widnes by a
toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making (the rather artificial
construct of) Halton the only borough divided by a toll bridge. Last
time I would have crossed it, I drove round via Warrington instead, as
it was quicker than investigating how to pay (online only, and I was
travelling).

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>On 16/04/2024 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> ** Before it was jams caused by the booths, now its trying to remember
>> to pay the damn thing either in advance or after the event which when you
>> have 101 other things to remember if you're heading abroad can sometimes not
>> happen.
>
>The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn and Widnes by a
>toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making (the rather artificial
>construct of) Halton the only borough divided by a toll bridge. Last

The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start taxing the motorist
cashcow in whatever way they can whether it be resident parking permits,
higher parking charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a toll on
a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 16/04/2024 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> ** Before it was jams caused by the booths, now its trying to remember
>>> to pay the damn thing either in advance or after the event which when you
>>> have 101 other things to remember if you're heading abroad can sometimes not
>>> happen.
>>
>> The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn and Widnes by a
>> toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making (the rather artificial
>> construct of) Halton the only borough divided by a toll bridge. Last
>
> The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start taxing the motorist
> cashcow in whatever way they can whether it be resident parking permits,
> higher parking charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a toll on
> a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.

It's not uncommon for new bridges and tunnels to be funded by tolls,
particularly if there isn't an easy alternate route.

On 16/04/2024 10:01, Certes wrote:
> On 16/04/2024 09:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:41:51 +0100
>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only
>>>> just under
>>>> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be
>>>> affordable.
>>>
>>> For a road bridge, the mile of water may be less of a problem than the
>>> miles of marsh and forest between Hurst Point and any existing road that
>>> goes anywhere fast.
>>>
>>> For a rail bridge, getting to the island might be relatively easy but
>>> someone seems to have removed the line from Yarmouth to anywhere else.
>>
>> Beeching or some other short sighted wonk?
>
> Closed 1953 due to traffic being seasonal and loss-making, according to
> Wikipedia (which cites a book I don't have).

I have a copy of that book and it points out that on the grouping the
Southern railway didn't want to take on the Freshwater line as it was so
unprofitable. Eventually they had to be forced to take it on. The rail
tunnel link to the mainland had been approved in 1903. 1904 and 1909
butv was abandoned on the outbreak of WW1.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 16/04/2024 10:41, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2024 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> ** Before it was jams caused by the booths, now its trying to remember
>>>> to pay the damn thing either in advance or after the event which when you
>>>> have 101 other things to remember if you're heading abroad can sometimes not
>>>> happen.
>>>
>>> The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn and Widnes by a
>>> toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making (the rather artificial
>>> construct of) Halton the only borough divided by a toll bridge. Last
>>
>> The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start taxing the motorist
>> cashcow in whatever way they can whether it be resident parking permits,
>> higher parking charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a toll on
>> a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.
>
> It's not uncommon for new bridges and tunnels to be funded by tolls,
> particularly if there isn't an easy alternate route.
>

I think you missed the point - it was putting tolls onto an existing
"free" bridge, not a toll bearing bridge planned as such.

--
Colin

In uk.transport.london Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a copy of that book and it points out that on the grouping the
> Southern railway didn't want to take on the Freshwater line as it was so
> unprofitable. Eventually they had to be forced to take it on. The rail
> tunnel link to the mainland had been approved in 1903. 1904 and 1909
> butv was abandoned on the outbreak of WW1.

It would be an interesting alternative universe where the Island lines had
survived and provided the backbone of a modern public transport network (eg
trams), as well as through trains from the mainland (like Sylt). I wonder
whether the Island would be almost car-free, and the trains would replace
buses having to negotiate the narrow roads.

Theo

On 16/04/2024 11:05, Theo wrote:
> In uk.transport.london Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I have a copy of that book and it points out that on the grouping the
>> Southern railway didn't want to take on the Freshwater line as it was so
>> unprofitable. Eventually they had to be forced to take it on. The rail
>> tunnel link to the mainland had been approved in 1903. 1904 and 1909
>> butv was abandoned on the outbreak of WW1.
>
> It would be an interesting alternative universe where the Island lines had
> survived and provided the backbone of a modern public transport network (eg
> trams), as well as through trains from the mainland (like Sylt). I wonder
> whether the Island would be almost car-free, and the trains would replace
> buses having to negotiate the narrow roads.
>

Even had it survived Beeching it would never have survived Thatcher's
Great Car Economy of the 1970s.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <uvjs4a$ebsn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:36:59 on Mon, 15 Apr
2024, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island.
....
>Knowing this Government, they would probably want any bridge to be a
>toll bridge. The island has a population of about 140,000. The likely
>annual number of crossings might be too low to raise enough revenue
>unless the toll tax was uncacceptably high.
>
>Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.

They already have lorries from the mainland delivering to the various
supermarkets etc. I doubt that opening a bridge would cause even more
lorries to arrive (where would they be delivering to??)

If they don't like tourists, they should have a long hard look at where
the Island's income comes from, and/or move to somewhere else if they
are also a tourist (albeit a long term retiree who bought a house and
now only tours the island).
--
Roland Perry

In message <uvk028$f7jh$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:08 on Mon, 15 Apr
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>Just dig an underground tunnel.

They do tend to work better than overground tunnels. (I'll get my
Wombling coat).
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:41:51 +0100
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> At the closest point there's not much actual forest and its only just under
>>> a mile of water to cross so in the scheme of things should be affordable.
>>
>> For a road bridge, the mile of water may be less of a problem than the
>> miles of marsh and forest between Hurst Point and any existing road that
>> goes anywhere fast.
>>
>> For a rail bridge, getting to the island might be relatively easy but
>> someone seems to have removed the line from Yarmouth to anywhere else.
>
> Beeching or some other short sighted wonk?
>

The line from Newport to Freshwater via Yarmouth closed in 1953 so well in
advance of the Beeching report.
Like much of the Islands routes it never really made much money and once
the lorry and bus were developed enough to be reliable it was no longer
needed especially out of tourist season *.
The never built tunnel from the mainland that ended up on the map I
linked to upthread was part of a scheme in the early years of the 20th
century to provide the line with some traffic as even then traffic was too
little to justify the investment in building it.

*The route for awhile did carry the I.O.W’s only express and named train
“The Tourist” which ran from Ventnor to Yarmouth via Newport .

GH

On 16/04/2024 11:15, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uvk028$f7jh$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:08 on Mon, 15 Apr
> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> Just dig an underground tunnel.
>
> They do tend to work better than overground tunnels. (I'll get my
> Wombling coat).

;-)

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/04/2024 10:41, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
>>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2024 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> ** Before it was jams caused by the booths, now its trying to remember
>>>>> to pay the damn thing either in advance or after the event which when you
>>>>> have 101 other things to remember if you're heading abroad can sometimes not
>>>>> happen.
>>>>
>>>> The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn and Widnes by a
>>>> toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making (the rather artificial
>>>> construct of) Halton the only borough divided by a toll bridge. Last
>>>
>>> The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start taxing the motorist
>>> cashcow in whatever way they can whether it be resident parking permits,
>>> higher parking charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a toll on
>>> a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.
>>
>> It's not uncommon for new bridges and tunnels to be funded by tolls,
>> particularly if there isn't an easy alternate route.
>>
>
> I think you missed the point - it was putting tolls onto an existing
> "free" bridge, not a toll bearing bridge planned as such.
>

He said, "The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn and
Widnes by a toll bridge…".

In other words, it's a new toll bridge, not a new toll on an existing
bridge.

Recliner wrote:

> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 16/04/2024 10:41, Recliner wrote:
> >> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
> >>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> >>>> The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn
> >>>> and Widnes by a toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making
> >>>> (the rather artificial construct of) Halton the only
> >>>> borough divided by a toll bridge.
> >>>
> >>> The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start
> >>> taxing the motorist cashcow in whatever way they can
> >>> whether it be resident parking permits, higher parking
> >>> charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a
toll
> >>> on a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.
> >>
> >> It's not uncommon for new bridges and tunnels to be funded
> >> by tolls, particularly if there isn't an easy alternate
> >> route.
> >
> > I think you missed the point - it was putting tolls onto an
> > existing "free" bridge, not a toll bearing bridge planned as
> > such.
>
> He said, "The replacement of the free road bridge between
> Runcorn and Widnes by a toll bridge…".
>
> In other words, it's a new toll bridge, not a new toll on an
> existing bridge.

I actually read it as, old bridge that was free, and now it's a
toll bridge... so new toll bridge, but not a 'new' bridge! But
it could be read either way.

On 16/04/2024 15:50, Blueshirt wrote:
> Recliner wrote:
>
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2024 10:41, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
>>>>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>> The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn
>>>>>> and Widnes by a toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making
>>>>>> (the rather artificial construct of) Halton the only
>>>>>> borough divided by a toll bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start
>>>>> taxing the motorist cashcow in whatever way they can
>>>>> whether it be resident parking permits, higher parking
>>>>> charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a
> toll
>>>>> on a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.
>>>>
>>>> It's not uncommon for new bridges and tunnels to be funded
>>>> by tolls, particularly if there isn't an easy alternate
>>>> route.
>>>
>>> I think you missed the point - it was putting tolls onto an
>>> existing "free" bridge, not a toll bearing bridge planned as
>>> such.
>>
>> He said, "The replacement of the free road bridge between
>> Runcorn and Widnes by a toll bridge…".
>>
>> In other words, it's a new toll bridge, not a new toll on an
>> existing bridge.
>
> I actually read it as, old bridge that was free, and now it's a
> toll bridge... so new toll bridge, but not a 'new' bridge! But
> it could be read either way.

And it should be: the new bridge has tolls, so the old bridge also has
tolls, to prevent loss of revenue.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:12:22 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <uvjs4a$ebsn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:36:59 on Mon, 15 Apr
>2024, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>
>They already have lorries from the mainland delivering to the various
>supermarkets etc. I doubt that opening a bridge would cause even more
>lorries to arrive (where would they be delivering to??)
>
>If they don't like tourists, they should have a long hard look at where
>the Island's income comes from, and/or move to somewhere else if they

I suspect the IOWs income has gone up recently. Last time we went there in
2016 the roads looked like the ones into Berlin in 1945. This year lots of
nice fresh tarmac all over the place and fewer potholes than where I live in
London.

Am 16.04.2024 um 12:15 schrieb Roland Perry:
> In message <uvk028$f7jh$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:08 on Mon, 15 Apr
> 2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> Just dig an underground tunnel.
>
> They do tend to work better than overground tunnels. (I'll get my
> Wombling coat).

Actually, pre-fab overground tunnels on the seabed (like "cut-and-cover"
on land) are significantly better value-for-money, that's why the tunnel
from Germany to Denmark is being built that way ;-)

Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/04/2024 15:50, Blueshirt wrote:
>> Recliner wrote:
>>
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2024 10:41, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:05:56 +0100
>>>>>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The replacement of the free road bridge between Runcorn
>>>>>>> and Widnes by a toll bridge was deeply unpopular, making
>>>>>>> (the rather artificial construct of) Halton the only
>>>>>>> borough divided by a toll bridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The minute a council has a cashflow crisis they start
>>>>>> taxing the motorist cashcow in whatever way they can
>>>>>> whether it be resident parking permits, higher parking
>>>>>> charges & fines and/or stricter enforcement. Putting a
>> toll
>>>>>> on a bridge is a new one on me though. What twats.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not uncommon for new bridges and tunnels to be funded
>>>>> by tolls, particularly if there isn't an easy alternate
>>>>> route.
>>>>
>>>> I think you missed the point - it was putting tolls onto an
>>>> existing "free" bridge, not a toll bearing bridge planned as
>>>> such.
>>>
>>> He said, "The replacement of the free road bridge between
>>> Runcorn and Widnes by a toll bridge…".
>>>
>>> In other words, it's a new toll bridge, not a new toll on an
>>> existing bridge.
>>
>> I actually read it as, old bridge that was free, and now it's a
>> toll bridge... so new toll bridge, but not a 'new' bridge! But
>> it could be read either way.
>
> And it should be: the new bridge has tolls, so the old bridge also has
> tolls, to prevent loss of revenue.
>

I read it as the new toll bridge replaced the former, free bridge.