AWPR Appeal rejected
Discussion
Jambo85 said:
Intrigued by the last sentence. What could the commercial downside be to opening the road? If someone smart wrote the contracts there would be a financial penalty for not opening something that was ready and potentially an incentive for opening "early". You have to assume they have been paid up front?
No idea on the commercials but I'm sure I read in another article fairly recently that the contractor only received payments once the agreed phases were complete and open.In any case, it'll be interesting to see what the official statement from Michael Matheson is next week.
8bit said:
Jambo85 said:
Intrigued by the last sentence. What could the commercial downside be to opening the road? If someone smart wrote the contracts there would be a financial penalty for not opening something that was ready and potentially an incentive for opening "early". You have to assume they have been paid up front?
No idea on the commercials but I'm sure I read in another article fairly recently that the contractor only received payments once the agreed phases were complete and open.In any case, it'll be interesting to see what the official statement from Michael Matheson is next week.
jamiem555 said:
What a nightmare! I'm looking at a possible relocation to Aberdeen in December and was contemplating the 82 mile commute from Perth.
Yes, but where are you heading to? If you are heading to the city then AWPR will make no difference, as it runs so far round the outskirts. If you are looking to commute to say Dyce, you will still need to go through the centre, but honestly, the traffic is nowhere near as bad as it used to be, due to the downturn.https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen...
My interpretation of that: Stonehaven to Parkhill is all one phase. Don bridge is part of that phase and isn't ready. So as per contract, the contractor can't get paid for any of that phase until the whole lot is open, so they're refusing to take on a maintenance liability by keeping it closed and - more cynically - holding the customer (is that Transport Scotland?) to ransom in the hope that they will pursue a contract amendment allowing partial payment for what is ready?
My interpretation of that: Stonehaven to Parkhill is all one phase. Don bridge is part of that phase and isn't ready. So as per contract, the contractor can't get paid for any of that phase until the whole lot is open, so they're refusing to take on a maintenance liability by keeping it closed and - more cynically - holding the customer (is that Transport Scotland?) to ransom in the hope that they will pursue a contract amendment allowing partial payment for what is ready?
abzmike said:
If you are heading to the city then AWPR will make no difference, as it runs so far round the outskirts. If you are looking to commute to say Dyce, you will still need to go through the centre, but honestly, the traffic is nowhere near as bad as it used to be, due to the downturn.
Meh, I'm hoping the AWPR will make a significant difference to the city centre as well by removing through traffic. Think beach, Market Street, Garthdee etc. Pre oil downturn was a lot worse without a doubt but driving into Aberdeen at peak times is still awful! Edited by Jambo85 on Thursday 1st November 12:46
Jambo85 said:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen...
My interpretation of that: Stonehaven to Parkhill is all one phase. Don bridge is part of that phase and isn't ready. So as per contract, the contractor can't get paid for any of that phase until the whole lot is open, so they're refusing to take on a maintenance liability by keeping it closed and - more cynically - holding the customer (is that Transport Scotland?) to ransom in the hope that they will pursue a contract amendment allowing partial payment for what is ready?
Yup, would require a Variation to the contract which would then release funds to the contractor for whats finished...can't see it happening though!My interpretation of that: Stonehaven to Parkhill is all one phase. Don bridge is part of that phase and isn't ready. So as per contract, the contractor can't get paid for any of that phase until the whole lot is open, so they're refusing to take on a maintenance liability by keeping it closed and - more cynically - holding the customer (is that Transport Scotland?) to ransom in the hope that they will pursue a contract amendment allowing partial payment for what is ready?
Edited by Jambo85 on Thursday 1st November 12:46
Yep, the blame game is well and truly underway. Given that they have had weeks to come up today’s update it’s poor they don’t seem to have a clue whats going on - they must have a clue, they just can’t bring themselves to say. If it’s really bad news, such as needing to rebuild the Don crossing, then they may as well spit it out.
My thoughts entirely Mike.
I expect that even if the contract were amended to allow part of the road to open there would need to be management of change and risk assessments including some assessment of the impact to surrounding roads (mostly Dyce in this case) before it could happen. I think the P&J article I linked alludes to this.
I expect that even if the contract were amended to allow part of the road to open there would need to be management of change and risk assessments including some assessment of the impact to surrounding roads (mostly Dyce in this case) before it could happen. I think the P&J article I linked alludes to this.
abzmike said:
Yep, the blame game is well and truly underway. Given that they have had weeks to come up today’s update it’s poor they don’t seem to have a clue whats going on - they must have a clue, they just can’t bring themselves to say. If it’s really bad news, such as needing to rebuild the Don crossing, then they may as well spit it out.
Yeah i think that's what the main issue could be, it's not been decided if it needs to come down or not....IF the bridge has to be re built i'm guessing the current contractor can't afford this as the cost of all remedial work etc is on them so worst case it does need re built they they go into Admin or whatever then we are left with a broken bridge with nobody to sort it and no money to bring in a new contractor....!Plenty of hi viz folk on the Don bridge the last few days, but not sure there is much actual work being done.
PS have you seen the facebook crowd debating this? I saw somebody tried to make the point about the impact on Dyce of opening everything but the Don bridge and no one could get their head around what he was saying.
PS have you seen the facebook crowd debating this? I saw somebody tried to make the point about the impact on Dyce of opening everything but the Don bridge and no one could get their head around what he was saying.
No new insights in the industry press, but the problem now has a national profile...
https://www.building.co.uk/news/scottish-transport...
https://www.building.co.uk/news/scottish-transport...
dxg said:
No new insights in the industry press, but the problem now has a national profile...
https://www.building.co.uk/news/scottish-transport...
Yep, when CEOs have to start telling the stock market about project delays, it's in a bad place for sure. The article here says December, but anyone who has seen the bridge recently knows that isn't going to happen.https://www.building.co.uk/news/scottish-transport...
I guess on one hand it's of some small glimmer of comfort to know that contractors are just the same whether they're building you a conservatory or a multi-million pound road.
Jambo85 said:
PS have you seen the facebook crowd debating this?
Got a link or page/group name? Now the news has sunk in a laugh would be good Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff