Forth causeway

Further to correspondence from TA Davidson (24 March) and BA Farish (27 March) it may not be too late in these days of austerity to recall the many advantages over either, or both, a bridge or a tunnel that would be possessed by a Forth Causeway, bifurcated to enable a continuous flow of road, river and possibly rail traffic.

Using entirely local architects, engineers, resources and labour, a causeway will be much cheaper, quicker and require far less maintenance.

By locating it upstream of the naval base at Rosyth (the profile of the Forth is not suitable at the present crossing point) a causeway requires less expensive land and can easily be linked to the Stirling motorway.

The causeway will be less susceptible to closure or danger due to earthquake, flooding, high winds, fire, terrorist threat, corrosion, or a serious accident.

Correctly designed, a causeway will help prevent hinterland flooding in the event of rising sea levels or storm surge.

Also, a causeway has no limitations as to the size or weight of its vehicles, or the dangerous nature of its cargo. And it can be expanded to take greater traffic flows.

A causeway could be the basis for a modern port and industrial facilities, and even leisure pursuits along its banks.

The case for the causeway is clearly superior. Why, then, another bridge?

TGP FLINN

Garvald

East Lothian