Forth Road Bridge after work each evening
Discussion
Halmyre said:
Only snag is, I've heard there are some people complaining that the bridge feels unsafe, which is doubtless why they drive in the right-hand lane at 40 mph. There's no way they're going to be persuaded* to drive on the +1 lane.
*short of deeming them incompetent and unfit to drive and revoking their licence, if only...
Maybe they should have a big sign at the north end saying "don't like the bridge?" and an arrow pointing to Ferrytoll P&R....*short of deeming them incompetent and unfit to drive and revoking their licence, if only...
I was thinking about this the other day. Came down M90 and it was queued, circa 30 mph at best for a few miles. Then it frees up on the bridge. BUT - you don’t know it’s freed up as you can only see a few cars ahead of you. So if one person doesn’t realise/isn’t aware, then you’re stuck at queue speed.
Condi said:
I thought the plan was to open the old bridge up to more traffic once repairs had been made. Is this still the case? Seems a bit pointless to have 1 bridge backed up with traffic and a second taking the odd bus.
It seems to me that the problem is not with the volume of traffic crossing the Forth, it’s the volume of traffic converging on land at either side.There seems to be a bandwagon of "I hate the QC because..." yet none of the reasons stack up.
There will always be issues on any bridge or tunnel over/under the Forth as you have X lanes merging into two. It's true the Greens opposed a three lane bridge. The other big problem is all the numb nuts slowing down to 40/50 over the QC. I don't understand why that's not an offence. Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Beside those points, the QC has been a remarkable success in my opinion.
There will always be issues on any bridge or tunnel over/under the Forth as you have X lanes merging into two. It's true the Greens opposed a three lane bridge. The other big problem is all the numb nuts slowing down to 40/50 over the QC. I don't understand why that's not an offence. Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Beside those points, the QC has been a remarkable success in my opinion.
Edinburger said:
There seems to be a bandwagon of "I hate the QC because..." yet none of the reasons stack up.
There will always be issues on any bridge or tunnel over/under the Forth as you have X lanes merging into two. It's true the Greens opposed a three lane bridge. The other big problem is all the numb nuts slowing down to 40/50 over the QC. I don't understand why that's not an offence. Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Beside those points, the QC has been a remarkable success in my opinion.
I dont agree, there was a perfect opportunity to design something fully future proofed and suitable for many generations. What has been built is something which causes tailbacks in both directions for much of the day and either the bridge, or the road network linking to it on both sides, is not handling the existing volume of traffic very well. I don't see how that can be called a 'remarkable success', especially for the people who have 15-20 mins added to their journey. There will always be issues on any bridge or tunnel over/under the Forth as you have X lanes merging into two. It's true the Greens opposed a three lane bridge. The other big problem is all the numb nuts slowing down to 40/50 over the QC. I don't understand why that's not an offence. Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Beside those points, the QC has been a remarkable success in my opinion.
If the main problem is X lanes merging into 2, then the bridge should have been designed and built with 3 running lanes in mind, and the SNP should have found a way to push that through Holyrood. Given that is not now possible some of the traffic needs directing over the other bridge.
Given that the project started with a totally blank piece of paper, for the bridge and associated road network to be overwhelmed less than 2 years after it opened is very poor planning.
There is obviously an issue with people driving across the bridge at 40 or 50mph, but I have no idea what you can do about that.
Edited by Condi on Thursday 12th September 11:50
Condi said:
Edinburger said:
There seems to be a bandwagon of "I hate the QC because..." yet none of the reasons stack up.
There will always be issues on any bridge or tunnel over/under the Forth as you have X lanes merging into two. It's true the Greens opposed a three lane bridge. The other big problem is all the numb nuts slowing down to 40/50 over the QC. I don't understand why that's not an offence. Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Beside those points, the QC has been a remarkable success in my opinion.
I dont agree, there was a perfect opportunity to design something fully future proofed and suitable for many generations. What has been built is something which causes tailbacks in both directions for much of the day and either the bridge, or the road network linking to it on both sides, is not handling the existing volume of traffic very well. I don't see how that can be called a 'remarkable success', especially for the people who have 15-20 mins added to their journey. There will always be issues on any bridge or tunnel over/under the Forth as you have X lanes merging into two. It's true the Greens opposed a three lane bridge. The other big problem is all the numb nuts slowing down to 40/50 over the QC. I don't understand why that's not an offence. Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Beside those points, the QC has been a remarkable success in my opinion.
If the main problem is X lanes merging into 2, then the bridge should have been designed and built with 3 running lanes in mind, and the SNP should have found a way to push that through Holyrood. Given that is not now possible some of the traffic needs directing over the other bridge.
Given that the project started with a totally blank piece of paper, for the bridge and associated road network to be overwhelmed less than 2 years after it opened is very poor planning.
There is obviously an issue with people driving across the bridge at 40 or 50mph, but I have no idea what you can do about that.
Edited by Condi on Thursday 12th September 11:50
A three lane bridge would have been better but there would still have been some tailbacks. I don't see how the QC is a 'smart motorway' yet doesn't open the hard shoulder during peak times like many other motorways do? The Greens - yep!
Yes, there are tailbacks on both approaches to the QC during rush hour. Bt those tailbacks are shorter and quicker than they ever were on the FRB. When was the QC last closed because of high winds?
The surrounding network isn't overwhelmed. It's busy, but manageable. Unless we got a 8-lane bridge that would always be the case.
simoid said:
Edinburger said:
Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Bold is correct driving procedure if you mean using all the slip road? Please hand in your driving licence.Those people make the tailbacks worse.
They should put a fence along there to prevent idiots doing that.
Edinburger said:
Sorry Condi, but I don't believe that's true.
A three lane bridge would have been better but there would still have been some tailbacks. I don't see how the QC is a 'smart motorway' yet doesn't open the hard shoulder during peak times like many other motorways do? The Greens - yep!
Yes, there are tailbacks on both approaches to the QC during rush hour. Bt those tailbacks are shorter and quicker than they ever were on the FRB. When was the QC last closed because of high winds?
The surrounding network isn't overwhelmed. It's busy, but manageable. Unless we got a 8-lane bridge that would always be the case.
I agree its better, but I think that starting with a blank piece of paper they could have done something more ambitious than what has been achieved. A three lane bridge would have been better but there would still have been some tailbacks. I don't see how the QC is a 'smart motorway' yet doesn't open the hard shoulder during peak times like many other motorways do? The Greens - yep!
Yes, there are tailbacks on both approaches to the QC during rush hour. Bt those tailbacks are shorter and quicker than they ever were on the FRB. When was the QC last closed because of high winds?
The surrounding network isn't overwhelmed. It's busy, but manageable. Unless we got a 8-lane bridge that would always be the case.
What do the Greens have to do with anything now? Holyrood is SNP controlled; can they not simply pass a motion for it to become a smart motorway and open the 3rd lane?
We will have to disagree on the difference between overwhelmed, and manageable! I would say 15 min tailbacks on a brand new road is overwhelmed, and what is that going to look like in 20 years time when there is additional traffic above what is there today?
Edinburger said:
simoid said:
Edinburger said:
Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Bold is correct driving procedure if you mean using all the slip road? Please hand in your driving licence.Those people make the tailbacks worse.
They should put a fence along there to prevent idiots doing that.
Edinburger said:
simoid said:
Edinburger said:
Also all the arses northbound who take the Bo'ness slip and who merge into the M90 at the end.
Bold is correct driving procedure if you mean using all the slip road? Please hand in your driving licence.Those people make the tailbacks worse.
They should put a fence along there to prevent idiots doing that.
gantry snipers as Clarkson said.Part of the issue is a lot of traffic will use the bridge as a viewing platform to drive over at 30mph whilst Jennifer takes pictures to post on Instagram. I'm talking about you in the hired Vauxhall Grandland on Wednesday afternoon. They should have built 8ft solid screens on either side... nothing to see here, ignore the rusty bridge and the fighty boat and get over the damn bridge.
I've lost count how many times (and at random times) the approaches have been backed up, the bridge is full of people doing 40mph about 500yds apart then continue to do so either right round past Dakota or up the brae past Rosyth. But that's nothing new, I drive up the A1 daily and doing 70mph feels unnerving as most seem to travel along at 50mph, being a pain in the arse to wagons and braking heavily for the speed cameras.
Doing 70mph over the bridge feels completely wrong, more so as it's almost impossible to maintain that without closing in like an exocet missile on somebody trundling along in lane two, looking at everything bar the road ahead or their mirrors. As has been said, twenty lanes wouldn't change matters... idiots will continue to plod along in the outside lane no matter what you implement. The Clackmannan bridge flows better but then who wants to look at Grangemouth or an old power station.
I actively avoid peak times... commuting that route daily must be utterly grim.
I've lost count how many times (and at random times) the approaches have been backed up, the bridge is full of people doing 40mph about 500yds apart then continue to do so either right round past Dakota or up the brae past Rosyth. But that's nothing new, I drive up the A1 daily and doing 70mph feels unnerving as most seem to travel along at 50mph, being a pain in the arse to wagons and braking heavily for the speed cameras.
Doing 70mph over the bridge feels completely wrong, more so as it's almost impossible to maintain that without closing in like an exocet missile on somebody trundling along in lane two, looking at everything bar the road ahead or their mirrors. As has been said, twenty lanes wouldn't change matters... idiots will continue to plod along in the outside lane no matter what you implement. The Clackmannan bridge flows better but then who wants to look at Grangemouth or an old power station.
I actively avoid peak times... commuting that route daily must be utterly grim.
The queues from Newton to the bridge at rush hour appear far worse than anything that existed along the old Queensferry road.
The QC should have been a minimum of three full lanes each way - a view I've heard from very experienced civil engineers who were incredulous that it was not providing any further capacity.
The QC should have been a minimum of three full lanes each way - a view I've heard from very experienced civil engineers who were incredulous that it was not providing any further capacity.
Leithen said:
The queues from Newton to the bridge at rush hour appear far worse than anything that existed along the old Queensferry road.
The QC should have been a minimum of three full lanes each way - a view I've heard from very experienced civil engineers who were incredulous that it was not providing any further capacity.
As I said before, why would anyone think that replacing a two lane bridge with another two lane bridge would solve any problems ? It's just moved the problem to a different place. The only thing I can see helping is to re-open the old bridge for specific types of traffic (not just buses) but that still wont fix the fundamental problem. There will still be unacceptable tailbacks at peak times.The QC should have been a minimum of three full lanes each way - a view I've heard from very experienced civil engineers who were incredulous that it was not providing any further capacity.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff