• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Keel Crossing [opened 18.10.25] - compendium thread


Kevsgreat said:
The idea of having the lower bridge would be to link the ground level around both sides of the river as well as the higher level going straight over. A bit like the Tyne and Millennium bridges if you want to think of it like that. The Millennium bridge makes the level down by the river accessible from both sides. Without having to go up to the Tyne bridge and crossing that way.

Part of the plan is to bring the area low down around the river into use, the examples they used were for stuff like kayaking on the river, and the lower bridge would make each side accessible from the other.

The original artwork for it had a third bridge crossing the river but before the website and all that was launched they revised it to two. It looked pretty cool with the third at a level between the two that were shown, cutting across diagonally.

I agree a bridge at St Peter's would also be useful but that would have some span on it. In terms of funding it it wouldn't be aiming to do anything like bringing any land into use either so they'd have trouble there.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with the concept of the low level bridge, although it would essentially curtail vessels moving up the river, the section of the river (where the low level bridge is planned) is mostly densely wooded landscapes. Essentially what it is now. By contrast the st.Peter’s to east end location has houses and businesses on both sides and already has the need for it.
The logical thing to do would be provide better access from the riverside to the high level footbridge and have the low level one in the location for greatest benefits ie next to the university
 
Bald King said:
Half bridge ***** haha
Click to expand...
Well, I know they don't like to admit it but Gateshead is a large town / borough of its own so half of each of "their" bridges is shared with a town from old county Durham! Its a large reason why the Tyne Bridge is dropping to bits. Needs funding from both authorities IIRC.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
Well, I know they don't like to admit it but Gateshead is a large town / borough of its own so half of each of "their" bridges is shared with a town from old county Durham! Its a large reason why the Tyne Bridge is dropping to bits. Needs funding from both authorities IIRC.
Click to expand...
Realistically, they are a twin town, I call them newcastle-gateshead. They have double the catchment and resource, we do quite well thank you very much. Apologies to gateshead mackems
 
Football Dinosaur said:
Well, I know they don't like to admit it but Gateshead is a large town / borough of its own so half of each of "their" bridges is shared with a town from old county Durham! Its a large reason why the Tyne Bridge is dropping to bits. Needs funding from both authorities IIRC.
Click to expand...
Different bridges on the Tyne are owned by different authorities. For example the Swing Bridge is owned by Port of Tyne, the Millenium Bridge is owned by Gateshead council, and the High Level by Network Rail. As you say the Tyne Bridge is jointly owned by Newcastle and Gateshead councils.
 
INigle said:
I would love to see Gateshead incorporated back into a Greater Durham Mayoral Authority area
Click to expand...
All neutrals lean to Newcastle in that South tyneside area as they city centre is better. That is changing with out developments as a city. The Sage had nowt to do with newcastle but it is only a footbridge away.
CEF said:
Different bridges on the Tyne are owned by different authorities. For example the Swing Bridge is owned by Port of Tyne, the Millenium Bridge is owned by Gateshead council, and the High Level by Network Rail. As you say the Tyne Bridge is jointly owned by Newcastle and Gateshead councils.
Click to expand...
Didn't know that- multiple income and investment streams. Sunderland have to fund both sides of the river.
 
Bald King said:
All neutrals lean to Newcastle in that South tyneside area as they city centre is better. That is changing with out developments as a city. The Sage had nowt to do with newcastle but it is only a footbridge away.

Didn't know that- multiple income and investment streams. Sunderland have to fund both sides of the river.
Click to expand...

It's going to take a long time to change these entrenched prejudices about Sunderland.

I really cannot see us pulling the Tyneside areas into our orbit yet even if progress has been made.

A reality check is to remember that Sunderland doesn't even have dominance over its own periphery in areas like Washington.
 
Pete the Pirate said:
It's going to take a long time to change these entrenched prejudices about Sunderland.

I really cannot see us pulling the Tyneside areas into our orbit yet even if progress has been made.

A reality check is to remember that Sunderland doesn't even have dominance over its own periphery in areas like Washington.
Click to expand...

The Fulwell Separatists Front still insist that Fulwell is separate from Sunderland, despite being incorporated into the town over 100 years ago.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
They'll try to claim Wahington's bridges and Durham too. Ignoring the fact Durham is a city in a different county and Washington is part of City of Sunderland ;) Magpies is a good name for them they're obsessed with anything shiny and will thieve anything not nailed down.
Click to expand...
Wadn't call washy shiny like
 
Bald King said:
Realistically, they are a twin town, I call them newcastle-gateshead. They have double the catchment and resource, we do quite well thank you very much. Apologies to gateshead mackems
Click to expand...
Different places no matter what those north of river may want. Gateshead, a town in its own right was in a separate county until 70s and should be again imo
 
Pete the Pirate said:
It's going to take a long time to change these entrenched prejudices about Sunderland.

I really cannot see us pulling the Tyneside areas into our orbit yet even if progress has been made.

A reality check is to remember that Sunderland doesn't even have dominance over its own periphery in areas like Washington.
Click to expand...
Keep Sunderland people spending the Sunderland pound in Sunderland and we'll have a great and vibrant city centre. Big problem is the people going to spend their money through Tyneside.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
Different places no matter what those north of river may want. Gateshead, a town in its own right was in a separate county until 70s and should be again imo
Click to expand...

This is true, if they were one place but divided by a river they may be a sundered-land. That one is already taken! Of course it’s Newcastle Upon Tyne correctly describing it sitting upon one bank of the river
 
Harbour Boy said:
Keep Sunderland people spending the Sunderland pound in Sunderland and we'll have a great and vibrant city centre. Big problem is the people going to spend their money through Tyneside.
Click to expand...
One thing coming out of the cost of living crisis is that I think more people are staying local for nights out. As taxis are harder to get and can be expensive the idea of a night out in Newcastle and taxi ride home is less appealing if you live any distance. It could be the leisure sector in Sunderland is picking up, was out at the Fire Station venue not so long back, something on at the Empire and band on the Peacock same night and it was proper busy. Not saying people wont go through Newcastle but lads I know dont even suggest it now. I also think for a number of years the Metro Centre took money out of Sunderland but hardly know anybody who ventures there now, compared to when it first opened. Plus who wants to sit forever on the A1 to get there. Sunderland distancing itself from Tyne & Wear was the best thing for the city. The likes of TWDC throwing scraps our way. I doubt the Riverside development would be happening if we hadnt separated. Would be good if money flowed into the place rather than out but we are getting there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top