Wear crossing

Boris Bear said:
This never happened
Click to expand...
You denying that SCC ever proposed a basic beam bridge as an alternative? Seems you have always been poorly informed, but have never let that hinder you bawling people out on here.

Look at this quote (with my highlighting) from the Echo, 10th September 2008

Supporters of the landmark design for the new Wear bridge have slammed claims that council tax payers would have to fork out £30million directly out of their pockets. The team behind the "iconic" river crossing – which would stand 688ft tall and be visible for miles around – say it would be a signpost for the city and a signal to the world that Sunderland is open for business.

But council bosses say the structure, designed by architect Stephen Spence, would cost 133 million, including the link roads – nearly 30 million more than their basic 104 million beam-bridge option.
Click to expand...

You can read the full article on the Echo website here:

Designer bridge 'need not cost taxpayers extra'
 


Draig said:
You denying that SCC ever proposed a basic beam bridge as an alternative? Seems you have always been poorly informed, but have never let that hinder you bawling people out on here.

Look at this quote (with my highlighting) from the Echo, 10th September 2008



You can read the full article on the Echo website here:

Designer bridge 'need not cost taxpayers extra'
Click to expand...

Send me the planning application for that bridge or pipe down.
 
Draig said:
You denying that SCC ever proposed a basic beam bridge as an alternative? Seems you have always been poorly informed, but have never let that hinder you bawling people out on here.

Look at this quote (with my highlighting) from the Echo, 10th September 2008



You can read the full article on the Echo website here:

Designer bridge 'need not cost taxpayers extra'
Click to expand...

You're just finding what you want to find. Nothing in there backs up your claim. All it says is that the iconic one will cost such & such more than a basic one. I havent seen anything to suggest the basic option was ever proposed or on the table. There may have been a cabinet vote on it at somepoint to decide which they were going with, but there was never any plans drawn up.
 
Boris Bear said:
Send me the planning application for that bridge or pipe down.
Click to expand...
You really are a first class pillock aren't you! First you accuse me of making up the story about the beam bridge, then when I show you the council themselves talking about this plan and it being reported in the Echo you say you won't believe it unless I show you the planning application! The beam bridge wasn't chosen because the public consultation decided that the landmark bridge was what they wanted - hence the only planning application, made two years after this article, was for that bridge.

But even so, I don't really give a flying kipper about what bridge was eventually built, my beef was that the route chosen for the strategic corridor from the A19 to Sunderland Docks could have been better for the whole of Sunderland, opening up better public transport links as well as serving the industrial areas.
 
Draig said:
You really are a first class pillock aren't you! First you accuse me of making up the story about the beam bridge, then when I show you the council themselves talking about this plan and it being reported in the Echo you say you won't believe it unless I show you the planning application! The beam bridge wasn't chosen because the public consultation decided that the landmark bridge was what they wanted - hence the only planning application, made two years after this article, was for that bridge.

But even so, I don't really give a flying kipper about what bridge was eventually built, my beef was that the route chosen for the strategic corridor from the A19 to Sunderland Docks could have been better for the whole of Sunderland, opening up better public transport links as well as serving the industrial areas.
Click to expand...

Reported for name calling
 
42 said:
You're just finding what you want to find. Nothing in there backs up your claim. All it says is that the iconic one will cost such & such more than a basic one. I havent seen anything to suggest the basic option was ever proposed or on the table. There may have been a cabinet vote on it at somepoint to decide which they were going with, but there was never any plans drawn up.
Click to expand...
What I have shown you is SCC talking about this alternative bridge plan. It existed because SCC asked for it to be drawn up and costed. How detailed the planning was I neither know or care - the only reason I even brought it up in the first place was because Citizen Bear said all he wanted was a bridge that linked both sides of the river and I said he'd have been happy with the basic beam design, which he then said didn't exist.
 
Draig said:
What I have shown you is SCC talking about this alternative bridge plan. It existed because SCC asked for it to be drawn up and costed. How detailed the planning was I neither know or care - the only reason I even brought it up in the first place was because Citizen Bear said all he wanted was a bridge that linked both sides of the river and I said he'd have been happy with the basic beam design, which he then said didn't exist.
Click to expand...
There was no planning. More unsubstantiated claims from the mealy-mouthed
 
Draig said:
What I have shown you is SCC talking about this alternative bridge plan. It existed because SCC asked for it to be drawn up and costed. How detailed the planning was I neither know or care - the only reason I even brought it up in the first place was because Citizen Bear said all he wanted was a bridge that linked both sides of the river and I said he'd have been happy with the basic beam design, which he then said didn't exist.
Click to expand...

There was an estimated cost based on how much extra work needed to be done to build the better bridge. There was nothing drawn up other than that. You havent shown anything to suggest otherwise.

It was as about as proposed as the underwater monorail.
 
42 said:
There was an estimated cost based on how much extra work needed to be done to build the better bridge. There was nothing drawn up other than that. You havent shown anything to suggest otherwise.

It was as about as proposed as the underwater monorail.
Click to expand...
Fancy getting himself worked up about a topper bridge :lol:
 
42 said:
There was an estimated cost based on how much extra work needed to be done to build the better bridge. There was nothing drawn up other than that. You havent shown anything to suggest otherwise.

It was as about as proposed as the underwater monorail.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Plans have been drawn up for the underwater monorail, we’re just waiting for @Teed to get back to us with his quote.
 

Back
Top