27 Nov 2025

HANSARD ADJOURNMENT DEBATE – 25 NOVEMBER 2025- Traffic Flows in Newtownards

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS:

Technical Engineering Context and Traffic Demand Evidence

Document Reference: Official Report (Hansard), Tuesday 25 November 2025, Volume 185, No 2, Pages 59-66 Debate Topic: Traffic Flow in Newtownards

Technical References:

Wesley Johnston’s “The Narrows Bridge (Strangford Lough Crossing)” – https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/strangfordloughbridge.html (Johnston operates the NI Roads website as an unofficial, independent resource documenting Northern Ireland’s road network)
Kevin Barry’s “How Many of the 29,000 Daily Journeys Would Actually Use a Strangford Bridge?” – https://www.quintinqs.com/throttle-pipe-strangford/

DEBATE CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTS

How the Debate Came About

The Adjournment Debate on “Traffic Flow in Newtownards” was secured by Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA (DUP, Strangford) for Tuesday 25 November 2025. Under Assembly procedures, an Adjournment debate allows an MLA to raise a matter of concern for ministerial response at the end of business. Miss McIlveen used this mechanism to highlight traffic congestion issues affecting Newtownards and the wider Ards Peninsula, seeking solutions from the Minister for Infrastructure.

The debate took place in the Chamber with Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Steve Aiken MLA) in the Chair.

Participants and Speaking Order

1. Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA (DUP, Strangford) – Debate Proposer

Secured the debate
Delivered opening 15-minute contribution
Represents Strangford constituency including Newtownards
Outlined multiple traffic issues and proposed solutions

2. Ms Kellie Armstrong MLA (Alliance, Strangford)

Represents same constituency as Miss McIlveen
Spoke for approximately 5 minutes
Bluntly raised concerns about specific infrastructure proposals, without evidence, namely Portaferry to Strangford Bridge. Made good impression in front of Minister, not.

3. Mr Harry Harvey MLA (DUP, Strangford)

Third Strangford constituency representative participating
DUP colleague of Miss McIlveen
Spoke briefly supporting various improvements

4. Mr John Stewart MLA (UUP)

Non-Strangford representative participating
Focused on incomplete ring road and park-and-ride facilities
Did not address Strangford Lough Crossing

5. Mr Justin McNulty MLA (SDLP, Newry and Armagh)

Represents adjacent constituency
Provided regional perspective on traffic issues
Made strongest call for Strangford Lough Crossing action

6. Ms Liz Kimmins MLA (Sinn Féin) – Minister for Infrastructure

Responded to all issues raised
Provided departmental position on various proposals
Brief response on Strangford Lough Crossing

Hansard plenary-25-11-2025 Adjornment Debate Pages 59-66 Download

Debate Scope

While the debate covered multiple Newtownards traffic issues including:

Incomplete ring road
Park-and-ride facilities and timelines
Speed limits on specific roads
Bloomfield Road improvements
Various junction and roundabout concerns

This analysis focuses exclusively on comments relating to the proposed Strangford Lough Crossing (bridge or alternative fixed crossing between Portaferry and Strangford), which was raised by three MLAs and addressed briefly by the Minister.

Proposed Strangford Lough Crossing (bridge or alternative fixed crossing between Portaferry and Strangford), which was raised by three MLAs and addressed briefly by the Minister.

Significance

The debate is significant because:

Three MLAs from two parties (DUP and SDLP) explicitly called for action on the crossing
One MLA (Alliance) raised concerns about village integration
Cross-constituency support demonstrated (Strangford and Newry & Armagh representatives)
Ministerial response provided first on-record Assembly position
Official Hansard record creates accountability benchmark for future engagement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TECHNICAL CONTEXT: The proposed crossing at “The Narrows” (550 metres at narrowest point between Portaferry and Strangford) would be one of Northern Ireland’s most significant infrastructure projects, requiring a cable-stayed structure with central span significantly longer than Foyle Bridge’s 234m.

TRAFFIC DEMAND REALITY: Analysis of DfI’s published AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) data reveals ~29,000 vehicles/day on roads feeding The Narrows, with only ~650 vehicles/day (2-3%) currently using the ferry. This represents massive suppressed demand – 97-98% of corridor traffic is forced into 47-mile/76km detours. A fixed crossing could realistically capture 10-25% of corridor traffic (3,500-8,000 vehicles/day) based on time savings of 45-60 minutes per crossing.

HANSARD DEBATE POSITIONS:

SUPPORT (3 MLAs):

Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA (DUP, Strangford) – Requested feasibility study
Mr Harry Harvey MLA (DUP, Strangford) – Supported exploration of bridge
Mr Justin McNulty MLA (SDLP, Newry and Armagh) – Strongest call: urged “fixed Strangford crossing” to address “unsuitable bottleneck system”

CONCERNS RAISED (1 MLA):

Ms Kellie Armstrong MLA (Alliance, Strangford) – Raised important concerns about village integration, specifically that approach roads and bridge location must ensure Portaferry and Strangford villages remain accessible and integrated, not bypassed

MINISTER’S RESPONSE:

Ms Liz Kimmins MLA (Sinn Féin) stated unfamiliarity with bridge proposal, acknowledged “difference of opinion on that, so we will leave that for another time”,

KEY FINDING: Armstrong’s concerns about village integration are legitimate design considerations that underscore the need for comprehensive feasibility study examining multiple routing options and approach road designs. It is unclear whether she opposes the bridge concept entirely or specifically the risk of poor routing that bypasses villages – her focus on ensuring villages remain integrated suggests the latter interpretation may be more accurate.

PART 1: TECHNICAL AND TRAFFIC CONTEXT

1A. Engineering Reality (Johnston’s Independent Analysis)

About the Source: Wesley Johnston operates the NI Roads website (https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/) as an unofficial, independent resource documenting Northern Ireland’s road network. His analysis provides objective technical assessment of infrastructure proposals without political affiliation.

The Narrows Characteristics:

Minimum 550 metres crossing distance at narrowest point
Relatively deep channel requiring cable-stayed structure
No pillars possible more than few dozen metres from shore
Central span significantly longer than Foyle Bridge (234m)
Height requirement to clear shipping
Slope/geology of seabed creates foundation challenges
Estimated cost: ~£300m (2025 prices)

Comparable Structures:

Foyle Bridge, Derry: 866m total, 234m central span, 3m water depth for piers
Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Bridge, Ireland: 887m, €230m/£190m (2020), similar tidal waterway
Isle of Skye Bridge, Scotland: 300m main span serving ~10,000 population

Current Ferry System:

Operating since at least 16th century
Costs DfI ~£1.5m annually (income ~£1m annually)
500,000 passengers annually (Johnston’s figure)
~650 vehicles/day (Barry’s analysis of DfI data)
8-minute crossing vs 76km/47-mile road alternative taking over 1 hour
Vulnerable to fog and strong wind cancellations

1B. Traffic Demand Reality (Barry’s DfI AADT Analysis)

THE CRITICAL “THROTTLE PIPE” FINDING:

Analysis of DfI’s published traffic count data reveals massive suppressed demand:

Three Key Count Points on Roads Feeding The Narrows:

A20 at Kircubbin (Portaferry Road, Ards Peninsula):
- ~7,000-7,500 vehicles/day
A22 at Comber (Comber-Killyleagh Road):
- ~9,000-9,500 vehicles/day
A7 at Quoile Bridge, outside Downpatrick:
- ~12,000-13,000 vehicles/day (upward trend)

TOTAL CORRIDOR TRAFFIC: ≈29,000 vehicles/day moving along cross-peninsula corridor on three main arms leading to/from The Narrows

Ferry Usage: ~650 vehicles/day actually crossing The Narrows via ferry

The Significant Statistic: Only 2-3% of corridor traffic uses the “direct” A2 link across The Narrows 97-98% are forced round the long way

What This Indicates:

Current ferry capacity and service characteristics (fares, wait times, operating hours, weather cancellations) constrain usage to a small fraction of potential demand. The 29,000 vehicles/day on surrounding roads suggest substantial latent demand for cross-lough connectivity.

1C. Realistic Bridge Usage Projections

Time Savings Analysis:

47-mile detour currently required:

Driving time: 45-60 minutes
Fuel cost: £4-5 each way for typical car
Time value: £6-10/hour × 0.75-1 hour = £4.50-10.00
Total cost of detour: £8-15 per crossing

Fixed crossing:

Crossing time: 10-15 minutes including approaches
Even with £3-4 toll, users save £5-12 per crossing
Plus: 24/7 reliability (no fog/wind cancellations)
Plus: no queue uncertainty

Conservative Bridge Usage Scenarios:

“Bridge-Relevant” Traffic Pool: Not all 29,000 vehicles would benefit from bridge – some are purely local trips not crossing lough.

Conservative catchment assumptions:

40% of A7 Quoile and A20 Kircubbin traffic
20-30% of A22 Comber traffic

Bridge-relevant pool: ~10,000-15,000 vehicles/day

Diversion Rate Scenarios:

Applying modest diversion rates from transport economics:

Scenario   Diversion %    Daily Vehicles      Annual Revenue (at ferry pricing)
Low        30%            ~3,500              £3.5m
Central    50%            ~5,800              £5.8m
High       70%            ~8,000              £8.0m

These represent existing traffic currently using longer routes.

Comparators – What Happens When You Remove a Bottleneck:

Skye Bridge: Traffic rose significantly above background growth even with tolls; rose further when tolls removed
Corran Narrows (Scotland): Fixed link planning assumes multiples of ferry traffic due to time/reliability benefits
Severn Crossings: When tolls scrapped (2018), traffic jumped ~33% within few years

1D. Financial Implications for Bridge Viability

Ferry Operating Costs (Annual):

£1.5m subsidy from DfI
Eliminated with bridge

Bridge Toll Revenue (Variable Based on Usage):

At current ferry levels (~650 vehicles/day):

~£1m annually (Johnston’s baseline figure)
Small compared to £300m construction cost

At realistic bridge usage (3,500-8,000 vehicles/day based on corridor analysis):

£3.5m-£8.0m annually
Makes tolling potentially viable as partial cost recovery
10-20 year payback on construction finance possible with toll revenue
Plus ferry subsidy savings (£1.5m annually)

Combined Annual Benefit:

Toll revenue: £3.5m-£8.0m
Ferry savings: £1.5m
Total: £5.0m-£9.5m annually

This significantly improves the financial case for the infrastructure investment, especially with:

Shared Island Fund co-funding potential
Strategic infrastructure designation
Economic development benefits
Social infrastructure justification (like Isle of Skye Bridge)

PART 2: DETAILED HANSARD DEBATE ANALYSIS

2.1 MISS MICHELLE McILVEEN MLA (DUP, STRANGFORD) – SUPPORTIVE

Context: Secured debate, delivered opening 15-minute contribution

Bridge Comment (Page 62):

“A feasibility study on having a bridge between Portaferry and Strangford”

Analysis:

McIlveen’s feasibility study request is the appropriate next step given:

Engineering complexity (550m cable-stayed structure required)
Traffic demand questions requiring professional modeling
Financial viability assessment needed (toll revenue scenarios)
Village integration design challenges (Armstrong’s concerns)
Multiple routing options requiring evaluation
Environmental considerations

Her professional approach (feasibility study rather than immediate construction commitment) demonstrates understanding of project scale while advancing the concept systematically through proper assessment channels.

2.2 MS KELLIE ARMSTRONG MLA (ALLIANCE, STRANGFORD) – CONCERNS RAISED

Context: Alliance Party MLA for Strangford, ~5 minutes on traffic issues

Complete Statement on Bridge (Page 62):

“The one thing that I do not agree with is the idea of a bridge from Portaferry to Strangford because of the connectivity implications and the destructive impact that it would have on both villages. The villages would end overnight because the bridge would not be where the ferry currently crosses. We all know that taking a road away from those villages means that they will die on the vine as time moves on.“

CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF ARMSTRONG’S POSITION

Key Question: Is Armstrong Opposing the Bridge Concept or Poor Bridge Design?

Her statement focuses on:

“Bridge would not be where ferry currently crosses” – location/routing concern
“Taking a road away from villages” – integration/access concern
“Villages would end” – outcome to avoid through proper design

Interpretation Options:

Option A: Fundamental Opposition

Opposes any bridge regardless of design
Believes ferry system intrinsically better for villages

Option B: Design-Focused Concerns (More likely given her specific language)

Concerned about bridge location bypassing villages
Wants approach roads to integrate with village centers
Seeks assurance villages will be on primary routes, not bypassed
Opposes poor design, not necessarily concept itself

Her Language Suggests Option B:

Specific focus on “where” bridge would be
Concern about “taking road away” (implies road could instead go through)
Emphasis on connectivity and access – issues addressable through design

TECHNICAL REALITY OF HER CONCERNS

Armstrong’s Core Observation:

“The bridge would not be where the ferry currently crosses”

Engineering Context:

Johnston’s analysis shows optimal bridge location at narrowest point (550m) with ~1km approach roads on both sides connecting via new roundabouts to existing network.

Armstrong Correctly Identifies a Real Design Challenge:

Engineering optimal (shortest span at narrowest point = lowest cost) may not align perfectly with current ferry terminals in village centers.

This creates genuine design considerations:

How do approach roads connect to existing villages?
Will traffic naturally flow through villages or bypass them?
How to ensure villages remain integrated, not isolated?
What junction/roundabout designs preserve village accessibility?

These Are Legitimate Professional Questions Requiring Feasibility Study to Answer

TRAFFIC CONTEXT FOR VILLAGE INTEGRATION

Current Situation:

Ferry: 650 vehicles/day through villages
Capacity constraints limit visitor/customer numbers
Operating hours restrict evening economy
Weather cancellations isolate villages unpredictably

Potential with Proper Bridge Design:

3,500-8,000 vehicles/day (5-12× current levels)
24/7 all-weather accessibility
Approach roads can be designed through villages
Roundabouts can direct traffic into village centers
Multiple village access points possible

Armstrong’s Concern is Valid: Poor Design Could Harm Villages

But Proper Design Could Dramatically Benefit Villages:

Massive increase in potential customers (5-12×)
Reliable access year-round
No capacity constraints
Better workforce accessibility
Enhanced tourism potential

CLEDDAU BRIDGE PRECEDENT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES ARMSTRONG’S CONCERNS

Pembroke Dock and Neyland (Wales):

Similar-sized communities to Portaferry/Strangford
Connected by Cleddau Bridge (1975) replacing ferry
Bridge approaches designed through town centers
Both communities thrived post-bridge
No “village death” occurred
Economic development enhanced
Bridge became regional landmark and asset

This Precedent Demonstrates Armstrong’s Concerns Are Addressable Through Proper Design

WHAT ARMSTRONG’S POSITION MEANS FOR PROJECT

If Option A (Fundamental Opposition):

Represents genuine local dissent requiring address
Political challenge to overcome
Community consultation critical

If Option B (Design-Focused Concerns – More Likely):

Validates need for comprehensive feasibility study
Demonstrates why multiple design options must be examined
Shows village integration must be explicit design requirement
Could potentially be converted to conditional support if design addresses concerns

Armstrong’s Statement Strengthens Case for Proper Feasibility Study:

Her concerns demonstrate exactly why:

Professional engineering analysis required
Multiple routing options must be evaluated
Village integration cannot be afterthought – must be core requirement
Community consultation essential
Precedent analysis (Cleddau) must inform design
Cannot proceed without systematic professional assessment

Not a Reason to Abandon Project:

Rather, evidence that proper feasibility study examining village-integrated design options is essential next step.

Recommended Engagement Approach:

Request meeting with Ms Armstrong to understand concerns in depth
Present Cleddau Bridge case study of successful village integration
Demonstrate multiple approach road design options
Show how villages can be on primary routes, not bypassed
Invite her participation in design process to ensure village protection
Position her as valuable advocate ensuring proper community integration

Key Message: “Ms Armstrong’s concerns about ensuring villages remain integrated and accessible underscore why a comprehensive feasibility study examining multiple design options is essential – precisely to ensure any crossing enhances rather than harms our villages through professional design and community consultation.”

2.3 MR HARRY HARVEY MLA (DUP, STRANGFORD) – SUPPORTIVE

Context: DUP colleague of McIlveen, represents Strangford

Bridge Comment (Page 63):

“We must see the road network improvements that will support transport resilience for the future, and I trust that the Minister will act for the benefit of Newtownards. I also look forward to her exploration of the idea of a Strangford/Portaferry bridge.“

Analysis:

Harvey’s “transport resilience” framing directly addresses current system vulnerabilities:

Current Ferry Vulnerabilities:

Fog cancellations force entire region into detours
Wind cancellations isolate Ards Peninsula
Mechanical failures create unpredictable disruption
Capacity limits constrain economic activity

Bridge Resilience Benefits:

24/7 all-weather operation
Emergency services reliability
Elimination of 47-mile detour dependency
Capacity for realistic demand levels

Harvey recognizes £300m+ investment must be justified on strategic infrastructure grounds (resilience, connectivity, economic development) rather than current artificially constrained ferry traffic levels.

2.4 MR JUSTIN McNULTY MLA (SDLP, NEWRY AND ARMAGH) – STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE

Context: Represents Newry and Armagh (not Strangford) – cross-constituency support significant

Complete Statement (Pages 64-65):

“I stress that the problems are not restricted or unique to Newtownards but are felt across the North. The current mess with traffic flow is the result of policy inaction from the Department for Infrastructure. The Minister often refers to ‘British austerity’ — Sinn Féin’s favourite term — binding her Department’s capacity to undertake projects, but issues such as traffic flow and road safety are the direct responsibility of her Department. The responsibilities and failures of Departments in the North cannot continue to be blamed on Westminster, especially not by so-called republicans. The Assembly has a duty to serve the people who live here, ensuring that roads are built to make for safe and efficient communities. I urge the Minister for Infrastructure to take up her responsibility and explore traffic flow solutions such as having a fixed Strangford crossing to distribute traffic more evenly, instead of having the current, unsuitable bottleneck system.“

Analysis:

McNulty’s “Unsuitable Bottleneck System” – Supported by Traffic Data:

DfI traffic counts document bottleneck:

29,000 vehicles/day corridor traffic
Only 650 vehicles/day (2-3%) able to use direct crossing
97-98% forced into extended detours
Single point of failure for regional connectivity

“Fixed Strangford Crossing” – Most technically appropriate terminology:

“Fixed” = permanent infrastructure (vs variable ferry)
“Crossing” = technology-neutral (bridge, tunnel, or other solution)
Emphasizes permanence and reliability

“Distribute Traffic More Evenly”:

Recognizes regional traffic distribution challenge:

Current system artificially constrains natural traffic patterns
Forces unnatural concentration on detour routes
Fixed crossing would enable organic distribution based on actual origins/destinations

Referenced Councillor Joe Boyle (SDLP):

“Mile-and-a-half tailbacks starting at 7:00 am”
Evidence of congestion at ferry access
Newtownards traffic impacts from system constraints

Strategic Positioning:

McNulty framed as regional infrastructure priority rather than local amenity:

Multiple council areas affected
Ministerial accountability emphasis
Evidence-based advocacy

Shared Island Fund Context:

McNulty’s SDLP advocacy particularly valuable:

Cross-party support (DUP+SDLP) essential for Shared Island funding applications
All-island connectivity benefits
Cross-community backing demonstrates broad support

2.5 MS LIZ KIMMINS MLA – MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE (SINN FÉIN)

Minister’s Response (Pages 65-66):

“I have made loads of notes here because many specific issues were raised. The bridge to Portaferry is not one that I am familiar with. There is obviously a difference of opinion on that, so we will leave that for another time.“

ANALYSIS OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Understanding “Unfamiliarity” in Context:

Ministers typically rely on departmental briefings for technical details like traffic count data and project analysis. The Minister’s statement of unfamiliarity likely reflects:

No specific briefing prepared for this Adjournment debate topic
Traffic data analysis requiring specialist interpretation by officials
Reliance on departmental processes to surface relevant evidence
Bridge mentioned briefly among many other traffic issues in debate

What This Suggests About Departmental Processes:

Officials have not brought forward comprehensive traffic analysis to Minister
No active departmental consideration of proposal currently
Gap between community advocacy and departmental briefing systems
Need for formal engagement to ensure evidence reaches decision-makers properly

“Difference of Opinion” Acknowledgment:

Minister recognizes diversity of views:

3 MLAs supportive (DUP, SDLP)
1 MLA raised concerns (Alliance – village integration focused)
Acknowledges topic is not straightforward or unanimous

What “difference of opinion” likely refers to:

Design approach and village integration challenges (Armstrong’s concerns)
Balance between engineering optimal and community optimal routing
Village vs. regional connectivity priorities
Not necessarily whether any crossing should ever be considered

“Leave for Another Time”:

Minister’s deferral without specific commitment:

No timeline provided
No action commitment
No acknowledgment of traffic data
No recognition of funding opportunities
No engagement with evidence base

Contrast in Ministerial Engagement:

Minister was constructive and detailed on:

Park-and-ride business case timelines (spring 2026)
Speed limit reviews
Transport planning philosophy
Site meeting commitments with MLAs

More brief on The Narrows Bridge:

No substantive engagement
No follow-up proposed
Deferred indefinitely

Possible Interpretations:

Lack of Briefing: Officials haven’t prepared Minister on this topic
Complexity: Recognizes Armstrong’s concerns require careful consideration
Resource Constraints: Cannot commit to new major projects without existing priorities resolved
Political Sensitivity: Cross-community infrastructure proposals require careful handling
Awaiting Formal Proposal: Expects structured proposal through proper departmental channels

Shared Island Fund Context:

Independent roads analyst Wesley Johnston noted: “While it is highly unlikely that the Northern Ireland Executive could/would commit to a bridge here, it is possible that other sources of money, such as the Shared Island Fund, could be brought to bear”

Potential Path Forward:

Minister’s deferral is not necessarily rejection – may simply reflect:

Need for proper departmental assessment process
Requirement for formal feasibility study proposal
Recognition of legitimate concerns requiring resolution
Appropriate caution on major infrastructure commitments

Recommended Response:

Rather than confronting Minister’s unfamiliarity, more productive to:

Submit formal briefing with traffic data analysis
Request ministerial meeting to present evidence
Engage departmental officials with structured proposal
Commission independent feasibility study to provide professional basis for consideration
Demonstrate how Armstrong’s concerns can be addressed through design

PART 3: STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

3.1 Traffic Data Provides Strong Evidence Base

DfI’s Published Traffic Counts Show:

29,000 vehicles/day on roads feeding The Narrows
Only 2-3% using direct crossing via ferry
Substantial latent demand for improved cross-lough connectivity
Realistic bridge usage: 3,500-8,000 vehicles/day (10-25% of corridor)
Time savings: 45-60 minutes per crossing
Cost savings: £8-15 per crossing (even with toll)

This Evidence Base Should Inform Any Feasibility Study

3.2 Financial Viability Significantly Improved

Realistic Usage Scenarios Transform Economics:

£3.5m-£8.0m annual toll revenue potential (vs £1m at ferry levels)
£1.5m annual ferry subsidy savings
Total: £5.0m-£9.5m annual benefit
Creates viable case for infrastructure investment
Toll revenue becomes meaningful contribution to costs

Combined with Shared Island Fund Co-Funding Potential:

Irish Government interest in cross-border connectivity
Precedent from other infrastructure projects
Cross-party support facilitates applications

3.3 Armstrong’s Village Concerns Require Serious Address

Her Position (Whether Fundamental Opposition or Design-Focused):

Raises legitimate village integration questions
Reflects genuine local concerns about community impacts
Cannot be dismissed or ignored

Proper Response:

Comprehensive feasibility study must include village impact assessment
Multiple design options examining village integration
Cleddau Bridge precedent analysis essential
Community consultation with village businesses and residents
Design principles ensuring villages on primary routes, not bypassed

Armstrong’s Concerns Validate Need for Professional Study:

Shows why rushed decision-making inappropriate
Demonstrates complexity requiring systematic assessment
Proves community consultation essential component

3.4 Path Forward Requires Structured Approach

Rather Than:

Confronting Minister’s unfamiliarity
Dismissing Armstrong’s village concerns
Assuming project obviousness

More Productive Strategy:

Commission professional feasibility study
Present traffic data analysis through proper channels
Engage directly with Armstrong on design options
Submit formal ministerial briefing
Pursue Shared Island Fund preliminary discussions
Demonstrate how legitimate concerns can be addressed

PART 4: CONCLUSION AND PATH FORWARD

The Case for Feasibility Study is Strong

Engineering: Challenging but achievable (Johnston’s analysis)

Traffic Demand: Substantial latent demand documented in DfI’s own data (29,000 vehicles/day corridor)

Financial Viability: Significantly improved with realistic usage scenarios (£5-9.5m annual benefit potential)

Political Support: Cross-party (DUP+SDLP), cross-community potential

Legitimate Concerns: Village integration requires careful design (Armstrong’s focus)

The Path Forward is Clear

Not:

Whether any crossing should ever be considered
Whether demand exists (traffic data confirms it does)
Whether Minister must immediately commit

But:

Commissioning comprehensive feasibility study
Examining multiple design options
Addressing village integration systematically
Engaging community through proper consultation
Presenting evidence through appropriate channels
Pursuing Shared Island Fund opportunities

Armstrong’s Concerns Are Addressable

Whether she opposes the bridge concept fundamentally or specifically the risk of poor design, her concerns about village integration:

Are legitimate and require serious attention
Can be addressed through proper feasibility study
Strengthen rather than weaken the case for professional assessment
Demonstrate exactly why systematic study essential

Minister’s Position Can Be Engaged Constructively

Rather than confronting unfamiliarity:

Provide proper briefing through departmental channels
Present evidence in professional format
Propose appropriate next steps (feasibility study)
Acknowledge complexity requiring careful consideration
Work within established processes

The Evidence Speaks for Itself

29,000 vehicles/day on surrounding roads 650 vehicles/day using current crossing 97-98% forced into lengthy detours

This is not advocacy – it is DfI’s own published traffic count data.

The question is not whether to proceed immediately with construction, but whether this evidence base warrants investment in comprehensive feasibility study to properly assess options, costs, benefits, and community impacts through professional engineering and economic analysis.

The answer, based on cross-party political support, substantial traffic data, and improved financial viability, appears to be yes.

Independent Feasibility Study Using UK TAG Framework

What is TAG?

TAG (Transport Analysis Guidance) is the UK Department for Transport’s official framework for transport project appraisal. It provides standardized methodologies for economic appraisal, traffic forecasting, environmental assessment, and value-for-money evaluation. DfI uses TAG for major transport schemes, and TAG compliance is typically required for Shared Island Fund applications.

Why External TAG-Compliant Study is Essential:

Credibility: Industry-standard methodology accepted by DfI, funding bodies, and both governments
Objectivity: Independent professional assessment removes perception of bias
Comprehensiveness: Covers economic, environmental, social, and financial aspects
Funding Eligibility: Required for Shared Island Fund and other major funding sources
Resource Efficiency: External consultants enable assessment without diverting DfI internal resources

TAG Study Would Deliver:

Economic appraisal including benefit-cost ratio and traffic demand modeling
Environmental impact assessment (air quality, emissions, biodiversity, landscape)
Social impact analysis including village-level effects and accessibility improvements
Multiple design and routing options evaluation (addressing Armstrong’s village integration concerns)
Financial viability assessment including realistic toll revenue scenarios (£3.5m-£8.0m annually)
Strategic case demonstrating policy alignment
Deliverability and risk assessment including consenting requirements
Funding strategy with Shared Island Fund application preparation

Indicative Costs and Phasing:

Phase 1 (Preliminary feasibility): £150,000-£250,000
Phase 2 (Full business case): £500,000-£750,000
Potential funding: Shared Island Fund co-funding, DfI allocation, phased approach

This would provide the professional, evidence-based foundation required for informed decision-making by Ministers, MLAs, and funding bodies, using the same rigorous methodology applied to all major UK transport infrastructure projects.

Sources:

Official Report (Hansard), Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 November 2025, Volume 185, No 2, Pages 59-66
Wesley Johnston’s “The Narrows Bridge (Strangford Lough Crossing)” – https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/strangfordloughbridge.html Note: Wesley Johnston operates the NI Roads website as an independent, unofficial resource documenting Northern Ireland’s road network. His analysis is objective technical assessment without political affiliation.
Kevin Barry’s “How Many of the 29,000 Daily Journeys Would Actually Use a Strangford Bridge?” – https://www.quintinqs.com/throttle-pipe-strangford/
DfI AADT Traffic Count Data (various years, publicly available)