A bridge too far

People are bound to call the new bridge “The Double Crossing” (Letters, 8 March).

Am I the first to imagine that there is one very prominent Scottish chap already dreaming of a banner with the name “Independence Day Crossing” slung on all the suspension cables?

John Addison

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Midlothian Innovation Centre

Roslin, Midlothian

The debate over the new crossing of the Forth should indicate the judgment that seems to have gone into the decision to construct another of the same.

At the moment, in the shape of the Forth Road Bridge, we have a bridge which is closed to high-sided vehicles on a regular basis. It has been recently closed to all traffic. As a result of the corrosive effects of the salty air, it may have structural problems and may not last.

Now, we have a proposal to build another bridge and I still remember the day that the first one was opened, yet the Forth Bridge still soldiers on with a new coat of paint, despite being more than 100 years old and not a suspension bridge.

As I have written before, a tunnel would avoid all the problems the weather could throw at it. Scottish miners managed to dig under the Forth in the late Middle Ages. 

Moreover, we have the technology to drill a Channel Tunnel using Scottish-made machinery, so why is another bridge even being considered? 

Bearing in mind our recent experiences in Scotland with the Scottish Parliament and the Edinburgh Tram Scheme, the (doubtless) enormous and burgeoning costs that will be associated with the building of a new bridge, plus the inevitable delays, the expense of using foreign sources of steel instead of British, or even Scottish suppliers, may I suggest that “Scotland’s Folly” would be an apt name for the new crossing?

Andrew HN Gray

Craiglea Drive

Edinburgh