Forth Road Bridge after work each evening

[hornetrider]

Sturgeon says nowt to do with budget cuts and that the problem was unforseeable



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...

[ModernAndy]

hornetrider said:

Sturgeon says nowt to do with budget cuts and that the problem was unforseeable



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...

"Transport Scotland said that Amey, the private contractor that is now responsible for bridge maintenance, had told it that the ongoing truss end strengthening works were to a different part of the linkage system to that which failed."

I'm not sure that means it's different to the work that was decided against in 2010 or not but that bit is what stuck out to me.

My feeling is that nobody (and I include the engineers concerned) expected a failure to occur so quickly and the plan was to get the new bridge finished as quickly as possible to mitigate the over-capacity rather than close the bridge to do the works to strengthen it. I'm sure it's too early to draw conclusions though.

[hidetheelephants]

Humper said:

S2red said:

Wonder if those responsible for maintaining the grossly over capacity Kingston bridge are sweating?

Though not as busy since A74 extension opened

Though, to be fair, the Kingston bridge was never meant to handle all the traffic anyway, the original plan was for the M74 extension and a ring road to connect up at the Royal back when it was built.

Presumably the belated completion of the M74 40-ish years behind schedule has reduced the load. Does anyone know why the new road has such low speed restrictions? At 50 it feels like you're crawling along, clearly indicated by the locals and cabdrivers fleeing by at 70+.

[Leithen]

hornetrider said:

Sturgeon says nowt to do with budget cuts and that the problem was unforseeable



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...

Political sophistry at it's finest.

From the Scotsman; "A Transport Scotland spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government has fully funded all FETA programmes since taking over the funding of the annual grant in 2008. Prior to the dissolution of FETA earlier this year, FETA made decisions on their programme and priorities of repairs completely independently of Transport Scotland."

So whilst claiming that all works have been funded, they also distance themselves from FETA and the choice of works that were implemented. Which very conveniently ignores the fact that FETA were forced to prioritise and defer work due to reductions in capital funding following the government's 2011 spending review.

The same FETA Capital Plan document describes the truss end link problem and says "One factor to be considered is the reduced probability of certain conditions of traffic loading occurring within the relatively short time period left until the new bridge opens. As a result of this analysis work, there is now the potential to upgrade the existing links rather than carry out a full replacement."

So full replacement of the links had been considered. Which again shows the political spin that this is an unforeseen crack for what it really is.

Budgets were cut, work cancelled, deferred, delayed and changed from full replacement to strengthening. All of which has bitten those involved in the arse. Hard.

Had FETA kept it's toll income, would the required work have been delayed and changed from full replacement of the links? I seriously doubt it.

[ModernAndy]

Leithen said:

Political sophistry at it's finest.

From the Scotsman; "A Transport Scotland spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government has fully funded all FETA programmes since taking over the funding of the annual grant in 2008. Prior to the dissolution of FETA earlier this year, FETA made decisions on their programme and priorities of repairs completely independently of Transport Scotland."

So whilst claiming that all works have been funded, they also distance themselves from FETA and the choice of works that were implemented. Which very conveniently ignores the fact that FETA were forced to prioritise and defer work due to reductions in capital funding following the government's 2011 spending review.

The same FETA Capital Plan document describes the truss end link problem and says "One factor to be considered is the reduced probability of certain conditions of traffic loading occurring within the relatively short time period left until the new bridge opens. As a result of this analysis work, there is now the potential to upgrade the existing links rather than carry out a full replacement."

So full replacement of the links had been considered. Which again shows the political spin that this is an unforeseen crack for what it really is.

Budgets were cut, work cancelled, deferred, delayed and changed from full replacement to strengthening. All of which has bitten those involved in the arse. Hard.

Had FETA kept it's toll income, would the required work have been delayed and changed from full replacement of the links? I seriously doubt it.

I hear what you're saying but would they have closed the bridge for these works knowing that it would cost them toll income and in the knowledge of the disruption it would cause? It is my understanding the entire bridge would have needed to be shut for the truss works which were decided against.

Also, are you absolutely entirely sure the repair work needing done now is as a consequence of under-funding (bearing in mind it has been said by at least one body that this particular part of the truss wasn't seen as needing any work done to it)? That is to say, are you confident that this work was identified as needing done and then wasn't done due to a lack of budget? (or wasn't noticed and then considered at all in the first placed because of a lack of funding for checks of the bridge)

[hidetheelephants]

ModernAndy said:

I hear what you're saying but would they have closed the bridge for these works knowing that it would cost them toll income and in the knowledge of the disruption it would cause? It is my understanding the entire bridge would have needed to be shut for the truss works which were decided against.

Also, are you absolutely entirely sure the repair work needing done now is as a consequence of under-funding (bearing in mind it has been said by at least one body that this particular part of the truss wasn't seen as needing any work done to it)? That is to say, are you confident that this work was identified as needing done and then wasn't done due to a lack of budget? (or wasn't noticed and then considered at all in the first placed because of a lack of funding for checks of the bridge)

It's likely that the planned work would have involved shutting one carriageway and operating a contraflow while doing the work to the links on the other; an embuggerance for bridge users but nothing like the impact of the closure as people would have time to plan ahead for alternative routes or just leaving early, Scotrail planning for extra trains etc. Whether that would be possible now is dependent on the condition of the links elsewhere; if they are cracking similarly then possibly not.

[simoid]

ModernAndy said:

I hear what you're saying but would they have closed the bridge for these works knowing that it would cost them toll income and in the knowledge of the disruption it would cause? It is my understanding the entire bridge would have needed to be shut for the truss works which were decided against.

Also, are you absolutely entirely sure the repair work needing done now is as a consequence of under-funding (bearing in mind it has been said by at least one body that this particular part of the truss wasn't seen as needing any work done to it)? That is to say, are you confident that this work was identified as needing done and then wasn't done due to a lack of budget? (or wasn't noticed and then considered at all in the first placed because of a lack of funding for checks of the bridge)

Can you point out who said that and when please? I'm not sure it's been put as explicitly as that.

[ModernAndy]

simoid said:

ModernAndy said:

I hear what you're saying but would they have closed the bridge for these works knowing that it would cost them toll income and in the knowledge of the disruption it would cause? It is my understanding the entire bridge would have needed to be shut for the truss works which were decided against.

Also, are you absolutely entirely sure the repair work needing done now is as a consequence of under-funding (bearing in mind it has been said by at least one body that this particular part of the truss wasn't seen as needing any work done to it)? That is to say, are you confident that this work was identified as needing done and then wasn't done due to a lack of budget? (or wasn't noticed and then considered at all in the first placed because of a lack of funding for checks of the bridge)

Can you point out who said that and when please? I'm not sure it's been put as explicitly as that.

I believe Transport Scotland stated it was an inner link support beam that failed rather than a truss and the failure had nothing to do with any works proposed.

If I have misunderstood then I'm happy for my question be asked without that part in the brackets.

[simoid]

ModernAndy said:

I believe Transport Scotland stated it was an inner link support beam that failed rather than a truss and the failure had nothing to do with any works proposed.

If I have misunderstood then I'm happy for my question be asked without that part in the brackets.

Failed part = inner link support beam to truss end linkage
Part found to be overstressed, with maintenance planned for 2010 = truss end linkages.

In any case, as I've read it, the squirming politicians have only said that "no work was cancelled on the failed part" which may or not be true, but I don't think they've claimed it didn't need any maintenance.

I'll not be trussing, I mean trusting the politicians on this one and would advise against it. They're out to obfuscate and divert on this one.

[ModernAndy]

simoid said:

ModernAndy said:

I believe Transport Scotland stated it was an inner link support beam that failed rather than a truss and the failure had nothing to do with any works proposed.

If I have misunderstood then I'm happy for my question be asked without that part in the brackets.

Failed part = inner link support beam to truss end linkage
Part found to be overstressed, with maintenance planned for 2010 = truss end linkages.

In any case, as I've read it, the squirming politicians have only said that "no work was cancelled on the failed part" which may or not be true, but I don't think they've claimed it didn't need any maintenance.

I'll not be trussing, I mean trusting the politicians on this one and would advise against it. They're out to obfuscate and divert on this one.

possibly, I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other, I just want to see where the evidence is coming from that any politician or engineer could have predicted this failure in the timeframe. It seems there's a contingent of witch-hunters with the smell of blood in their nostrils waiting to make the most of any mistake or outcome related to this and very few people who can truthfully say they could have done a better job (unless everybody was to pay at least another £1,000 a year to use Scotland's roads and then our troubles would all be over).

I believe it has been said that all maintenance works required were done or in progress (truss ends obviously going to be a point of disagreement here) although I really can't be arsed looking for a source right now.

[simoid]

Yeah perhaps it would pass an MoT, but with a few advisories that the previous folk wanted to sort out?

I think life in Scotland will be better once the nationalists are out of power so I'm hoping it's that way, but trying to objectively work out what the script is.

[ModernAndy]

If only it just needed a decent coat of paint like the rail bridge.

[Leithen]

As suspected.

If FETA had retained budgetary autonomy via toll income, would they have cancelled these works?

There's a huge difference between being in control of your own finances and having to request funds from Government.

[ModernAndy]

Leithen said:

As suspected.

If FETA had retained budgetary autonomy via toll income, would they have cancelled these works?

There's a huge difference between being in control of your own finances and having to request funds from Government.

That source says very little about budget and a lot about the practicalities of repairing or upgrading a bridge used by around 70 to 200 thousand people a day (people not vehicles).

"And he said Feta had been looking at carrying out wider work in 2010, which would have seen the section that has now cracked being replaced as part of a larger re-design, but had "re-scoped" the project after receiving advice from engineers.
He added: "A much bigger job beyond what they felt was proportionate at the time would have led to a much longer closure to carry out those more extensive works.
"But the advice they seem to have had at the time was that carrying out the strengthening works as identified would remedy what they identified as the problem, not the location of this specific fault that is unrelated to those works.

Mr Mackay pointed out the bridge was "over 51 years old, it's been carrying more than it was designed for by way of traffic and weight".
He insisted: "This problem was not predicted at the fault where it is cracked, but we are remedying it, we are fixing it and we will get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible.""

I realise this is a statement from a politician and not an independent expert who has appraised the situation without bias but I think it will be a while till we get something resembling the latter.

Balance that with other views given in the article:

"Scottish Labour's deputy leader Alex Rowley said: "Derek McKay's extraordinary comments confirm exactly why we need a full parliamentary inquiry into what has gone wrong with the bridge.
"For an SNP Minister to admit that cancelled repair works would have replaced the damaged section of the bridge as far back as 2010 raises many more questions about the actions of the government.
"In recent days Nicola Sturgeon dismissed suggestions that cancelled repair works were linked to the bridge closure, but now Derek Mackay is saying something different.""

I asked the following earlier:

"are you absolutely entirely sure the repair work needing done now is as a consequence of under-funding? That is to say, are you confident that this work was identified as needing done and then wasn't done due to a lack of budget? (or wasn't noticed and then considered at all in the first placed because of a lack of funding for checks of the bridge)"

where is the smoking gun that these works were cancelled due to budget rather than for reasons of practicality?

[simoid]

Leithen said:

As suspected.

If FETA had retained budgetary autonomy via toll income, would they have cancelled these works?

There's a huge difference between being in control of your own finances and having to request funds from Government.

As the SNP have been campaigning about for the last however many years

So, er, Sturgeon says the cancelled works were nothing to do with the failed part of the bridge, and the transport minister (who doesn't come across as a politician of future legendary status to say the least!) is at pains to point out "it was FETA who cancelled the replacement works, not us"...

They kinda need to get their story straight soon or they're going to look like they're making it up as they go along.

[Leithen]

ModernAndy said:

where is the smoking gun that these works were cancelled due to budget rather than for reasons of practicality?

Did you read the links provided a few posts back?

One more time. The background section blatantly contradicts what the government are saying about having fully funded work.

What is needed now is an independent inquiry that can directly take evidence on what has happened since 2007.

[ModernAndy]

Leithen said:

ModernAndy said:

where is the smoking gun that these works were cancelled due to budget rather than for reasons of practicality?

Did you read the links provided a few posts back?

One more time. The background section blatantly contradicts what the government are saying about having fully funded work.

What is needed now is an independent inquiry that can directly take evidence on what has happened since 2007.

I can see your argument and I think the strongest case for what you're saying can be made from this short passage:

"2.3 Following the 2011 Spending Review, the first tranche of projects were selected for deferral following an analysis of all the non-committed schemes contained within the Capital Plan. This analysis prioritised and ranked schemes on the basis of risk and took account of key factors such as the safety of users; the structural integrity of the bridge and the core purpose of the Authority. The projects with the lowest risk score were selected for deferral. The second tranche of projects that were deferred, following the requirement to fund the cable band bolt replacement, had a higher risk score than those previously selected.

2.4 During this second round of deferrals, the four projects detailed below were identified as having the highest estimated cost. Therefore, these projects had to be considered in part or full for deferral in order to produce a significant reduction in the predicted deficit. These projects were:

The Upgrading of the Main Cable Acoustic Monitoring Project

Improvements to the Suspended Span Underdeck Gantries

Truss End Linkages Work

Improvements to the Suspended Span Underdeck Access System"

There are a few counter arguments I can see being made:

-the truss ends were evidently seen as low priority. On that basis, is the disruption potential the reason for deferment/cancellation rather than budget?
-when the tolls were removed the economy was in a far better state and very few people could have foreseen the cuts being made
-if the tolls were kept in place they would now very likely be variable with peak hours charged at £4. At the time the tolls were removed, would this fact not make it seem a better decision to remove them for the good of the public?
-is it not better that Scotland was declared toll free given that tens of thousands are better off financially and there is no regional disparity in motoring costs?
-it seems like there was a very low risk of what has now happened occurring and this seems to have been fully considered before deferment/cancellation.
-did removing the tolls indirectly increase Transport Scotland's overall budget?
-if we were back in 2006 debating whether to remove the tolls and without the power of hindsight, what would your argument be to keep the tolls?

[GoneAnon]

The great thing about FETA having been a public body is that accounts, auditors statements and other info are all available.

In 2007 the Bridge General Manager and the Finance Manager at Edinburgh Council reported that toll income was approaching £12 million. I didn't check this against the audited accounts - I'm sure they're available for anyone to do this.

In April 2008 agreement was reached on the mechanism for replacing tolls with Scottish Government grants. These included provisions for unspent money to accrue in the FETA account rather than being clawed back, retention of borrowing rights, and flexibility in grants to allow for increased/unexpected expenditure.
For the period 2007-8 toll income was replaced by a Capital Grant of £4.5m and a £3.5m one-off grant regarding toll abolition (physically removiing and redesigning the plaza created by LabLibs ahead of the 2007 election) and redundancies. Note that this is not for a full year.

In 2008-9 there was a £6.9m Revenue Grant and £7.1m Capital Grant.

In 2014-15 the budget was £9.1m, there was an underspend of £2.2m, and income was £2.9m over budget thanks to a one-off compensation payment in the year, increasing FETA's reserves to over £5.3m.

Whatever has caused the fracture surely everyone can see that funding was not the problem?

Edited by GoneAnon on Wednesday 9th December 23:36

[ModernAndy]

GoneAnon said:

The great thing about FETA having been a public body is that accounts, auditors statements and other info are all available.

In 2007 the Bridge General Manager and the Finance Manager at Edinburgh Council reported that toll income was approaching £12 million. I didn't check this against the audited accounts - I'm sure they're available for anyone to do this.

In April 2008 agreement was reached on the mechanism for replacing tolls with Scottish Government grants. These included provisions for unspent money to accrue in the FETA account rather than being clawed back, retention of borrowing rights, and flexibility in grants to allow for increased/unexpected expenditure.
For the period 2007-8 toll income was replaced by a Capital Grant of £4.5m and a £3.5m one-off grant regarding toll abolition (physically removiing and redesigning the plaza created by LabLibs ahead of the 2007 election) and redundancies. Note that this is not for a full year.

In 2008-9 there was a £6.9m Revenue Grant and £7.1m Capital Grant.

In 2014-15 the budget was £9.1m, there was an underspend of £2.2m, and income was £2.9m over budget thanks to a one-off compensation payment in the year, increasing FETA's reserves to over £5.3m.

Whatever has caused the fracture surely everyone can see that funding was not the problem?

Edited by GoneAnon on Wednesday 9th December 23:36

I do think there's a debate to be had on that but I think actually the real issue is the hindsight we now have versus the basis on which the decisions on the FRB were made several years ago when things were very different.

[simoid]

GoneAnon said:

The great thing about FETA having been a public body is that accounts, auditors statements and other info are all available.

In 2007 the Bridge General Manager and the Finance Manager at Edinburgh Council reported that toll income was approaching £12 million. I didn't check this against the audited accounts - I'm sure they're available for anyone to do this.

In April 2008 agreement was reached on the mechanism for replacing tolls with Scottish Government grants. These included provisions for unspent money to accrue in the FETA account rather than being clawed back, retention of borrowing rights, and flexibility in grants to allow for increased/unexpected expenditure.
For the period 2007-8 toll income was replaced by a Capital Grant of £4.5m and a £3.5m one-off grant regarding toll abolition (physically removiing and redesigning the plaza created by LabLibs ahead of the 2007 election) and redundancies. Note that this is not for a full year.

In 2008-9 there was a £6.9m Revenue Grant and £7.1m Capital Grant.

In 2014-15 the budget was £9.1m, there was an underspend of £2.2m, and income was £2.9m over budget thanks to a one-off compensation payment in the year, increasing FETA's reserves to over £5.3m.

Whatever has caused the fracture surely everyone can see that funding was not the problem?

Edited by GoneAnon on Wednesday 9th December 23:36

Answer:

C) not enough information to tell.

We know how much money they had, but not how much would be needed to fulfil the planned maintenance works as detailed (£15m was a figure that springs to mind re. truss replacement, for example).