Talk:Oresund Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

actually its called Øresundsbron in both Swedish and Danish. Check at [1]

The letter "Ø" is not used in the Swedish alphabet, and "bron" is impossible in Danish.

Yes it's true but the name for the bridge is still Øresundsbron. They decided to use the same name in Swedish and Danish. If you look at the homepage you'll see that they use the name Øresundsbron in both the Swedish and the Danish version.

ok then

So you mean, instead of calling it "Øresundsbroen" and "Öresundsbron", they went with the compromise "Øresundsbron" as the official name (the other possible combo being "Öresundsbroen")?? How unsettling... --Gabbe

yes --User:Modster
I heard that "Øresund" was used in all official international Public Relations material, because the "Ø" was supposedly more exotic than the "Ö", which looked too German. (Look up Ø and Ö for more info about the letters.)

Contents

[edit] Page edit issue

For reasons unknown to me, all of the section "edit" links are appearing bunched together in the Rail Transport section. Cellmaker (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bike path?

DOes anyone know if it's possible to cross the bridge on bike or foot?

Alas, neither is possible, but there's room for bicycles (ticket needed) on the Øresund trains which leave every 20 minutes or so. I guess this topic belongs on Wikitravel or a similar site. - Kaare 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oresund Region

How do they espect to make Oresund inter-region when u need to pay 32€ to cross the bridge?! Luka Jačov 23:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

32€ is the Euro price per ride for one or a few crossings. If you travel more often you could buy a 10-ride ticket costing 211€. Or if you travel more often you could get a transponder, then each journey costs 17€. A train ticket costs less, 9€, or a month ticket 170€.BIL 19:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose this is still to expensive for people to cross it everday to go to work across the bridge. So creating new organic region is unrealistic. Dont u thnk? Luka Jačov 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
People who work usually travel by train. But there are other obstacles: Different languages, tax problems when living in one country and working in another, and more problems. It will take time but more and more people commute over the bridge.

But arent linguistic differences minimal? Luka Jačov 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, I know a number of people who works in Denmark but lives in Sweden. It is not at all uncommon. It will probably be even more common in the future though. Gieron (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Approximately 20.000 people commute across the bridge every day to work in Copenhagen. Half of them are danes living in Scania on the swedish side. regards --Rasmus81 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge & Connection

intro says: Oresund Bridge (joint Danish/Swedish hybrid name: Øresundsbron) (official name is the Øresundsförbindelsen, the Oresund Connection)

sounds wrong. Wouldnt connection refer to the whole thing and the bridge is only part of it? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, the article should state that the Øresund Bridge is a part of the Øresund Connection / Link. The connection also includes Peberholm and the tunnel. Also, it would help if someone could insert a reference that states that the official name of the link / connection really is Øresundsförbindelsen. The term was used before and while the bridge was being built, but does anyone use it today? I can't find it on the official web site. RustyCale 12:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems to me that only the bridge has an official name as such (which is "Øresundsbron"). Looking a bit around on their web site, the history page talks of the "Øresund Link"; this PDF file mentions the "Øresund Fixed Link" in the table of contents.
The Danish version of the official website uses "Øresundsforbindelsen" exclusively, the Swedish one mostly "Öresundsförbindelsen". Sund og Bælt, which is Danish, also uses the purely Danish name; however, "Øresundsförbindelsen" appears in the Swedish history page (but not in the Danish one), so the best answer probably is that it depends on the language. I would support moving the article to Øresund Fixed Link (a similar thing was done with the Great Belt Bridge some time ago); it seems a bit silly to me to focus solely on the bridge when the tunnel is equally important (even though "Øresundsbron" is official and all over their website). — Peter L <talk|contribs> 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

No offence(!), but the photos in this article are quite foggy. If anyone comes close to the bridge on a clear day, it would be great with a new photo. Zarniwoot 19:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few other images on Commons. You should also check the other Wikipedias, there are a few images that aren't on Commons yet. (Esp. the French Wikipedia) / Fred-Chess 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I like your photo, but I was thinking somthong like these: [2]

[3] [4] Thinking about it, I can see it would probably require a boat. But mayby there is someone here who like to sail the sund in the morning... Zarniwoot 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prices

Why are the prices listed in Euro when neither Denmark nor Sweden uses the Euro? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.84.116.5 (talk) 01:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't seem logical. I've replaced the list with prices and DKK and SEK. The old list was somewhat outdated btw. Valentinian T / C 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right, but they take the currency anyhow ("Pecunia non olet"). The passage like most of the ferries could be payed in DKK/EUR/SEK. For the swedish part you could be certain that the euro will be on the agenda the next possible timeslot(2012). At least I will ad, tne Link to the prices in euro. So 2012 the issuing of the article will be easy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.237.208 (talk) 19:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Last voting, NO won with about 10 %. And since the population are getting more and more against EU the number will probably rize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red w (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't it be mentioned

This is the longest international bridge in the world currently (all other bridges longer than this one are completely contained within a single country). Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere? Would seem to be significant. 75.70.123.215 19:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal Rail transport

I suggest that we keep the first section which has some general comments and move the rest of the technical material to Oresund Railway where the technical stuff should be moved from History to a new section. JTragardh (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, this article is about the bridge, and part of the bridge is the railway. The technical difficulties of getting the two different railways to work together was part of the bridge design. It would not really be appropriate not to mention this information in either article. Neither article is clearly a subset of the other, each exists to serve a different purpose, the bridge is a noteable item in its own right, and so is the railway line which the bridge forms just one part of. I notice there is only one other entry in category railways in denmark. That article is longer, and doesn't discuss technical issues of line voltage or signalling at all. Arguably, the technical details would go into the bridge description, and the railway article would refer here for that detail. On the whole, I dont think either article has enough stuff to warrant consolidating it in just one place. They are fairly short. Sandpiper (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Øresundtunnel/link

There's no article for neither the tunnel or link as a whole; couldn't this be changed into encomapssing both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added more info about the tunnel and Peberholm, and made headlines to make the info more easy to find --BIL (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)