1

Mark’s perspective

Yes I would love to drive France, but at what cost. Rough calculations on a cost of £1.5 billion suggest an annual insert bill (opportunity cost) of £75 million per annum, assuming there is no cost overrun. Or £750 per man, woman and child; and don’t forget the OAPs’. Expensive!

On the plus side we could all save a small fortune by selling up and moving to France, lock, stock and barrel; shops, schools, hospitals, etcetera. This would leave the finance industry on the Victoria Avenue grid lock, but who cares?

The Copenhagen to Malmo example is interesting, but flawed. Most of the commuter traffic into Copenhagen from Sweden continues to arrive by sea!

Report abuse

3

Robert

What a waste of money.

Before a penny is spent will someone please engage their brain!

The other bridges link much larger locations with greater population and demand as well as far more diversified economies. They have a level of cross border trade that warrants such a link. We do not and never could have. We do not have the population for the demand and we could never produce enough of anything to export, other than questionable political decisions!

While it would allow a large number of people to live in France and commute, they would pay tax on their income in Jersey but it would be spent in France not Jersey.

Thus it will not be taxed under GST or as the income of the next recipient etc. Something commonly called the multiplier effect! The actual income is taxed many times over and that would be lost.

The impact to the Treasury could be terrible. In paticular since with house prices as they are the short term impact would be a material population drop as people levae with the fiscal impact explained above.

It is an uneconomic idea that will not achieve its aim and this is obvious. You can have this advice for free! Please DO NOT spend any money on this scheme. It can only become the white elephant that destroys the island! There are many far more worthy ideas and causes that should benefit first!

Report abuse

5

Complete Madness

Totally agree with Robert, this is utter, utter, madness and a total waste of time. We may think we’re hugely important but we are a tiny population and do not warrant this type of link. Take a small fraction of the 1.5 billion, upgrade the harbor and put on some more ferries. How would this grow the economy ? any suggestion on the housing front is madness without a double taxation agreement with France do that, throw in a few ferries and you might have something. But if HD can’t survive based on volumes how is a bridge going to fair any better. As surely we do not have the infrastructure to support the types of numbers that would be required to pay for this. Remember it was an team of highly regarded architects that came up with the Water Front.

Report abuse

7

other sarah

Has anyone who’s commented above thought about the fact that there is now only one ferry company to France and that Condor Ferries charge a small fortune to sail with your car- especially summer, easter and Christmas. I for one would be more than happy to pay £50- £100 return to take my car over the bridge.

Anything that makes it easier for tourist to get on and for us to get off the rock can only be a good thing. Any comments about it effecting house prices and immigration is just ridiculous and made by people who still thinks Jersey should be like it was in the 60′s!

Report abuse

9

rd

Mark figures – 1.5 Billion EUROS, not pounds ie 1.19 billion pounds at today’s rate. This equates to roughly 6500 trips per day at £25 per trip – feasible in its own right BUT this ignores the project’s capacity, if coupled with wind and tidal power generation, to produce revenue which more than pays for the whole show on its own. Robert’s point about engaging the brain – spot on – but this is why a proper study is required not just misinformed back of a cigarette packet calculations or gut instincts. The project is about energy flows, money and goods flows and not just people flows and must weigh up all the social, economic and environmental pros and cons.

Report abuse

11

Groove

Should we not start with a bridge to our friends in Guernsey first and see how that pans out? Anyway, less of the talk and it would have been built by now.

Report abuse

13

H

I attended the meeting this week (with mixed feelings) in connection with this proposed project and (like many others) now believe that maybe it’s not just ‘pie in the sky’. Some points worth considering that emerged from the meeting:

(a) the €1.5 billion would be guaranteed by both France and Jersey (a state guarantee should help in obtaining a ‘cheaper’ loan) but neither would actually have to raise any money as the income from the toll etc. would fund the loan repayments over a very long period (of course there are variables here: for example: one will need to look at the size of the pop. in Jersey/cross boarder trade etc. – since construction of the various links by Peter Lundhus’ company the numbers using the links have increased so dramatically that the final loan repayment dates could be brought forward – also upon complete repayment of the loan one would imagine that both Jersey and France would commence making a profit);

(b) the bridge (which could also have a rail link) could also be used to create electricity (apparently up to approx. five times more than Jersey would actually need with the excess maybe being sold – v. interesting point given the recent oil crisis) and an optic fibre cable could be brought across also;

(c) there are many people currently living in Jersey without residential qualifications/who can’t afford to buy a property here who would be prepared to commute (as mentioned at the meeting tax in this instance may be an issue and this will need to be looked into by the Jersey/French authorities);

(d) assurances regarding Jersey maintaining its current status would need to be obtained. Life on the Island would definitely change but not maybe as dramatically as one might think (not everyone has a desire to move across to France I’m sure. Jersey would still maintain its own culture etc. that appeals so much to tourists); and

(e) all environmental issues will need to be considered.

These are just some of the numerous and very interesting points raised at the meeting. The attendees I believe adopted a very realistic and pragmatic approach.

Let the feasibility study at least take place and then we’ll be able to see whether this project is ‘pie in the sky’.

Report abuse

15

Mogit

Jersey survives because it it an island, can somebody explain to the environment minister what his title actually means!
On the plus side it will enable me to leave much easier when I retire!!!

Report abuse

17

Mark’s perspective

Robert, thank you! You flesh out the economic argument with such alacrity.

Our dear Environment Minister, Freddie Cohen, spends money on consultants’ fees, just as the “Eternal President” Kim Jong-il of North Korea spends money on grandiose palaces. Just pray to your deity that Freddie sticks to paper follies, which are far cheaper than concrete follies. Better still Freddie, ‘stick to the knitting’.

‘rd’ – Sorry I forgot that Jersey had converted to the Euro, about time too, otherwise you miss the point. If you want tidal power you can have it with or without a transport link. Energy security (tidal power) is a completely different economic argument; why make a complex engineering project even more complex by building a 14 mile bridge on top. KISS (Keep It Simple Simon) as an engineer would advise.

A rail link? I favour a light rail link St Helier – Airport, around the Bel Royal bottle neck and maybe beyond. But to propose the France – Jersey link first, when we cannot agree our own internal rail links is ambitious, assuming the French will want to build a rail link to the coast.

Report abuse

19

Philippe

I think it is a great idea!

I have a few doubts about feasibility though, assuming the bridge is built to the east of the island, do we have the road infrastructure to cope with the increased usage, then again do we have the infrastructure anywhere in the island?

If such a huge sum is being proposed, why not just upgrade the existing harbour to accommodate cruise ships. The average cost that a person on a cruise spends whilst ashore is around £80 per day, that would be great for the economy.

If there is any change from the £1.19 billion, put in an east to west rail link to ease Jerseys traffic congestion.

These are my thoughts on it, am I missing the bigger picture?

Report abuse

21

Gregory

The island is joined to mainland europe by ferry link, by electricity and telephone cables etc.
Contrary to Helen’s suggestion it is vital that we spend money on a feasibility study so people can have some basis on which to make their decision.

Report abuse

23

Ben

“house prices in Jersey would go down”, good then maybe the non elite could own their bit of their Island

Report abuse

25

Zark

*sigh* Look at the photo. See the typical height and scale of a bridge crossing more than a river then add a tidal range of 40 feet and allow for bad weather and you’ll get some idea of the size a bridge would have to be. Then try to contemplate the on-bridge/off-bridge access roads and services necessary to make it function. If it came ashore on the northeast from Carteret, the shortest route, it would prpbably mean slip roads into Trinity or worse. An Island would probably need to be built in the middle….there goes Les Ecrehous! The Oresund bridge, as previously referred to, is 7.85km long. Jersey to France is about 22km. They have a tunnel for the second half. That bridge has annual average daily road traffic of 17,000 vehicles! EACH DAY! There are currently NO roads suitable on the East (or would it be centre?) of the Island for the volumes of traffic it would generate, indeed need, to be viable. Then imagine you are one of the unlucky large number of wealthy residents that would have to lose their valuable homes to accommodate the huge construction site and road network needed at both ends, the others whose equally valuable houses will be bang next to this thing, the amount of beautiful countryside that would be ruined and the nonsense of this will become obvious to all but the deranged. Peter Lundhus’ company will of course protest and say it is feasible…after all, even the research will be worth a tidy sum to them. For Pete’s sake, can we stop wasting everyones time with all this rubbish and concentrate on issues that matter.

Report abuse

27

Phil

Isn’t there enough traffic on the island?
How can Jersey possibly sustain more cars/pollution/less parking spots? Just one of the problems will inviolve people causing accidents with their left hand driving, and leaving the island “toute suite” – because they can!!
As someone intelligently noted: “if HD can’t survive based on volumes, then how can a bridge fare any better?”
And finally, they made Britain into a peninsula instead of an island by constructing the channel tunnel – Jersey will suffer the same fate. I cannot imagine what it would be like.
Somebody stop these people. As usual, the only ones to benfit will be the “architects” and the building companies.

Report abuse

29

Leah Holmes

I’m sure there would be many benefits to having a permanent connection to the mainland but what about those people who choose to live (or remain) here because they like living on an island? You won’t be an island if you have a bridge to the mainland and surely that has to be a consideration.

I used to go to the Island of Skye fairly frequently but now that it is attached to the mainland it just isn’t the same. From that experience I can see that one of the first major changes to Jersey due to being connected to the mainland would probably be your Sunday trading laws. Once you get rid of those you lose a lot of the benefits of island life.

Report abuse

31

jersey bean

about time!! i agree with only one ferry company
the islanders need more options to trvel to france and would be prpared to pay a fair price
and would bring more visitors to jersey which is what is needed liven the place up!!

Report abuse

33

Ann

Whilst we`re all looking forward to an easy access to France for many different reasons we should also consider the crime aspect.Untill now we have a fairly low crime rate, apart from the drug problems but this could rise,it would be so easy to come and go,”they`d” be gone before we knew what hit us. I would like to know what other destinations have to say regarding “before” and “after” the bridge.

Report abuse