Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 9
Discussion
Edinburger said:
I don't think your statement is fair or accurate either.
Difference is I quoted evidence for mine though. The corrosion survey details and the Lab/LibDem coalition-led vote to commission plans for a replacement crossing are a matter of public record. My statement that the SNP inherited the project and Swinney only had to dot the t's, cross the i's etc. is factually accurate.That's the distinction between opinion and fact - evidence!
You believe what you like though, because it tells us more about you if you think the public record is wrong (and might shed some light on why the SNP like to be opaque about their own record keeping).
It is also a running theme that the SNP like to arrive at the tail-end of an idea and take full credit for it - tuition fees being another key example.
PS. The commissioned study also investigated building a tunnel. IMO at the time that would have been the better option considering the prevailing weather conditions in the aree for much of the year. Guess I was right!
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 11th February 16:49
Evercross said:
Edinburger said:
I don't think your statement is fair or accurate either.
Difference is I quoted evidence for mine though. The corrosion survey details and the Lab/LibDem coalition-led vote to commission plans for a replacement crossing are a matter of public record. My statement that the SNP inherited the project and Swinney only had to dot the t's, cross the i's etc. is factually accurate.That's the distinction between opinion and fact - evidence!
You believe what you like though, because it tells us more about you if you think the public record is wrong (and might shed some light on why the SNP like to be opaque about their own record keeping).
It is also a running theme that the SNP like to arrive at the tail-end of an idea and take full credit for it - tuition fees being another key example.
PS. The commissioned study also investigated building a tunnel. IMO at the time that would have been the better option considering the prevailing weather conditions in the aree for much of the year. Guess I was right!
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 11th February 16:49
Do you think quoting 'evidence' is what makes it a watertight argument? I often don't have time to be researching sources and events. Lots of posters here quote 'sources' which are garbage.
The Forth Replacement Crossing Study was commissioned by Transport Scotland in 2007 and a cable-stay bridge was the favoured design. The SNP government secured funding and fought against opponents, environmental concerns, etc., and the Forth Crossing Bill was voted for by MSPs in 2010 so the Act gained Royal Assent in 2011 and construction started soon afterwards.
Would any other party in Government have achieved that? I don't think they would have. That was my point.
The SNP's incompetence continues to be reflected by the bridge fiascos. Tolls, FETA, design, capacity, Derek Mackay, Scottish Parliament Committee shortcomings and failures. It's all there.
The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Leithen said:
The SNP's incompetence continues to be reflected by the bridge fiascos. Tolls, FETA, design, capacity, Derek Mackay, Scottish Parliament Committee shortcomings and failures. It's all there.
The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Jeez.The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Edinburger said:
The Queensferry Crossing is a vast improvement on the Forth Road Bridge, even though yes it's closed today. Many bridges in Scandanavia are closed today too, It has improved transport links, reduced jams and has remained open on days when we have had chaos.
You keep saying this on this and other threads but it’s simply not true. Yes there may have been 30 days when high sided vehicles were banned from the old bridge...but in 40 years of crossing pretty much every week (but admittedly not every day) I was never stopped from crossing in a car, but maybe I was just really really lucky. But when high vehicles were banned it was just the trucks that had to go via Kincardine, not every single vehicle. Unless you only travel in the afternoons when it’s quiet (but not overnight as half the time there’s lane closures since there still working to finish/fix it) then I really can’t see any improvement at all. Far longer approach from the south, tricky junction from Inverkeithing from the north that upsets traffic flow and bloody awful congestion in the morning, evening and most weekends. I haven’t met a single Forth bridge ‘regular’ who thinks the new bridge is any improvement whatsoever. Certainly all the Fifers I know who have to cross think it’s a bloody joke.
Now let’s say we don’t blame the SNP for building a 2 lane bridge rather than 3 (knowing full well that the existing 2 lane bridge couldn’t handle even the current traffic volume) then what are they planning to address the crippling congestion? What, as a government, are they going to do to alleviate dreadful congestion morning and night on their bridge that’s a single point of cross-Forth failure...where it’s only going to get worse?
Maybe open the old bridge to local traffic or traffic on the slip roads (traffic joining the new bridge from Inverkeithing is really disruptive at peak times)? Maybe run the old bridge to Edinburgh and the new one to Newbridge? Maybe plan to beef-up the old bridge to take decent traffic volumes, maybe even just 1 lane each way peak times but switchable if the new one closes...and give it wind deflectors too? Nope - let’s plan for a corridor for electric driverless busses! f
king virtue-signalling morons. tvrolet said:
Now let’s say we don’t blame the SNP for building a 2 lane bridge rather than 3 (knowing full well that the existing 2 lane bridge couldn’t handle even the current traffic volume) then what are they planning to address the crippling congestion? What, as a government, are they going to do to alleviate dreadful congestion morning and night on their bridge that’s a single point of cross-Forth failure...where it’s only going to get worse? fking virtue-signalling morons.
That is a question I have been asking for years, the SNP simply dont have an answer, conversely they want many thousands moreking virtue-signalling morons. migrants to flock in which will cause even more chaos, congestion and strain on virtually every facet of infrastructure, so WTAF has
the SNP got in place to cope with that?, feck all I hear you say?..... Thought so.
tvrolet said:
Now let’s say we don’t blame the SNP for building a 2 lane bridge rather than 3 (knowing full well that the existing 2 lane bridge couldn’t handle even the current traffic volume) then what are they planning to address the crippling congestion? What, as a government, are they going to do to alleviate dreadful congestion morning and night on their bridge that’s a single point of cross-Forth failure...where it’s only going to get worse?
It was a deliberate decision by Transport Scotland to build a bridge based on 2007 traffic levels across the Forth, with any future growth being met by public transport - absolutely bonkers! Not least because the South East Scotland Strategic Plan (SESPlan) allocates significant housing growth in Fife, which they deem to be part of the “wider jobs market of Edinburgh” ie, those moving to Fife will be working in Edinburgh and will require to commute. The idea that public transport will be able to deal with growth the Scottish Government has already approved is a complete fantasy. It doesn’t come as a surprise; the Borders railway is similarly constrained in terms of future growth, being single line in part.tvrolet said:
Edinburger said:
The Queensferry Crossing is a vast improvement on the Forth Road Bridge, even though yes it's closed today. Many bridges in Scandanavia are closed today too, It has improved transport links, reduced jams and has remained open on days when we have had chaos.
You keep saying this on this and other threads but it’s simply not true. Yes there may have been 30 days when high sided vehicles were banned from the old bridge...but in 40 years of crossing pretty much every week (but admittedly not every day) I was never stopped from crossing in a car, but maybe I was just really really lucky. But when high vehicles were banned it was just the trucks that had to go via Kincardine, not every single vehicle. Unless you only travel in the afternoons when it’s quiet (but not overnight as half the time there’s lane closures since there still working to finish/fix it) then I really can’t see any improvement at all. Far longer approach from the south, tricky junction from Inverkeithing from the north that upsets traffic flow and bloody awful congestion in the morning, evening and most weekends. I haven’t met a single Forth bridge ‘regular’ who thinks the new bridge is any improvement whatsoever. Certainly all the Fifers I know who have to cross think it’s a bloody joke.
Now let’s say we don’t blame the SNP for building a 2 lane bridge rather than 3 (knowing full well that the existing 2 lane bridge couldn’t handle even the current traffic volume) then what are they planning to address the crippling congestion? What, as a government, are they going to do to alleviate dreadful congestion morning and night on their bridge that’s a single point of cross-Forth failure...where it’s only going to get worse?
Maybe open the old bridge to local traffic or traffic on the slip roads (traffic joining the new bridge from Inverkeithing is really disruptive at peak times)? Maybe run the old bridge to Edinburgh and the new one to Newbridge? Maybe plan to beef-up the old bridge to take decent traffic volumes, maybe even just 1 lane each way peak times but switchable if the new one closes...and give it wind deflectors too? Nope - let’s plan for a corridor for electric driverless busses! f
king virtue-signalling morons. Everyone knows it should have been a three lane motorway but the SNP relied on the Green vote to get it through Parliament and the Greens wouldn’t vote for any increase in capacity.
However, the delays at the QC are much, much better than they were at the FRB. What’s happened though is the delays have moved to other parts of the road due to capacity issues.
Leithen said:
The SNP's incompetence continues to be reflected by the bridge fiascos. Tolls, FETA, design, capacity, Derek Mackay, Scottish Parliament Committee shortcomings and failures. It's all there.
The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Where does the QC fall short exactly?The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Why are the SNP to blame for FETA?
What is so bad about scrapping tolls?
Seriously!
tim0409 said:
tvrolet said:
Now let’s say we don’t blame the SNP for building a 2 lane bridge rather than 3 (knowing full well that the existing 2 lane bridge couldn’t handle even the current traffic volume) then what are they planning to address the crippling congestion? What, as a government, are they going to do to alleviate dreadful congestion morning and night on their bridge that’s a single point of cross-Forth failure...where it’s only going to get worse?
It was a deliberate decision by Transport Scotland to build a bridge based on 2007 traffic levels across the Forth, with any future growth being met by public transport - absolutely bonkers! Not least because the South East Scotland Strategic Plan (SESPlan) allocates significant housing growth in Fife, which they deem to be part of the “wider jobs market of Edinburgh” ie, those moving to Fife will be working in Edinburgh and will require to commute. The idea that public transport will be able to deal with growth the Scottish Government has already approved is a complete fantasy. It doesn’t come as a surprise; the Borders railway is similarly constrained in terms of future growth, being single line in part.Just look at the arguing over the proposed Sherrifhall flyover.
Edinburger said:
That’s 21st Century Britain.
Just look at the arguing over the proposed Sherrifhall flyover.
No it is 21st Century Scotland, quite specifically and relevant to this thread, it was not a British matter, it was Scottish.Just look at the arguing over the proposed Sherrifhall flyover.
You know the Scottish SNP who would do things so differently to Westminster.
Well I suppose they did have to build something in the sure and certain knowledge that it was not fit for purpose just to appease their political cronies.
Edinburger said:
Leithen said:
The SNP's incompetence continues to be reflected by the bridge fiascos. Tolls, FETA, design, capacity, Derek Mackay, Scottish Parliament Committee shortcomings and failures. It's all there.
The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Where does the QC fall short exactly?The new bridge falls short on many levels. £1.35 Billion poorly spent. But there's another thread for that.
Why are the SNP to blame for FETA?
What is so bad about scrapping tolls?
Seriously!
However, to jog your memory. The only improvement of the QC over the old road bridge is the addition of a hard shoulder to cope with breakdowns/accidents. The design, for whatever reason, causes traffic to travel across it more slowly than the old version - possibly a vision thing, or steeper profile. Nonetheless, it does nothing to address the increased capacity demand from the improved M9 links or the increased Fife demand.
The removal of Tolls was a political stunt. The new plaza (costing how much?), had just been finished. Instead it was ripped up. The consequence was the independent funding of FETA through tolls was removed and replaced by direct funding (more SNP centralisation). Then, as evidenced at the following enquiry, maintenance funding was cut. Although disputed at the enquiry, it is very hard to see how the SNPs actions in any way improved the Forth Road Bridge management.
The enquiry was hamstrung by the Scottish Parliament Committee shortcomings. Fundamentally, the Parliament suffers from a lack of scrutiny free from political interference.
And then of course, at the centre of this was Derek Mackay, who may have been a smart and successful political operator within the SNP, but beyond that, especially as a minister, has been shown to be completely out of his depth.
As has been shown by numerous public infrastructure projects, the SNP are not good at this. They can't resist trying to maximise political capital at the expense of difficult, less popular decisions. They are control freaks who are obsessed with centralisation of power and control. Independent, expert opinion and management is an anathema to them.
Seriously.
Edinburger said:
However, the delays at the QC are much, much better than they were at the FRB. What’s happened though is the delays have moved to other parts of the road due to capacity issues.
I disagree. Northbound at any time, any day, there are NO delays or capacity issues north of the bridge; the bridge itself is the ONLY hold-up. This isn't just a southbound crossing; folks want to head North too. Coming from the M9, frequently the end of the tailback goes half-way along the M90 link...just where they were with the old bridge - except now the distance to the new bridge has increased by more than a mile, so the tail-back is actually longer. Southbound, yes I admit slickening-up the bridge would move delays for Edinburgh-bound traffic, but the bridge is the main delay for traffic heading to Glasgow from Fife (which is not an insignificant number) or to the M9. But even southbound in the morning you can't claim that the bridge has 'moved' the delay when the queue to the bridge stretches back well north of Junction 1, Admiralty, every morning. I join at Junction 1 and on the old bridge unless there was a breakdown or something untoward, traffic would never have tailed-back to that junction in the morning. So no, it isn't better.But in terms of coping with future requirements if a regular road has to be widened to cope with capacity, or a new flyover built, or an underpass, or a bypass, or whatever then clearly there's a cost but it is achievable. But if the bridge is the bottleneck...and there's an pretty-much unused bridge next to it what's the government's proposal to solve it? CAV Forth https://www.transport.gov.scot/transport-network/r... - autonomous busses across the old bridge. That doesn't sound like an almighty waste of money that will do sod-all to address the issue does it? Apart from cock-waving technology how is this any improvement on a bus with a driver? And by how much are busses actually taking the load? I used to regularly take the 747 bus to the airport (to avoid the jams) and more often that not it was half empty, and sometimes I was the only passenger. Autonomous busses on the old bridge are just another hare-brained money-pit of a scheme to me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff