Forth Road Bridge after work each evening
Discussion
AndrewEH1 said:
simoid said:
Re. the tolls and £20m annually:
66000 vehicles a day is what, around 25m vehicles annually? 80p per vehicle and there you have it - £20m a year.
A little less traffic that that as HGVs, caravans, buses had to pay more. Still a massive amount of traffic mind.66000 vehicles a day is what, around 25m vehicles annually? 80p per vehicle and there you have it - £20m a year.
Eta: https://www.forthroadbridge.org/the-bridge/traffic...
Edited by simoid on Monday 7th December 14:51
simoid said:
Re. the tolls and £20m annually:
66000 vehicles a day is what, around 25m vehicles annually? 80p per vehicle and there you have it - £20m a year.
I believe the maximum they actually generated was £16m. You'd also have to take into account that traffic will likely have increased when the tolls were removed hence providing more traffic crossing the bridge (and yes I am aware of the corollary of that fact)66000 vehicles a day is what, around 25m vehicles annually? 80p per vehicle and there you have it - £20m a year.
ModernAndy said:
You'll be keeping a keen eye on the Tay, Erskine and Skye bridges too then I'm sure, they're bound to fall down at any moment by that logic. I would disagree that the FRB could bring in as much as £20m per year (which still falls far short of its actual recent maintenance costs and in a full 9 months would barely cover the £15m costs of the truss end links strengthening that was proposed) but that's not an issue worth having a debate about as tax payers are funding all repair and maintenance works anyway regardless of whether they directly use the bridge or not (which I don't consider unfair as most of the East of Scotland benefits in numerous ways from the bridge). I would say it was far better to remove the tolls than to continue using them just because of the sunk cost of investment but we will obviously disagree in our reasoning.
The salient point is that the amount raised in tolls would have little impact on the amount spent on the bridge in total. Saying that, can you give some figures showing the funding of the bridge fell after the tolls were removed?
I think you need to look at your own logic if you want to extrapolate anything I've written about the FRB and apply it to other bridges. The lifespan and overcapacity of the FRB were well known issues before tolls were removed.The salient point is that the amount raised in tolls would have little impact on the amount spent on the bridge in total. Saying that, can you give some figures showing the funding of the bridge fell after the tolls were removed?
In 2006 the FRB Toll income was £16 Million. Even without toll price increases, it would have increased with increased traffic over the past eight years.
Capital Expenditure for the year 2015-2015 was less than £4Million.
Draw your own conclusions.
Leithen said:
ModernAndy said:
You'll be keeping a keen eye on the Tay, Erskine and Skye bridges too then I'm sure, they're bound to fall down at any moment by that logic. I would disagree that the FRB could bring in as much as £20m per year (which still falls far short of its actual recent maintenance costs and in a full 9 months would barely cover the £15m costs of the truss end links strengthening that was proposed) but that's not an issue worth having a debate about as tax payers are funding all repair and maintenance works anyway regardless of whether they directly use the bridge or not (which I don't consider unfair as most of the East of Scotland benefits in numerous ways from the bridge). I would say it was far better to remove the tolls than to continue using them just because of the sunk cost of investment but we will obviously disagree in our reasoning.
The salient point is that the amount raised in tolls would have little impact on the amount spent on the bridge in total. Saying that, can you give some figures showing the funding of the bridge fell after the tolls were removed?
I think you need to look at your own logic if you want to extrapolate anything I've written about the FRB and apply it to other bridges. The lifespan and overcapacity of the FRB were well known issues before tolls were removed.The salient point is that the amount raised in tolls would have little impact on the amount spent on the bridge in total. Saying that, can you give some figures showing the funding of the bridge fell after the tolls were removed?
In 2006 the FRB Toll income was £16 Million. Even without toll price increases, it would have increased with increased traffic over the past eight years.
Capital Expenditure for the year 2015-2015 was less than £4Million.
Draw your own conclusions.
so in short you're saying that the scrapping of the tolls didn't restrict the budget given it was easily covered by the government.
ModernAndy said:
Leithen said:
ModernAndy said:
You'll be keeping a keen eye on the Tay, Erskine and Skye bridges too then I'm sure, they're bound to fall down at any moment by that logic. I would disagree that the FRB could bring in as much as £20m per year (which still falls far short of its actual recent maintenance costs and in a full 9 months would barely cover the £15m costs of the truss end links strengthening that was proposed) but that's not an issue worth having a debate about as tax payers are funding all repair and maintenance works anyway regardless of whether they directly use the bridge or not (which I don't consider unfair as most of the East of Scotland benefits in numerous ways from the bridge). I would say it was far better to remove the tolls than to continue using them just because of the sunk cost of investment but we will obviously disagree in our reasoning.
The salient point is that the amount raised in tolls would have little impact on the amount spent on the bridge in total. Saying that, can you give some figures showing the funding of the bridge fell after the tolls were removed?
I think you need to look at your own logic if you want to extrapolate anything I've written about the FRB and apply it to other bridges. The lifespan and overcapacity of the FRB were well known issues before tolls were removed.The salient point is that the amount raised in tolls would have little impact on the amount spent on the bridge in total. Saying that, can you give some figures showing the funding of the bridge fell after the tolls were removed?
In 2006 the FRB Toll income was £16 Million. Even without toll price increases, it would have increased with increased traffic over the past eight years.
Capital Expenditure for the year 2015-2015 was less than £4Million.
Draw your own conclusions.
so in short you're saying that the scrapping of the tolls didn't restrict the budget given it was easily covered by the government.
If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
Leithen said:
Er, no....
If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
sorry, I'm just not seeing where bridge works have been constrained by budget. That document also shows FETA being in a more favourable financial position because of advances of government grants. It is evident that the truss works were decided against due to the disruption they would cause but not necessarily the cost. Please point out if I am missing something.If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
ModernAndy said:
Leithen said:
Er, no....
If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
sorry, I'm just not seeing where bridge works have been constrained by budget. That document also shows FETA being in a more favourable financial position because of advances of government grants. It is evident that the truss works were decided against due to the disruption they would cause but not necessarily the cost. Please point out if I am missing something.If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
Page 4 said:
Significantly reduced capital grant has led to greater capital project prioritisation and the deferment of some projects beyond 2012-2015. This may impact on future project costs.
ModernAndy said:
Leithen said:
Er, no....
If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
sorry, I'm just not seeing where bridge works have been constrained by budget. That document also shows FETA being in a more favourable financial position because of advances of government grants. It is evident that the truss works were decided against due to the disruption they would cause but not necessarily the cost. Please point out if I am missing something.If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
...oh how droll
Removing the tolls was a double whammy - it reduced the money coming in and increased the volume of traffic - the latter has probably made the structural issues worse.
However hindsight is a wonderful thing - most people were supportive of the decision to abolish the tolls or at the very least indifferent to it.
However hindsight is a wonderful thing - most people were supportive of the decision to abolish the tolls or at the very least indifferent to it.
BlackLabel said:
Removing the tolls was a double whammy - it reduced the money coming in and increased the volume of traffic - the latter has probably made the structural issues worse.
However hindsight is a wonderful thing - most people were supportive of the decision to abolish the tolls or at the very least indifferent to it.
Do you really think removing tolls increased the volume of traffic?However hindsight is a wonderful thing - most people were supportive of the decision to abolish the tolls or at the very least indifferent to it.
You're not seriously suggesting a family in South Queensferry having a discussion along the lines of:
"What shall we do this weekend?"
"Let's visit Dunfermline?"
"You're joking, right? 80p to cross the bridge - do you think I'm made of money?"
"No, no it's okay because the toll has been abolished!"
"Really? Get your jacket on dear - we're off to the Alhambra in Dunfermline!"
Traffic volumes have increased, yes. But I doubt very much if this is directly related to the abolition of tolls.
Edinburger said:
I initially thought the closure of the A985 is ludicrous but it does at least mean that the slower moving vehicles are mainly on that road. I was across the water on Friday and decided to go up the M90 then joined the A91 (Jct. 6, from memory?) which took me through Dollar > Alva > Stirling to the M80 southbound. Longer route but at least it was without the frustration of standstill traffic.
I know a few friends who spoke about leaving their car at Dalmeny and one did that and got the train from Dunfermline this morning (he works in Livingston)... but the train was so full that it didn't stop at Dalmeny so he had to get off at Haymarket and get another train back to Dalmeny!
Hilarious.I know a few friends who spoke about leaving their car at Dalmeny and one did that and got the train from Dunfermline this morning (he works in Livingston)... but the train was so full that it didn't stop at Dalmeny so he had to get off at Haymarket and get another train back to Dalmeny!
Leithen said:
ModernAndy said:
Leithen said:
Er, no....
If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
sorry, I'm just not seeing where bridge works have been constrained by budget. That document also shows FETA being in a more favourable financial position because of advances of government grants. It is evident that the truss works were decided against due to the disruption they would cause but not necessarily the cost. Please point out if I am missing something.If you've been following the thread and the debacle, you'll have picked up that essential works have been deferred and delayed by government budget cuts. So the budget has clearly been restricted by government.
Page 4 said:
Significantly reduced capital grant has led to greater capital project prioritisation and the deferment of some projects beyond 2012-2015. This may impact on future project costs.
Edinburger said:
Do you really think removing tolls increased the volume of traffic?
Yes I think to a certain degree it did.Congestion certainly increased in the days after the tolls were removed.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scrapping-bridge-toll...
Edinburger said:
Do you really think removing tolls increased the volume of traffic?
You're not seriously suggesting a family in South Queensferry having a discussion along the lines of:
"What shall we do this weekend?"
"Let's visit Dunfermline?"
"You're joking, right? 80p to cross the bridge - do you think I'm made of money?"
"No, no it's okay because the toll has been abolished!"
"Really? Get your jacket on dear - we're off to the Alhambra in Dunfermline!"
Traffic volumes have increased, yes. But I doubt very much if this is directly related to the abolition of tolls.
change south to North and the Fife locations for Edinburgh ones and your bang on the moneyYou're not seriously suggesting a family in South Queensferry having a discussion along the lines of:
"What shall we do this weekend?"
"Let's visit Dunfermline?"
"You're joking, right? 80p to cross the bridge - do you think I'm made of money?"
"No, no it's okay because the toll has been abolished!"
"Really? Get your jacket on dear - we're off to the Alhambra in Dunfermline!"
Traffic volumes have increased, yes. But I doubt very much if this is directly related to the abolition of tolls.
Edinburger said:
Do you really think removing tolls increased the volume of traffic?
Do you really think it didn't!?If you make something cheaper, demand tends to rise. Especially if you're making it free.
How many people would avoid the FRB because of the 80p charge and go up the A9 to Perth and beyond? How many people would use the Kincardine bridge if the journeys were similar length? 80p a day isn't much, but perhaps it was shout to make a train ticket cheaper than a car journey? 80p per working day is a couple of hundred quid every year to factor into the commuting decision.
S2red said:
Wonder if those responsible for maintaining the grossly over capacity Kingston bridge are sweating?
Though not as busy since A74 extension opened
I did a bit of googling and it would seem the Kingston Bridge is now below capacity after works were done on it. I also learned the hugely interesting fact that the repair work features in the Guinness World Records book for involving the largest hydraulic lift.Though not as busy since A74 extension opened
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. Though not as busy since A74 extension opened
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff