Forth Road Bridge after work each evening
Discussion
GoneAnon said:
Whatever has caused the fracture surely everyone can see that funding was not the problem?
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.
ModernAndy said:
-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?
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.
ModernAndy said:
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?
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.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.
"Transport minister Derek Mackay has admitted that work cancelled on the Forth Road Bridge in 2010 would have replaced the faulty section that caused its closure."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/141333...cancelled_2010_Forth_Road_Bridge_workswould_have_replaced_faulty_section_/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/141333...cancelled_2010_Forth_Road_Bridge_workswould_have_replaced_faulty_section_/
GoneAnon said:
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.
Unfortunately road budgets are far too easily cut. A suspension bridge is an entirely different kettle of fish from a normal road or even a section of motorway. Lack of maintenance of the latter will lead to potholes, poor surface condition, which all too frequently leads to short term patchwork, but not the clusterf
k we have with the FRB.One piece of evidence that an enquiry needs to uncover is the per metre or per kilometre maintenance cost of the FRB and compare it to other road types.
It was self funding. People would prefer everything to be free, or costs to be hidden - a fact that politicians know only too well. It doesn't make it a good idea though.
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?
GoneAnon said:
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?
These documents state that the Truss End Links were identified as been "significantly overstressed". Work to these "critical structural members" was cancelled, deferred and altered.
With ref to funding, "the Scottish Government’s September 2011 Spending Review resulted in a reduction in the Authority’s capital funding" 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"
All this is clearly directly related to the current problem.
Now it's perfectly reasonable to ask what specific work was planned, cancelled, changed and altered and whether any or all of these works would have cured the problem. However, it's also perfectly reasonable to query what work would have been planned and completed had FETA remained self funded and the government had remained on the ball.
It's entirely possible that even with toll income, FETA might have felt the need to request additional government funding to address such issues. If that proves to be the case however, it will simply underline the f
kwittery of the decision to scrap the tolls.I'm simply a long term user of the damn thing (47 years, 30 of them driving myself), not a structural engineer (although my father in law is and I look forward to his opinion over Xmas). I honestly disagreed with the tolls being removed. Not through any magical foresight, rather the blatant waste of public money re the toll plaza scrappage - the cost of which may have been enough to pay for the replacement of the truss end linkages in the first place.
I also disagreed with the premise that everyone ought to fund all bridges across the country. There is a very good case for major structures such as bridges to be at least part funded by those who benefit from them.
Should a proper independent enquiry find that the specific problems that have closed the bridge were entirely unforeseeable, I'll happily admit to being wrong.
There appears to be far too much publicly available evidence to the contrary however. And what are the chances of an entirely independent enquiry?
GoneAnon said:
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.
So they replace stuff just for the fun of it in the course of other works even though (if the stories are to be believed) those parts of the bridge were perfectly fine and no one was aware that the truss end links were over stressed? 
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?
GoneAnon said:
Oh no they weren't!!!
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?
Transport Minister said they would've been replaced in 2010/11 works. Don't you believe him?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?
Forth Road Bridge to reopen on Wednesday - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...
What's the betting Holyrood will claim to have saved the day / world over this one. Dread to think what the actual bill is.
What's the betting Holyrood will claim to have saved the day / world over this one. Dread to think what the actual bill is.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff