fiona
|
Technically - YES
Economically - NO
It is technically possible to build a bridge of that length, but it would need to be very high off the surface of the water to allow the safe passage of ships beneath it. At such a height, there would be problems in accommodating the effect of wind speeds.
So, economically it remains a non-starter, which is why we opted for a tunnel instead. |
|
Katie
 |
you could, but i doubt they would do it, there is 2 much imigration back in the UK and i don´t even live there i live on a tropical island in spain called Lanzarote!! trust me we are by africa here and it is soooo....... full of imigrants. i am not a racist but....... none of us need any more imigrations !!!! |
|
Sebastian
 |
no real need for it because we have the tunnel. And we don't want to give Illegal immigrants another way to get in do we |
|
Adam T
 |
I think it may be possible, but rather useless due to the Chunnel and all. |
|
1878
|
I would personally knock it down, we have enough immigrants coming in and killing people |
|
john h
|
It is possible but at a tremendous cost cost and always the the possibility of a ship hitting the supports. you would be better off with another tunnel |
|
hayley m
 |
it would be one hell of a walk |
|
Racheal C
 |
I HOPE NOT too!! too close for comfort! |
|
rocky_redman86
|
yes but it would probleys take about 10 years lol |
|
Cazpa
|
It would be possible but it would restrict a lot of the big freighters and cargo ship using it so they opted for the tunnel instead |
|
younosygit
|
Sure, it's possible to build a bridge - it was one of the options they looked at before building the tunnel. One thing to bear in mind is that "bridge" doesn't necessarily mean a single span suspension bridge crossing the whole distance between France and England - many of the world's longest bridges are built in multiple spans between artificial islands, which was the plan for the channel bridge.
For example, the Oresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden comprises a 7845 metre long cable-stayed bridge (with a longest span of 490 metres) which runs from the Swedish shore to an artificial island which is 4km long and a few hundred metres wide, where the road and railway tracks switch to a 4050 metre long tunnel (they couldn't build another bridge because it's too close to Copenhagen Airport). |
|
Sensei
|
Hopefully NOT. |
|
rebeccalmarsh67
|
I doubt it, isn't that why they built the channel tunnel? Under rather than over. |
|
Chris S
 |
possible but foolish |
|
Fellside13
|
It would be possible
But I can't see it being economical or practical bearing in mind we have a tunnel |
|
Ian M
 |
In theory yes, but in practice no, The cost would be far to high.
The English channel is up to 600 feet deep between Dover and Calais. The seabed is to soft to support a bridge and the bridge would have to be high enough for ships up to half a millions tons to pass.
That's why the decision was taken to have a tunnel instead.
Ian M |
|
Adacadus
|
Possible - yes
Practical - no
The English channel is the busiest shipping lane in the world.
It would have to be high (to go over the ships), probably single span (it's pretty damn deep) and deal with high winds.
You'd never want to drive a car over it, which is just as well. Remember that the English and French drive on opposite sides of the road. |
|
Annie May
|
twud be a biiiig bridge, but hey they build that undergroud tunnel, so why not? |
|
Bimbo Bob
|
that was probably metaphorically i dont no, but in this day and age there isnt a lot that won't be possible, because of soo much advanced technology, but i imagine they won't, becuase then it would make room for more taxes. |
|
Sophie
 |
I doubt it. It's quite a long way. |
|
random.crazy.weird
|
NOPE...IT WILL BRAKE AND COLLAPSE DONT BE SILLY |
|
JoHn D
|
They already have. Look it up! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Travel
Forum 
United Kingdom 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
