The government of Saudi Arabia is refuting earlier press about an agreement to proceed with a bridge linking Egypt and the Kingdom. Whether the earlier reports were based on simply bad information, a poorly-informed source, or wishful thinking is unclear.

Govt denies report of Saudi-Egypt causeway

While Egypt has warmly welcomed reports about an agreement with Saudi Arabia to construct a $3 billion causeway linking the two countries together, the Saudi Ministry of Transport denied any knowledge of such an agreement, local Arabic daily Al-Watan reported yesterday.

The newspaper on Thursday quoted an official source at the ministry as saying that the two countries have renewed an agreement to construct a 50-km-long causeway on the Red Sea to be named “King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Causeway.”

“There is no any such agreement to the effect between the ministry and any other party concerning the project,” the Saudi Transport Ministry said in a statement.

March:04:2012 - 12:11 | Comments & Trackbacks (6) | Permalink
6 Responses to “A Bridge Too Far?”
  1. 1
    Mike Cunningham Said:
    March:08:2012 - 07:47 

    One presumes that the cost of the causeway would be covered in total by the Saudi Arabian Government.

    After all, the benefits flowing from such a construction are almost too numerous to list; but of course they would include

    a) Speedy access for the Saudi Army to help the Egyptians if there were any repeats of the ‘Bahrain’ type unrest in Egypt. The causeway could be constructed to end on the edges of Tahrir Square.

    b) Well, actually there are no other benefits!

  2. 2
    Mohammed Al-Arabi Said:
    March:08:2012 - 10:00 

    I can think of many actually – it would help facilitate pilgrim movement during the Hajj as well as tourism to and from Sinai and Jordan. The benifits to the local Tabuk economy (and the Hedjaz for that matter) are possible to envisage. Just relieving the pressure on the Jeddah and Medinan airports during the holy seasons is a plus in my book.

  3. 3
    Dakota Said:
    March:08:2012 - 14:28 

    A bridge with a six-word name? How typical of pompous Arab naming conventions. No wonder everyone in Riyadh gives directions as “Exit 5″ “Exit 13″ etc. — the streets all have 4 names containing words like “bin” and “abd”. By the time you finish pronouncing the street name, it’s already tomorrow.

    The Saudis should take a hint from a recent bridge-naming contest in Slovakia:

  4. 4
    John Burgess Said:
    March:08:2012 - 18:09 

    Having just driving halfway up Interstate 95, I can assure you that naming conventions aren’t any more gainly in the US. Every congressman from the concerned states seems to have a piece of the road named after him. Fallen state troopers get overpasses named. Great patriotic ideas have their share as well. As far as most people go, though, they just call it ‘I-95′. And the exits are all called by number, too!

  5. 5
    Dakota Said:
    March:09:2012 - 14:53 

    Oh, sure, there are sections of streets with vanity names, it’s the cheapest way of paying off someone who has done a political favor, but the payoff name is next to the regular name on the street sign, so the general public doesn’t have to worry about getting lost. And I can’t think of any exit with more than a three-syllable name. But when I have someone coming to visit me in Riyadh and they get lost and call me up and tell me they just passed the Abdul montaz bin zacky al mabsoot bin frawacky street sign and they are passing by a mosque, I have to say, wait, wait, wait, what was that after the “bin”? Then, all I can do is ask if they have passed a Burger King. Jordan is the same way. No wonder they have to use P.O. boxes.

  6. 6
    Dakota Said:
    March:09:2012 - 15:09 

    OT, did you see Samar Badawi on this list?

    The video is here:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

antalya escortizmir escort
  • Advertising Info

    Interested in sponsoring Crossroads Arabia? Contact me for more information.

  • Copyright Notice

    All original materials copyright, 2004-2014. Other materials copyrighted by their respective owners.

    The fact that this blog permits one to use RSS to read content does not constitute permission to republish content. All requests for republication must be submitted through the Contact form on the menu above. Violations of copyright will be dealt with through applicable law.