Forth Road Bridge after work each evening
Discussion
This is really getting on my tits now to the extent that I'm using the Clackmannanshire bridge some evenings just so I can have some idea of when I'll actually get home.
I'm guessing that having two major dual-carriageways and a minor road all merging into two lanes within a few hundred yards, combined with the lower 40mph limit to cross the bridge and well into Fife restricts the flow, but surely if everyone would leave a gap and allow merging in turn we could ALL make progress of some sort?
Thank goodness (and the SNP!) that we don't have toll-booths to add to the problem, but why are they planning to restrict the current bridge to public transport when the new one opens?
I'm guessing that having two major dual-carriageways and a minor road all merging into two lanes within a few hundred yards, combined with the lower 40mph limit to cross the bridge and well into Fife restricts the flow, but surely if everyone would leave a gap and allow merging in turn we could ALL make progress of some sort?
Thank goodness (and the SNP!) that we don't have toll-booths to add to the problem, but why are they planning to restrict the current bridge to public transport when the new one opens?
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?
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
Leithen said:
Funding was a problem, and as has been linked to numerous times, FETA stated;
"As Members are aware, the Scottish Government’s September 2011 Spending Review resulted in a reduction in the Authority’s capital funding and, as a result, a number of capital projects have had to be deferred to beyond 2015."
and
"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."
and
"There is always a residual risk when maintenance works are deferred and it was noted that deferral of part or all of these projects does increase the risk to the long term structural integrity of the bridge and is likely to increase the actual cost of the works when they are eventually carried out."
If there were enough reserves or income, projects would not have needed to be deferred.
The projects that were deferred were not related to the current problem."As Members are aware, the Scottish Government’s September 2011 Spending Review resulted in a reduction in the Authority’s capital funding and, as a result, a number of capital projects have had to be deferred to beyond 2015."
and
"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."
and
"There is always a residual risk when maintenance works are deferred and it was noted that deferral of part or all of these projects does increase the risk to the long term structural integrity of the bridge and is likely to increase the actual cost of the works when they are eventually carried out."
If there were enough reserves or income, projects would not have needed to be deferred.
Leithen said:
Seeing an £8 Million Toll Plaza ripped up, having never been used, gave me a pretty clear indication of the political inanity involved. No hindsight required.
The argument for keeping the tolls? The bridge costs remained high after the build costs had been recouped. It's lifespan and overcapacity were not secrets.
I agree with the point about the toll plaza. The previous administration went ahead with the construction ahead of an election that they must have known was going to be a close-run thing and CERTAINLY knowing that the SNP had a manifesto commitent to scrap the tolls.The argument for keeping the tolls? The bridge costs remained high after the build costs had been recouped. It's lifespan and overcapacity were not secrets.
Surely the prudent thing to have done would be to complete the design work but hold off on the actual construction until they knew if they had a mandate (by winning the election). Instead, their arrogance or stupidity - you decide - saw them splash the cash (our cash) for no good reason.
As fr the high maintenance cost, all roads have a maintenance cost and we pay our road tax for that. I know it isn't called road tax and I know it isn't reserved for roads, and that reinforces my point - the bridge should be and is now maintained from central taxation. If we don'thave enough general tax income we need to either blame Westminster or wish we had gone independent.
Leithen said:
GoneAnon said:
The projects that were deferred were not related to the current problem.
Yes they were.At least, one version of the claims being bandied about says that the broken bit would have been replaced in the works, but only because they had concerns about another bit nearby that HASN'T broken.
I'm not a structural engineer or privvy to any of the Transport Scotland or FETA documents. Are you?
If not, maybe we should both wait for the outcome of the inquiry?
Here's a quote from from Tony Martin who was convenor of the authority managing the bridge until a few months ago, in today’s Central Fife Times.
http://www.centralfifetimes.com/news/14153034.It_w...right_decisionto_delay_bridge_repair_work/
"Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we had decided to do this work, the same people that are complaining about the congestion now would be saying: 'Why are you doing all this work and causing all these delays when a new bridge will open soon?' Of course it's an overstressed bridge and because of that it's likely that things could go wrong but the decisions were not taken lightly. If we had needed to do the work there and then they would have told us to do it. And we'd have got the money for it."
"The capital programme was rescoped because the new bridge was being built and we tried to put off some of the work that would seriously inconvenience motorists. The inspection and report we had done at that time said we could put this off until 2016. With the knowledge we had, it was right to put it off until the new bridge was open."
"It's a political game where people are trying to score points. I'm not an SNP supporter but it was the right decision to build the new bridge and the right decision to rescope the work because of the huge inconvenience it would have caused. I don't think a different government would have made a different decision. If told they could put it off until 2016, Labour and the Lib Dems would certainly have done so too. I think this was unforeseeable."
"Once the tolls were scrapped by the SNP we had no income and were funded by Transport Scotland so of course when their budget was cut, our budget was cut. But if you look at the issue we had with the nuts and bolts (around 1000 heavy duty bolt assemblies had to be replaced in 2012 after cracks were found), when we found out we had to replace them all there was no question we wouldn't get the money. If a serious problem was identified, we would have got the money."
"If we had known this (truss end linkages) work needed to be done they would have had to close one side of the bridge and then the other side and I'm not sure how long the work would have taken. The major issue we were looking at then was the anchorages and we couldn't have done two major jobs on the bridge at the same time. The main cables were found to have corrosion so it was thought highly likely that the anchorages would be contaminated too. It was some time later before it was discovered that they were ok."
"Was it reasonable for us to put off this work? I still think it was the right decision. People say FETA made that decision independently but we still spoke to Transport Scotland, they had copies of every paper and attended every board meeting, they would have known we didn't make it in isolation."
That’s from the man who ought to know more about it than any human alive, and who as a Lib Dem councillor has no reason to make excuses for the Scottish Government. Hopefully this is unambiguous enough to settle it once and for all, or at least until the inquiry reports?. Unless he is just lining up his own/FETAs excuses in advance?
http://www.centralfifetimes.com/news/14153034.It_w...right_decisionto_delay_bridge_repair_work/
"Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we had decided to do this work, the same people that are complaining about the congestion now would be saying: 'Why are you doing all this work and causing all these delays when a new bridge will open soon?' Of course it's an overstressed bridge and because of that it's likely that things could go wrong but the decisions were not taken lightly. If we had needed to do the work there and then they would have told us to do it. And we'd have got the money for it."
"The capital programme was rescoped because the new bridge was being built and we tried to put off some of the work that would seriously inconvenience motorists. The inspection and report we had done at that time said we could put this off until 2016. With the knowledge we had, it was right to put it off until the new bridge was open."
"It's a political game where people are trying to score points. I'm not an SNP supporter but it was the right decision to build the new bridge and the right decision to rescope the work because of the huge inconvenience it would have caused. I don't think a different government would have made a different decision. If told they could put it off until 2016, Labour and the Lib Dems would certainly have done so too. I think this was unforeseeable."
"Once the tolls were scrapped by the SNP we had no income and were funded by Transport Scotland so of course when their budget was cut, our budget was cut. But if you look at the issue we had with the nuts and bolts (around 1000 heavy duty bolt assemblies had to be replaced in 2012 after cracks were found), when we found out we had to replace them all there was no question we wouldn't get the money. If a serious problem was identified, we would have got the money."
"If we had known this (truss end linkages) work needed to be done they would have had to close one side of the bridge and then the other side and I'm not sure how long the work would have taken. The major issue we were looking at then was the anchorages and we couldn't have done two major jobs on the bridge at the same time. The main cables were found to have corrosion so it was thought highly likely that the anchorages would be contaminated too. It was some time later before it was discovered that they were ok."
"Was it reasonable for us to put off this work? I still think it was the right decision. People say FETA made that decision independently but we still spoke to Transport Scotland, they had copies of every paper and attended every board meeting, they would have known we didn't make it in isolation."
That’s from the man who ought to know more about it than any human alive, and who as a Lib Dem councillor has no reason to make excuses for the Scottish Government. Hopefully this is unambiguous enough to settle it once and for all, or at least until the inquiry reports?. Unless he is just lining up his own/FETAs excuses in advance?
tvrolet said:
So replacing a 2-lane bridge that can't support the volume of rush-hour traffic...with a 2-lane bridge. Genius.
Although in fairness the new one will have hard shoulders. I'm taking bets on them having to open the hard shoulders to traffic once folks realise it's made sod-all difference. Although the Chinese steel suppliers have no doubt done very well.
The bridge could have 10 lanes but if the roads at either end only have two lanes, how will that help?Although in fairness the new one will have hard shoulders. I'm taking bets on them having to open the hard shoulders to traffic once folks realise it's made sod-all difference. Although the Chinese steel suppliers have no doubt done very well.
If Westminster hadn't killed the Scottish and UK steel industry, maybe we could have had a local supplier.
As it is, probably the best we could offer was some Irn Bru!
simoid said:
GoneAnon said:
That will be the new bridge he voted against the construction of?
I fear you may have invented that claim. It was supported by almost all if I recall correctly, with the Greens against.It turns out that Labour scrapped Tory plans for a new bridge when they took over but, as that was to be paid for with PFI, it could turn out to have been a good decision for the wrong reason.
Nonetheless, his jumping on an "SNP BAAAD" bandwagon when the latest problem is down to an a
hole that either can't read a sign, or thinks it doesn't apply to him, is shameful. The new bridge might have been ready if the weather had been better or if Labour/Literals while in government hadn't shelved the plan, all the while sending millions of unspent pounds back to Westminster.
Of course, there is form here where they all criticised the lack of Scottish steel in the construction, in the full knowledge that the UK can no longer make the right kind of steel any more.
Leithen said:
tvrolet said:
GoneAnon said:
tvrolet said:
So replacing a 2-lane bridge that can't support the volume of rush-hour traffic...with a 2-lane bridge. Genius.
Although in fairness the new one will have hard shoulders. I'm taking bets on them having to open the hard shoulders to traffic once folks realise it's made sod-all difference. Although the Chinese steel suppliers have no doubt done very well.
The bridge could have 10 lanes but if the roads at either end only have two lanes, how will that help?Although in fairness the new one will have hard shoulders. I'm taking bets on them having to open the hard shoulders to traffic once folks realise it's made sod-all difference. Although the Chinese steel suppliers have no doubt done very well.
On the South side there's the 2 lanes of traffic coming from the M90 from Glasgow/the West, 2 lanes from Edinburgh on the A90, plus traffic from the A904 (Bo'ness) and B800. So 6 lanes' worth of roads squeeze in to 2 to cross the bridge.
On the North side you've got traffic from Inverkeithing and Rosyth at Ferrytoll (queues at rush hour to join); south-Fife traffic (queues at rush hour to join) at the A921/A985, then a lane at Dunfermine at Admiralty, then the dual carriageway A92 joining the A90 at Halbeith...so 9 lanes' worth of traffic crossing as 2.
Have you not noticed how you can zip along the A90, or M90, or A904, or A921 or anything else in the area and it all grinds to a halt at the bridge...and then speeds up again afterwards as folks leave by the various other exits/roads/lanes? And it's not to do with the current 40mph limit although that doesn't help. Why do you think the 2-lane M90 northbound grinds to a halt when it meets the 2-lane A90 from Edinburgh? Clue - it's because both 2 lane roads have to get into just 2 lanes in total, plus support the Bo'ness traffic. Similarly, heading south the 2-line M90 is fine until the extra traffic/lanes from Kirkcaldy, Dalgety Bay, Rosyth, Dunfermine etc all join.
The roads merging is undoubtedly the problem and a wider new bridge won't fix that. What would help is if everyone would just leave bigger gaps for traffic to merge into without having to slow to a crawl/stop.
The continentals seem to grasp the concept but the attitude here seems to be "make sure that b
d can't get in in front of me".The crack about the Chinese steel is petty and pointless, given that previous Westminster governments made sure (by accident or design?) that there was no UK capacity to make the type of steel required.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff