Talk:Øresund Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


is it not more correct to call it a viaduct

jonny two combs

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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.)

Page edit issue[edit]

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)

Bike path?[edit]

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)

Oresund Region[edit]

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)

Bridge & Connection[edit]

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)


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)

No Customs Control?[edit]

The line "but due to the Schengen Agreement, there are no passport or customs controls." at the beginning of this article seems to be in contradiction with information on the "Customs Controls/Sweden and Finland" section of the Schengen Agreement article. It seems that there is an amount of customs control and harassment of drivers by Swedish authorities ongoing at the Swedish side of the bridge. Can anyone please check the facts and get the two articles to agree with each other. Thanks.

Passport control between the Scandinavian countries was abolished already in the 1950-es. Some random inspections are carried out by the Swedish customs to prevent the import of narcotics. I should not call it "harassment", but a way to diminish the influx of such drugs. --Muniswede (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The is no passport control, but there is occational custom control since Sweden have an exception that allows them to put strict limits on how much alchohol and a few other items you can take with you into Sweden. This mostly affects Swedes in Swedish registered cars though.Carewolf (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You can cross from any Schengen agreement country into another without the usual border controls, but if you are in a foreign registered vehicle it can be stopped and passports etc checked by the police and customs officials. I live in Britain and enter EU-land via Calais, subjected to Passport controls in Britain. I have driven in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and have on occasion been stopped and had my passport checked. So yes it can happen and I would not class it as harassment. After all any country is entitled to know who is in their country and why.The Geologist (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


Why are the prices listed in Euro when neither Denmark nor Sweden uses the Euro? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (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 (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 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two sets of prices which contradict each other. The table says that a car is 40 euro and further up the article says a car is 36.6 euro. One of those must be out of date. And the upper one isn't as good as a table so the two should jut be combined, once we know which is righ. (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned[edit]

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. 19:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the route from Bahrein to Saudi Arabia being 25km long including 12km of bridges would appear to be longer than the Oresundbron.Eregli bob (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal Rail transport[edit]

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)


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 (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)


Pssssst... is it really true that one country wanted a bridge and one a tunnel, so the result is a compromise? Or is that just a silly rumour? Why IS it a bridge-tunnel and not merely a bridge, or a tunnel? (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So ships can get past. The made it a bridge as far as they could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
They could not have built high-rise pylons near Copenhagen Airport as airports need unobstructed airspace. On the other side, they wanted a landmark and bridges are cheaper then tunnels. So mainly they built such a combination out of necessity and economic calculations. Steinberger (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

existing island[edit]

Anybody know why they didn't go via the existing island visible in the satelite picture just north of the artificial island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Saltholm article: "When the Oresund fixed link was eventually built in the 1990s, it was routed 1 km south of Saltholm to avoid damaging the island and the surrounding shallow waters." Atheuz (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What's a wag?[edit]

It says:

Wags have also called it "the bridge to nowhere"

What exactly is a wag? Nzseries1 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made big changes to the article and written that text. It can be removed, and a general check should be made. --BIL (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I think "jokers" would be synonymous to "wags", as in "jokers have called it..." I found a definition of "wag" as being "a humorous or dull person, a wit". But as BIL pointed out, the whole thing it's unverifiable - or at least unverified. I have not heard about this "bridge to nowhere" elsewhere. A general check of the article is warranted. Steinberger (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. In Britain, a "WAG" is the wife or girlfriend of a professional footballer - I assumed that wasn't what was meant here :) Nzseries1 (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but in Britain, the term "wag" pre-dates "WAG" and "wag" means someone who tells a joke or causes a funny situation and a usual expression is "You are such a wag!" The media namely the "Sun, Star and Mirror" first used the term "WAG" in connection with the wives and girlfriends of footballers.The Geologist (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Opening ceremonies?[edit]

Surely these weren't both on the same day July 1, 2000. Beowulf (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Added references and changed text accordingly. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Øresund which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Slightly confusing terminology[edit]

The opening paragaph says: The Øresund or Öresund Bridge [...] is a combined twin-track railway and dual carriageway bridge-tunnel [...]."

Does this mean that "Öresund Bridge" includes the tunnel part? As expected, other parts of the article use the term "bridge" to refer only to the above-ground part, so it is a bit confusing in my opinion. (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs a map[edit]

The article could use a map of the bridge, Denmark, and Sweden, if anyone has one. —Lowellian (reply) 04:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Only Internet cable to Finland?[edit]

someone may have found a link saying that the cables passing over the bridge are the only Internet link to Finland, but frankly that's preposterous. The bridge is simply one of many cable routes from Sweden to the rest of Europe.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \broadtraffic-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

Today I edited the opening paragraph in a way that I hope increases the clarity of the article. Since the article title refers only to a bridge, I've made the first sentence mention only the bridge. Also, I believe it is only the actual bridge that connects Sweden and Denmark, as the tunnel is entirely within Denmark, so the previous wording was problematic.

It would help the article if we could get well-sourced explanations of how this permanent crossing is commonly described, particularly regarding the tunnel being included or not included in the phrase "Øresund Bridge". Alfrew (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Motorway ![edit]

The construction (from east to west) consists of

  • a low bridge
  • a high bridge (span 400 m, slant wired)
  • an artificial peninsula
  • five tunnels - two for the roads, two for trains and one preassurized escape tunnel
  • an artificial peninsula

The toll road is motorway all the way, dispite narrow hard shoulders in the tunnels. Unlike at for instance Dartford tunnel/Queen Elizabeth Bridge at London Orbital, slow vehicles are NOT allowed. Speed limit is regulated, usually never above 90 km/h in the tunnel. But all road signs indicate Motorway, not Dual carriageway and motorway rules are in use. Boeing720 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Øresund Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed emergency closure provision.[edit]

Sweden considers closing The Bridge to Denmark (The Financial Times)

Yet another desperation move by the current government in Sweden? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: AFAIK not as serious or alarming as that. (Yet.) The whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Right now there is no legal way for the government to close border-crossing roads immediately, such as the bridge, without the consent of the entire Riksdag if some situation or threat should require it. The only thing that allows the bridge to be closed is bad weather or outright war. What has occurred is that it is proposed to pass a law/decision that allows a quick closing of roads if (and that's a big if) it becomes necessary for safety reasons. The safety concerns are foremost for refugees and personnel handling the reception of the refugees since the reception areas simply aren't built for this many people (5,700/week) arriving at once, as well as for national security. This article for more in-depth info. w.carter-Talk 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)