Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 9

[Edinburger]

nikaiyo2 said:

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.

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.

Seriously? Do you think it was the SNP who designed and built the Queensferry Crossing?

You do know some bridges in England were closed yesterday too? Presumably that's the SNP's fault too?

[Edinburger]

Leithen said:

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?
Why are the SNP to blame for FETA?
What is so bad about scrapping tolls?

Seriously!

Seriously 'Burger, either you have a short memory or you are being willingly obtuse. This has all been covered over the years in other threads.

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.

It's very easy to all major transport projects under any government and be critical. If it wasn't for the SNP the Queensferry Crossing would not exist - fact.

The other improvement of the QC is upgrade to motorway status and therefore higher speed limits, reducing congestion.

Removal of tolls all over Scotland was a manifesto pledge which was delivered. Is that really a bad thing?

[Edinburger]

technodup said:

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.

How many millions to shift the problem along a bit?

And if the QC had funding to expand and alter all ancillary road layouts across the M90, A90, M8, A8, A720 and all the associated roundabouts and junctions then you'd have all complained that too much was being spent in the Edinburgh and Fife area.

[Edinburger]

tvrolet said:

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.

Northbound - the bridge isn't the hold-up?! The hold-up is umpteen lanes from umpteen roads merging into a two lane bridge, and all the clowns trying to save a few minutes jumping lanes and skimming over the roundabout before the bridge.

Yes, a lot of what you said is true. But unless the entire road network is changes to four or more lanes each way that will always be the case. You cannot keep saying the QC is not an improvement when it's been reported and experienced all the time that it is.

If you're following the news, the reason the FRB wasn't opened is because lanes are closed for repairs. The Transport Minister has said they will look into the feasibility of re-opening it if the QC is closed again, but bear in mind this will involve re-classifying that road. It's not a case of just throwing a few cones down.

You keep harping on about autonomous buses and I don't see why you're so against that.

[Leithen]

Edinburger said:

It's very easy to all major transport projects under any government and be critical. If it wasn't for the SNP the Queensferry Crossing would not exist - fact.

The other improvement of the QC is upgrade to motorway status and therefore higher speed limits, reducing congestion.

Removal of tolls all over Scotland was a manifesto pledge which was delivered. Is that really a bad thing?

Think about what you have just written.

Are you suggesting major transport projects should not be scrutinised?

Are you suggesting that a replacement to the Forth Road Bridge would not have been built if the SNP weren't in power?

I travel over the QC frequently, at all times of day. I have almost never had the opportunity to do so at 70mph. Motorway status is meaningless.

Are you seriously asking whether the removal of a brand new toll plaza paid for by tax payers was a good thing? The replacement of independent maintenance funding replaced by direct funding with political interference a good thing?

Is it worth responding to anything you write, if you simply ignore what is written?

[Edinburger]

Leithen said:

Think about what you have just written.

Are you suggesting major transport projects should not be scrutinised?

Are you suggesting that a replacement to the Forth Road Bridge would not have been built if the SNP weren't in power?

I travel over the QC frequently, at all times of day. I have almost never had the opportunity to do so at 70mph. Motorway status is meaningless.

Are you seriously asking whether the removal of a brand new toll plaza paid for by tax payers was a good thing? The replacement of independent maintenance funding replaced by direct funding with political interference a good thing?

Is it worth responding to anything you write, if you simply ignore what is written?

Let me answer each point:

Are you suggesting major transport projects should not be scrutinised - no, I'm not.

Are you suggesting that a replacement to the Forth Road Bridge would not have been built if the SNP weren't in power - the Lib Dems, the Conservatives and the Labour party took no meaningful action to consider a replacement bridge.

I travel over the QC frequently, at all times of day. I have almost never had the opportunity to do so at 70mph. Motorway status is meaningless - how odd, I go over the bridge several times each week and often reach 70mph.

Are you seriously asking whether the removal of a brand new toll plaza paid for by tax payers was a good thing? The replacement of independent maintenance funding replaced by direct funding with political interference a good thing - I think this was a good change introduced, yes.

Is it worth responding to anything you write, if you simply ignore what is written? Aye, whatever

So, if it were down to you would we have a replacement bridge with an A class road and tolls?

[hutchst]

Edinburger said:

And if the QC had funding to expand and alter all ancillary road layouts across the M90, A90, M8, A8, A720 and all the associated roundabouts and junctions then you'd have all complained that too much was being spent in the Edinburgh and Fife area.

It was a canny decision by the SNP, to defer tendering for these extra projects until after Brexit so that we could make sure a proper Scottish contractor would get the work.

[Leithen]

Edinburger said:

Let me answer each point:

Are you suggesting major transport projects should not be scrutinised - no, I'm not.

Phew.

Edinburger said:

Are you suggesting that a replacement to the Forth Road Bridge would not have been built if the SNP weren't in power - the Lib Dems, the Conservatives and the Labour party took no meaningful action to consider a replacement bridge.

As they weren't in power at the same time, you simply can't come to the conclusion that they would not have built a new crossing.

Edinburger said:

I travel over the QC frequently, at all times of day. I have almost never had the opportunity to do so at 70mph. Motorway status is meaningless - how odd, I go over the bridge several times each week and often reach 70mph.

Custard.

Edinburger said:

Are you seriously asking whether the removal of a brand new toll plaza paid for by tax payers was a good thing? The replacement of independent maintenance funding replaced by direct funding with political interference a good thing - I think this was a good change introduced, yes.

Well, at least you are honest. The centralisation and control freakery of the SNP is at the root of their incompetence. Every time you drive over the QC, look across at the FRB and be proud.

Edinburger said:

Is it worth responding to anything you write, if you simply ignore what is written? Aye, whatever

You made the effort, credit to you.

Edinburger said:

So, if it were down to you would we have a replacement bridge with an A class road and tolls?

Did I write that? Did I imply that? Of course not. The traffic requirements for the life of any new crossing should have been independently quantified, free of political interference. This should have encompassed light rail, public transport, future housing, road etc. It is blindingly obvious that the crossing should have had three lanes plus a hard shoulder each way. Senior civil engineers have expressed incredulity to me that it doesn't.

That the SNP failed to find the budget to build something fit for purpose is their failure, nobody else's. That the FRB maintenance issues brought a premature end to its use is their responsibility, nobody else's.

And yes, it ought to have tolls. Politically, funding it and keeping the Greens happy would have been a lot easier if it had.

[technodup]

Edinburger said:

It's very easy to all major transport projects under any government and be critical. If it wasn't for the SNP the Queensferry Crossing would not exist - fact.

And if it wasn't for the Tories and Labour we wouldn't have the first bridge, the M8, M77 or any other piece of road infrastructure that's ever been built. So fking what?

If it wasn't for the SNP we wouldn't have two new ferries for... no, wait...

How many ferries do you get for a bridge? Or is it how many bridges for a ferry?

[deadslow]

Edinburger said:

Seriously? Do you think it was the SNP who designed and built the Queensferry Crossing?

You do know some bridges in England were closed yesterday too? Presumably that's the SNP's fault too?

I'm sure the bridge was designed and built by some rich Tory contractor. Same as the hospitals.

[Edinburger]

technodup said:

nd if it wasn't for the Tories and Labour we wouldn't have the first bridge, the M8, M77 or any other piece of road infrastructure that's ever been built. So fking what?

If it wasn't for the SNP we wouldn't have two new ferries for... no, wait...

How many ferries do you get for a bridge? Or is it how many bridges for a ferry?

Why are we politicising a bridge?

Are people going ape about bridges in England and Europe being closed? Are the SNP being blamed for that too?

Let’s be sensible and put safety first.

[tvrolet]

deadslow said:

I'm sure the bridge was designed and built by some rich Tory contractor. Same as the hospitals.

But at least they chose Scottish steel, right?




oh, wait...

[Edinburger]

Leithen said:

Edinburger said:

Let me answer each point:

Are you suggesting major transport projects should not be scrutinised - no, I'm not.

Phew.

Edinburger said:

Are you suggesting that a replacement to the Forth Road Bridge would not have been built if the SNP weren't in power - the Lib Dems, the Conservatives and the Labour party took no meaningful action to consider a replacement bridge.

As they weren't in power at the same time, you simply can't come to the conclusion that they would not have built a new crossing.

Edinburger said:

I travel over the QC frequently, at all times of day. I have almost never had the opportunity to do so at 70mph. Motorway status is meaningless - how odd, I go over the bridge several times each week and often reach 70mph.

Custard.

Edinburger said:

Are you seriously asking whether the removal of a brand new toll plaza paid for by tax payers was a good thing? The replacement of independent maintenance funding replaced by direct funding with political interference a good thing - I think this was a good change introduced, yes.

Well, at least you are honest. The centralisation and control freakery of the SNP is at the root of their incompetence. Every time you drive over the QC, look across at the FRB and be proud.

Edinburger said:

Is it worth responding to anything you write, if you simply ignore what is written? Aye, whatever

You made the effort, credit to you.

Edinburger said:

So, if it were down to you would we have a replacement bridge with an A class road and tolls?

Did I write that? Did I imply that? Of course not. The traffic requirements for the life of any new crossing should have been independently quantified, free of political interference. This should have encompassed light rail, public transport, future housing, road etc. It is blindingly obvious that the crossing should have had three lanes plus a hard shoulder each way. Senior civil engineers have expressed incredulity to me that it doesn't.

That the SNP failed to find the budget to build something fit for purpose is their failure, nobody else's. That the FRB maintenance issues brought a premature end to its use is their responsibility, nobody else's.

And yes, it ought to have tolls. Politically, funding it and keeping the Greens happy would have been a lot easier if it had.

I’ll reply to this little lot later.

[Leithen]

Edinburger said:

I’ll reply to this little lot later.

This little lot? By all means disagree with everything I have written, but if the best you can do is such condescension, please don't bother.

[technodup]

Edinburger said:

Why are we politicising a bridge?

It's you who keeps going on about the SNP and the fact they built a bridge (that seemingly doesn't work very well).

[Alpacaman]

Edinburger said:

I’ll reply to this little lot later.

Why bother? You have made your position clear - it is entirely due to the SNP that the bridge was built, but nothing to do with them that it wasn't built to cope with typical Scottish weather or built with three lanes, or even with British steel. Does that about sum it up?

[andymadmak]

Alpacaman said:

Why bother? You have made your position clear - it is entirely due to the SNP that the bridge was built, but nothing to do with them that it wasn't built to cope with typical Scottish weather or built with three lanes, or even with British steel. Does that about sum it up?

Back of the net!

[Edinburger]

Leithen said:

Edinburger said:

I’ll reply to this little lot later.

This little lot? By all means disagree with everything I have written, but if the best you can do is such condescension, please don't bother.

Fine. I won't bother then. I was being respectful by saying I'd reply to it later. I work during business hours, you see.

[Edinburger]

technodup said:

Edinburger said:

Why are we politicising a bridge?

It's you who keeps going on about the SNP and the fact they built a bridge (that seemingly doesn't work very well).

Good twist on facts there, techno.

You lot said "ooh the bridge is shut = SNP bad"

My retort was simply that if it wasn't for the SNP there would be no Queensferry Crossing and the Forth Road Bridge would have been closed many, many more times than this first event of the QC closure (and many other bridges for the same reason).

The problem with you lot is simple: anything negative happens = SNP bad.

[Edinburger]

Alpacaman said:

Edinburger said:

I’ll reply to this little lot later.

Why bother? You have made your position clear - it is entirely due to the SNP that the bridge was built, but nothing to do with them that it wasn't built to cope with typical Scottish weather or built with three lanes, or even with British steel. Does that about sum it up?