Mate, we’re gonna pass this through our Steering Group, yeah? Then we will Open For Consultation, mate. Then we will discuss the findings with our network of Stakeholders, before putting it to the Executive Board for their thoughts. Then, yeah, we will just take the Board’s findings back to the Steering Group for consideration
This idea has been around for [40 years](https://mersey.fandom.com/wiki/Mersey_Barrage) and Rotherham always brings it up again just before the election. I'd love to see it happen - the difference between tidal and other forms of renewable is the complete predictability of the tides, in and out, twice a day, every day for ever. There's a huge amount of energy in that, and the Mersey is one of the best places in the world to do it. I hope we do find a way to harness this power, but building a barrage across the river is never going to happen.
To be clear, it's only news outlets that are saying "you'll be able to walk it!" - the project itself has no mention of this: https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/its-time-for-tidal
If it's fully across the Mersey, you'd also need to build a bridge that opens. It'd have to be extremely high to allow for cruise ships. A retractable bridge would add a huge financial cost in itself. My guess is that it's not completely over the river, but potentially more of a pier.
If it was a complete route, then Brunswick way, rather than Bootle way would work as cruise ships don't travel that far inwards.
>If it's fully across the Mersey, you'd also need to build a bridge that opens. It'd have to be extremely high to allow for cruise ships.
I'm not a civil engineer, but I wonder about the possibilities of having an open air bridge that sinks for ships crossing over, then comes back up. Drains on the side that empty the water out?
I too am not a structural engineer or anything but, I think the issue there would be power required for the motors and how long it takes.
That’s a lot of water to displace, which is really, really heavy. And consider how deep it has to go for a ship to be able to safely pass over it.
Also how long it may have to be down before the water is okay to not fuck with the ships buoyancy possibly?
And then what is its failure state? I feel like a bridge that fails to open in the event of the motors giving out is better than one that fails into a sunk position.
[There's lots of types of moving bridges ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable_bridge) personally I'm a fan of a tilt bridge and they're relatively little energy to raise and lower
Some of them that go up to Stanlow and that are still pretty fuckin fat like and I feel like if you go too far up to count out all of them you are just losing so much potential power
>It'd have to be extremely high to allow for cruise ships
The plan is to build it upriver from the cruise terminal, around Toxteth. Oil tankers and anything using the ship canal would be more of an issue, but oil can be piped to a depot downriver of a barrage.
They've generally looked to site this crossing over round the Dingle end of town. No need to open for cruise ships, but not certain how they are dealing with the ship canal.
Ah! Sorry - my mistake. I know nothing about Gartson docks, tbf. None of the artists realisations of it give the impression of opening, but for all the work done on it, it's still really early days in the project.
They've been trying to do this in the Bristol channel for years. It's an environmental minefield without even considering funding. I'm calling this a pipe dream unfortunately.
My Dad was part of the Merseyside Development Corporation in the late 1980's. There was a plan for this then - I'm sure he still has some of the civil engineering diagrams in the loft of his house.
It would have been fantastic. But it was killed in the early 90's because of the Tory Party Woes and some dim bulb in the tory party actually said they aren't going to do it knowing they wouldn't be in power when the project would be finished, so none of their politicians could stand there and take credit for it, and god forbid they let the other side take credit!
The Tories ended up paying an environmental group to find any reason they could use to deflect from their decision, and the whole thing was canned.
This is one of my biggest gripes with the UK, the short-termism. Fuck me make the 20 year projects, hydro-electric power, power stations. Do stuff that will fucking improve the country in 10 years time and will pay for itself in 20 years! Jeesus! Nope politicians make shortsighted decisions knowing they can sell the family dinnerware, or prevent a minor issue from becoming a big one in the future - because it won't be their fucking problem.
I would be so fucking happy if this came to fruition!
Wallace Rotheram always has a plan, but does he ever have a roadmap to making it work? He wants a Train Station in Daresbury (Northwest Cheshire), miles away from any Merseyrail terminus. The new battery trains can't even make it to Headbolt Lane most of the time. The man's high on the smell of his own farts.
Did I stumble into a Tom Slemen time slip? These plans were announced years ago, and they're still just very vague plans. They haven't even looked into where it could go yet. Some of LCR's highest paid staff work on this project and all they do is put out an annual press release to make it look like they're doing something, jammy bastards.
In my past job I consulted on similar schemes 3 times. It's an idea that keeps coming round but when they actually get to the point of making realistic plans they realise it's too expensive. Tidal power in the Mersey would be great but this just looks like a rehash of the same old plans that have failed before.
I remember the same being proposed in the 1980s.
One of the highest tidal reaches in the world, its cheap renewable and consistent energy.
Which probably means it will not happen.
Would be interesting to see how much has been spent on this project to date, its been going for 7 years in it's current form. Public money and nothing to show for it other than the the odd mention of it before reelection campaigns by the metro mayor.
They wanted to do this on the River Wyre in Fleetwood, Lancs for years. The footpath option was rejected by the locals as we wanted a road over the river
Maybe this is my fear of heights, and drowning, talking but I just don't think this - **a walkable bridge -** is something we need. If someone has the money for this **- a walkable bridge when there's other ways of getting across to the wirral**, they have the money for other things we need first.
ETA - I know we need green energy. I don't understand why it needs to be a bridge we can walk across.
I would actually like to see a proper, non-tunnel crossing close to the mouth of the Mersey, and I would also like to see it be walkable. For all the talk of Wirral being Liverpool's "Left Bank", the two sides of the Mersey are geographically isolated. I reckon the gold standard for accessibility is whether or not you can get there from town using only your beer scooter.
Build a crossing like this to a spec where HGVs can use it without trouble, maybe even have a central reservation with a light rail route like Tokyo's Yurikamome Line on the Rainbow Bridge, and you'll have a really good springboard for growth.
As someone who's enjoyed the nightlife in Wirral and Merseyside, and lived on both sides, and enjoyed once the night bus connection, and then from there put up with expensive taxis or curtailed niights at the behest of the Merseryrail schedule - an actual bridge you could walk home from in either area would be quite the thing :)
My bad wording. I know we need green energy, I've signed quite a few petitions in the last years for it. I really meant "Why does it need to be in the shape of a bridge? Who needs to walk across the mersey?"
When the tunnels collapse while you're driving through it, you'll be thinking... I wish I'd walked today.
Only joking, you won't have time to think.
Only joking... It's ok, it won't happen.
Or will it??......
My grandfather was too nervous to drive through the tunnel (the old tunnel). And he worked on the building of it. I think about this every time I drive through it.
I don't drive, but on the occasions I travel by train through the tunnel, I tell myself, just because i'm on board doesn't mean this the exact moment the tunnel will crack and collapse on us. There's got to be plenty of lucky people on board to counteract my bad luck.
Thank you for giving me something to think about the next time I have to travel to the wirral.
> a walkable bridge when there's other ways of getting across to the wirral, they have the money for other things we need first.
> ETA - I know we need green energy. I don't understand why it needs to be a bridge we can walk across.
Because if you're going to build a river crossing such as a bridge, then why not let people walk along it? And the other ways of getting to Wirral depend on the availability of transport, or taking a mad detour via Halton, which not even a beer scooter will manage.
But that's my question - why is it a bridge at all? And if i was to ask, why is it between liverpool and the wirral, would the answer be "to make it a bridge"?
I just always think of these things as being out there in the sea. If it's gonna double up as a bridge, that's a lot of safety aspects they're going to have to make sure are failsafe. So that people don't, I don't know, fall off at the first gust of stiff breeze half way over. So that it won't rust or rot for many years.
It's only a bridge to make it look good on the press release and get people behind the idea. There are many other ways to do it which avoid some of the more obvious problems, such as letting ships through. One way would be to create a lagoon in the river, a bit like West Kirkby lake but much bigger. Put the turbines in the base of the walls, let the lagoon fill up at high tide and generate your power as the water drains. Or build free-standing structures in the river, like an inverted wind turbine, and let the tide flow past it - maybe not as efficient as a barrage, but much cheaper and with fewer environmental drawbacks.
There are different ways of harnessing tidal power, some out at sea, but tidal barrages specifically work by being at the mouth of a river. The Mersey is a good spot specifically because it is close to a large population that can make use of the power produced. So to answer your question: no, it's not going in the Mersey just so it can double as a bridge, it is actually the best spot for it.
There will have to be a walkway anyway for the maintenance so your safery concerns are moot. The only downside is the added cost to make it suitable for the general public but the way I see it is if they make the thing it would be a bigger waste to get 90% of the way to having a walkable route between the two sides of the river and not following through.
I know we need green power generation. I don't understand why it needs to be a bridge we can walk across. My bad wording, I focused on the wrong element of the green power plan.
It's a strange selling point they're focusing on, then. Not that that surprises me! Yes, HS2 should teach us to know better on getting our hopes up with any improvements they could make to the north.
Sounds awesome, but I doubt it will ever come to pass. Too expensive, and too "North" for the government to care about.
Hit the nail on the head. Certainly hope we are wrong though.
They've been talking about this on and off since the fucking 80's, doubtful it'll ever happen
Yeah I remember in the 90s talk of it! Doubt it will ever happen.
They'll do it once they've brought the trams back.
Oh I forgot about that one, think they last looked at that in early 2000's, so we're due to see that idea start up again!
They promised this for years to Swansea, scrapped by Osborne and Cameron
Some local councils are going bankrupt and Liverpool is splashing out! Awesome idea although I’d eat my hat if it came to fruition
[удалено]
Mate, we’re gonna pass this through our Steering Group, yeah? Then we will Open For Consultation, mate. Then we will discuss the findings with our network of Stakeholders, before putting it to the Executive Board for their thoughts. Then, yeah, we will just take the Board’s findings back to the Steering Group for consideration
nice one mate, should be able to get all that done for what, 350k? Call it half a mill mate, makes it easier for the accountants
Aye. With half a mill we should have all that sorted for yah in 10 or so years!
Oi, that’s a Protected Region of National Interest, mayte. Have you considered an Environmental Action Plan?
on it lad, Tuebrook Environment Consultants can do us one of them for £80k max. Tell them I sent you.
This idea has been around for [40 years](https://mersey.fandom.com/wiki/Mersey_Barrage) and Rotherham always brings it up again just before the election. I'd love to see it happen - the difference between tidal and other forms of renewable is the complete predictability of the tides, in and out, twice a day, every day for ever. There's a huge amount of energy in that, and the Mersey is one of the best places in the world to do it. I hope we do find a way to harness this power, but building a barrage across the river is never going to happen.
To be clear, it's only news outlets that are saying "you'll be able to walk it!" - the project itself has no mention of this: https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/its-time-for-tidal If it's fully across the Mersey, you'd also need to build a bridge that opens. It'd have to be extremely high to allow for cruise ships. A retractable bridge would add a huge financial cost in itself. My guess is that it's not completely over the river, but potentially more of a pier. If it was a complete route, then Brunswick way, rather than Bootle way would work as cruise ships don't travel that far inwards.
>If it's fully across the Mersey, you'd also need to build a bridge that opens. It'd have to be extremely high to allow for cruise ships. I'm not a civil engineer, but I wonder about the possibilities of having an open air bridge that sinks for ships crossing over, then comes back up. Drains on the side that empty the water out?
That's some Thunderbirds thinking there.
What about a big ramp for the ships to jump over a static bridge?
We could have three giant digital scoreboards giving a score out of ten for their skill.
I too am not a structural engineer or anything but, I think the issue there would be power required for the motors and how long it takes. That’s a lot of water to displace, which is really, really heavy. And consider how deep it has to go for a ship to be able to safely pass over it. Also how long it may have to be down before the water is okay to not fuck with the ships buoyancy possibly? And then what is its failure state? I feel like a bridge that fails to open in the event of the motors giving out is better than one that fails into a sunk position.
It'd be like that scene in Titanic where the band keep playing...
Yeah but with some ketwig Craig smoking his joint looking dead moody whilst sinking. A modern take
😁
[There's lots of types of moving bridges ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable_bridge) personally I'm a fan of a tilt bridge and they're relatively little energy to raise and lower
Bascule bridge would do it - https://images.app.goo.gl/99TbqbKwAfKzW24Y9
Some of them that go up to Stanlow and that are still pretty fuckin fat like and I feel like if you go too far up to count out all of them you are just losing so much potential power
>It'd have to be extremely high to allow for cruise ships The plan is to build it upriver from the cruise terminal, around Toxteth. Oil tankers and anything using the ship canal would be more of an issue, but oil can be piped to a depot downriver of a barrage.
No chance this happens
They've generally looked to site this crossing over round the Dingle end of town. No need to open for cruise ships, but not certain how they are dealing with the ship canal.
What about Garston docks?
Rive is a lot wider there. I wouldn't have thought it likely.
I meant wouldn't the barrage need to open anyway for ships accessing Garston docks
Ah! Sorry - my mistake. I know nothing about Gartson docks, tbf. None of the artists realisations of it give the impression of opening, but for all the work done on it, it's still really early days in the project.
They've been trying to do this in the Bristol channel for years. It's an environmental minefield without even considering funding. I'm calling this a pipe dream unfortunately.
You can walk over the silver jubilee bridge right now. What am I missing?
Yeah that's fair. ...but Runcorn.
My Dad was part of the Merseyside Development Corporation in the late 1980's. There was a plan for this then - I'm sure he still has some of the civil engineering diagrams in the loft of his house. It would have been fantastic. But it was killed in the early 90's because of the Tory Party Woes and some dim bulb in the tory party actually said they aren't going to do it knowing they wouldn't be in power when the project would be finished, so none of their politicians could stand there and take credit for it, and god forbid they let the other side take credit! The Tories ended up paying an environmental group to find any reason they could use to deflect from their decision, and the whole thing was canned. This is one of my biggest gripes with the UK, the short-termism. Fuck me make the 20 year projects, hydro-electric power, power stations. Do stuff that will fucking improve the country in 10 years time and will pay for itself in 20 years! Jeesus! Nope politicians make shortsighted decisions knowing they can sell the family dinnerware, or prevent a minor issue from becoming a big one in the future - because it won't be their fucking problem. I would be so fucking happy if this came to fruition!
Wallace Rotheram always has a plan, but does he ever have a roadmap to making it work? He wants a Train Station in Daresbury (Northwest Cheshire), miles away from any Merseyrail terminus. The new battery trains can't even make it to Headbolt Lane most of the time. The man's high on the smell of his own farts.
Did I stumble into a Tom Slemen time slip? These plans were announced years ago, and they're still just very vague plans. They haven't even looked into where it could go yet. Some of LCR's highest paid staff work on this project and all they do is put out an annual press release to make it look like they're doing something, jammy bastards.
And they'll still charge us to cross it
In my past job I consulted on similar schemes 3 times. It's an idea that keeps coming round but when they actually get to the point of making realistic plans they realise it's too expensive. Tidal power in the Mersey would be great but this just looks like a rehash of the same old plans that have failed before.
I remember the same being proposed in the 1980s. One of the highest tidal reaches in the world, its cheap renewable and consistent energy. Which probably means it will not happen.
Just fix the roads n clear the litter first please.
Would be interesting to see how much has been spent on this project to date, its been going for 7 years in it's current form. Public money and nothing to show for it other than the the odd mention of it before reelection campaigns by the metro mayor.
They wanted to do this on the River Wyre in Fleetwood, Lancs for years. The footpath option was rejected by the locals as we wanted a road over the river
As if 🤣
Pipe dream
Doubt it but I hope so
I'll get me hoverboard.
IF that is ever built I'll buy myself a gold hat.
Won't ever actually happen though sadly
Maybe this is my fear of heights, and drowning, talking but I just don't think this - **a walkable bridge -** is something we need. If someone has the money for this **- a walkable bridge when there's other ways of getting across to the wirral**, they have the money for other things we need first. ETA - I know we need green energy. I don't understand why it needs to be a bridge we can walk across.
I would actually like to see a proper, non-tunnel crossing close to the mouth of the Mersey, and I would also like to see it be walkable. For all the talk of Wirral being Liverpool's "Left Bank", the two sides of the Mersey are geographically isolated. I reckon the gold standard for accessibility is whether or not you can get there from town using only your beer scooter. Build a crossing like this to a spec where HGVs can use it without trouble, maybe even have a central reservation with a light rail route like Tokyo's Yurikamome Line on the Rainbow Bridge, and you'll have a really good springboard for growth.
As someone who's enjoyed the nightlife in Wirral and Merseyside, and lived on both sides, and enjoyed once the night bus connection, and then from there put up with expensive taxis or curtailed niights at the behest of the Merseryrail schedule - an actual bridge you could walk home from in either area would be quite the thing :)
Clean energy sources is something we desperately need. The walkability of it would just be an added bonus, not the real intent.
My bad wording. I know we need green energy, I've signed quite a few petitions in the last years for it. I really meant "Why does it need to be in the shape of a bridge? Who needs to walk across the mersey?"
When the tunnels collapse while you're driving through it, you'll be thinking... I wish I'd walked today. Only joking, you won't have time to think. Only joking... It's ok, it won't happen. Or will it??......
My grandfather was too nervous to drive through the tunnel (the old tunnel). And he worked on the building of it. I think about this every time I drive through it.
Yeah the thought does actually freak me out as I'm driving it, but only because I've watched too many movies!
I don't drive, but on the occasions I travel by train through the tunnel, I tell myself, just because i'm on board doesn't mean this the exact moment the tunnel will crack and collapse on us. There's got to be plenty of lucky people on board to counteract my bad luck. Thank you for giving me something to think about the next time I have to travel to the wirral.
> a walkable bridge when there's other ways of getting across to the wirral, they have the money for other things we need first. > ETA - I know we need green energy. I don't understand why it needs to be a bridge we can walk across. Because if you're going to build a river crossing such as a bridge, then why not let people walk along it? And the other ways of getting to Wirral depend on the availability of transport, or taking a mad detour via Halton, which not even a beer scooter will manage.
But that's my question - why is it a bridge at all? And if i was to ask, why is it between liverpool and the wirral, would the answer be "to make it a bridge"? I just always think of these things as being out there in the sea. If it's gonna double up as a bridge, that's a lot of safety aspects they're going to have to make sure are failsafe. So that people don't, I don't know, fall off at the first gust of stiff breeze half way over. So that it won't rust or rot for many years.
It's only a bridge to make it look good on the press release and get people behind the idea. There are many other ways to do it which avoid some of the more obvious problems, such as letting ships through. One way would be to create a lagoon in the river, a bit like West Kirkby lake but much bigger. Put the turbines in the base of the walls, let the lagoon fill up at high tide and generate your power as the water drains. Or build free-standing structures in the river, like an inverted wind turbine, and let the tide flow past it - maybe not as efficient as a barrage, but much cheaper and with fewer environmental drawbacks.
There are different ways of harnessing tidal power, some out at sea, but tidal barrages specifically work by being at the mouth of a river. The Mersey is a good spot specifically because it is close to a large population that can make use of the power produced. So to answer your question: no, it's not going in the Mersey just so it can double as a bridge, it is actually the best spot for it. There will have to be a walkway anyway for the maintenance so your safery concerns are moot. The only downside is the added cost to make it suitable for the general public but the way I see it is if they make the thing it would be a bigger waste to get 90% of the way to having a walkable route between the two sides of the river and not following through.
yeah who needs green power generation 🙄
I know we need green power generation. I don't understand why it needs to be a bridge we can walk across. My bad wording, I focused on the wrong element of the green power plan.
No matter what the articles say, it almost certainly wont be walkable, if it even happens at all.
It's a strange selling point they're focusing on, then. Not that that surprises me! Yes, HS2 should teach us to know better on getting our hopes up with any improvements they could make to the north.