The Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link has a large number of both local and regional stakeholders. As a result, Femern A/S has conducted hearings and consultations, as well as supplied the local communities with information about the project in order to involve all relevant parties and stakeholders in the further development of the project. Femern A/S will continue these information activities (e.g. newsletters) while the project is being further developed.
Hearings and consultations are being performed in line with legal requirements and, in addition, other means of information have been used, including web information, local meetings and participation in conferences.
Femern A/S will further develop the monitoring programme, and the monitor-ing programme will be agreed with relevant Danish and German authorities before the start of construction.
The methodology for selecting the preferred technical solution for the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link is out-lined in Chapter 6 of the Espoo Report.
Initially four technical solutions were compared, e.g. two bridge alternatives and two tunnel alterna-tives. On the basis of these, a preferred bridge solution and a preferred tunnel solution were selected.
Subsequently, the selected bridge solution (a cable-stayed bridge) and the selected tunnel solution (an immersed tunnel) were compared with respect to a number of parameters.
The immersed tunnel was selected by Femern A/S as the preferred technical solution.
The comparisons of alternatives were carried out based on the following factors:
- navigational safety,
- safety and emergency response,
- technical risks,
- time schedule and
A detailed qualitative evaluation of each factor is presented in the Espoo Report, and arguments for and against each alternative are provided.
According to German formal requirements regarding the assessment of alternatives, a weighted com-parison has been carried out by Femern A/S and is presented in the German plan approval documenta-tion (’Erläuterungsbericht’ and Allgemeinverständliche Zusammenfassung).
Despite the different presentation of the evaluation of alternatives in the Danish and German plan ap-proval documentation, the underlying analyses are identical, and the conclusions are the same.