Forum menu
Of course its too expensive. "Came in under budget" - its not been built yet. Its not needed anyway so its wasted money.
We will not even know for a while yet if the dehumidifying of the old bridge will work - and even if it does not then the old bridge could be repaired for far less than the cost of the new bridge. There is no proposal to remove the old bridge anyway
As for congestion - when we have two bridges where is the extra traffic generated going to go? All the roads south of it are full already.
Its a huge white elephant
It is needed because the existing bridge is coming to the end of its useable life and will be dispoportionately expensive to maintain beyond that point
Isnt the party line, that they do not actually know the lifespan/condition of the existing bridge and if they wait until they do know then it will take too long to build the new crossing?
To think that there will be 4 traffic bridges crossing the Forth seems a bit crazy.
Hey dont worry about all of the extra congestion when the complete the tram network all of the commuters will just use the bridge to get to the new tram stop..... 😆 🙄 😆
Jackrabbit - I did, I used to live in Rosyth 😀
Peterfile - I'm of the opinion that replacing the current bridge with one with exactly the same capacity is short sighted. I think one with additional carriageways and possibly the second rail deck would be a wiser solution. Although I am aware of the arguments about increasing capacity increasing congestion so i'm not really sure what the solution should be.
I actually liked the guy from South Q'ferry's idea of a sunken tube (fabricated in the shipyard in Rosyth) tunnel, but realise that it wasn't really a viable option.
To be fair since moving back into Ed and no longer having to commute across the bridge I haven't kept up with progress. I hope that some sort of wind protection is included in the plans as having to divert via Kincardine, albeit not very often, was a total 'mare and the number of high sided vehicles which choose to ignore the high wind warnings is shocking and a disaster waiting to happen.
I think they should call in the Fifth Bridge - well it makes me smile at least and is less of a mouthful than Forth Replacement Crossing 😀
extra traffic generated
How do you know there will be extra traffic generated? Or are you just assuming?
Of course its too expensive. "Came in under budget" - its not been built yet. Its not needed anyway so its wasted money.
Is this based on your vast experience of working on similar bridge projects around the world, or something you read in the Scottish media?
We will not even know for a while yet if the dehumidifying of the old bridge will work - and even if it does not then the old bridge could be repaired for far less than the cost of the new bridge. There is no proposal to remove the old bridge anyway
It's not as simple as repairing the existing bridge. The design of it means that it would have to be closed or traffic greatly reduced in order to carry out the required works. This has significant cost implications beyond the direct repair costs.
The exsiting bridge will be used as a public transport route.
As for congestion - when we have two bridges where is the extra traffic generated going to go? All the roads south of it are full already.
Have you seen the traffic modelling for the new bridge? I don't remember spotting any issues with all the "extra traffic generated" having nowhere to go?
Its a huge white elephant
Same could be said about every major infrastructure project in the UK. We are generally very negative about anything that doesn't appear to give a benefit that is instantly obvious.
Totally different mentality in other EU states, and UAE. In fact even in Africa, where the public deals are generally considered completely and utterly corrupt, there is less distain.
Dazzzliongboy - its what always happens with new roads.
Totally different mentality in other EU states
+1 - why is everything new like this "a bad thing".
Back to horses and carts all round?
its what always happens with new roads.
But is the new bridge generating the extra traffic or some other factor?
Could be, among other things, crap public transport links; rising cost of public transport; lower house prices in Fife - you name it.
I'm not sure the argument of "it always happens" is much of an argument tbh. Maybe the traffic will rise, but could be due to a hundred reasons.
Peterfile - are you claiming that the new bridge will be cheaper than repairing the old one?
Of course it would cause issues to repair the existing one - but that is the sensible way to go. Plan for it, get a increaed park and ride over the rail bridge, improve the route to kincardine etc etc
As for increased congestion - where do you think the extra traffic wil go? All new road projects increase traffic. there is nowhere for this increased traffic to go at rush hour - the roads into Edinburgh are full, the Edinburgh bypass is full, the M8 is full.
I think the reason public building projects are treated with such disdain in this country is to do with the total arse that seems to be made in realising them. The trams and parliment are just two examples and they're both in Edinburgh.
Whereas that bridge in France I can never remember the name of came in early and under budget.
Is it just other countries set budgets and time scales at more realistic levels that allow for some contingency or do contractors in this country under quote in order to get contracts or are contracts better written elsewhere? - that's a genuine question as I don't understand how we seem to be consistently poor at seeing through large capital projects.
where do you think the extra traffic wil go
sorry I'm still not with you here - what extra traffic?
lower house prices in Fife - you name it.
This has to be a factor, I know quite a few people (obviously not a statistically relevant survey) that either have or are planning to move to Fife because you get a hell of a lot more for your money.
Look at the size of Duloch Pk now comparedto a couple of years ago!
Peterfile - are you claiming that the new bridge will be cheaper than repairing the old one?
Again it's not as simple as that. There is no way to predict the remaining life cycle repairs and additional repairs required to the existing bridge.
Even if it was quantifiable in a basic cost of repair v new bridge construction basis, you have to look at the political issues. Scottish Ministers have an obligation to ensure continued provision of infrastructure, they have dedicated budget.
If FRC had never been proposed, all we would have is people from Edinburgh whinging about how the repair works to the existing bridge were causing them to be 30 mins late for work every day and it was a stupid idea to repair such an old bridge with an unknow lifespan.
Of course it would cause issues to repair the existing one - but that is the sensible way to go. Plan for it, get a increaed park and ride over the rail bridge, improve the route to kincardine etc etc
You wouldn't believe the amount of work that was carried out and various models mooted, every conceivable option was considered, it took years. Of course there are other options, but a decision had to be made, and on the basis of the criteria SM were working to (i.e. cost and continued provision of road access etc), FRC was the one that came out top.
As for increased congestion - where do you think the extra traffic wil go? All new road projects increase traffic. there is nowhere for this increased traffic to go at rush hour - the roads into Edinburgh are full, the Edinburgh bypass is full, the M8 is full.
Again, it's all be modelled and remodelled and then remodelled again. Whilst generated journey predictions are never 100% accurate, bridge projects are hardly unique, so the maths behind it is pretty sound. It will be fine, trust me 😉
dazzlingboy - the extra traffic that will be generated - this happens with road infrastructure projects such as this. Allways.
The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible.
http://stopthepave.org/why-building-roads-doesnt-ease-congestion
Peterfile =- waht alternative universe do you live in?
Its a vanity project pure and simple.
It will cause massive congestion south of the bridge and probably north as well.
Every infrastructure project of this sort always ends up in increased congestion
Is it just other countries set budgets and time scales at more realistic levels that allow for some contingency or do contractors in this country under quote in order to get contracts or are contracts better written elsewhere? - that's a genuine question as I don't understand how we seem to be consistently poor at seeing through large capital projects.
This is a VERY interesting question and one which is actually being discussed at the moment across the EU.
IMO, the political issues faced on major PPP projects in this country and high costs associated with tenderering result in poor value for money.
A rework of the way contracts are negotiated and awarded (e.g the procurement process)is required.
Most competitions are run under the competitive dialogue process at the moment, which is, quite frankly, utterly inefficient and expensive.
Some form of lighter weight negotiated procedure would be FAR more useful and cost effective, leading to lower bid costs and a contract which is generally more fit for purpose.
Induced demand. You can't build your way out of congestion.
PS STW synchronicity:
Peterfile =- waht alternative universe do you live in?
This is a VERY interesting question and one which is actually being discussed at the moment across the EU.
😉
its what always happens with new roads.
tj, i doff my cap - the quality of your shite just gets better and better
Bigbutslimmer bloke - but it does. New roads = increased congestion almost allways - see M25 for the best example but all other new road projects I know of increased congestion.
but it does.
yes, and i never thought it possible. it is with baited breath that i await your next verbal bowel dump. if it was the real thing, i'm sure there would be a call to the coastguard to alert shipping
You can ignore facts if you want. Even the UK government acknowledges this
But the trams are going to cross the new bridge arn't they...?
no no no, there will be a bus interchange where you get a bus to the bridge, then you will climb the towers to use the huge zip line which will transport goods and services in relative safety to the other side.
because we don't need a bridge to cross the forth.
apparently.
says tj who must be agreed with
unless you're in hr then expect a grovelling apology
actually that sounds pretty good, i might be all for that 😀
I see it was trialled on the Clyde
[img] 
[/img]
BigButSlimmerBloke
do you ever bother to read what people write of just make snidey little attacks?
I want the existing bridge repaired at a cost of 100 million not a new bridge for 20 times that sum
Given the bridge engineers don't know whether the bridge can be repaired yet, does it really matter what you want?
Unless of course you know more than they do, which you probably think you do.
Anyway, tj having little hissy fit, job done so i'm off on holiday
sayonara dudes
Oh the bridge engineers know it can be repaired. the 100 million or so cost is the cost of repairing it even if the dehumidification does not work
Seen a bit about it on't news earlier. Seems a lot of Edinbuggers aren't happy. The tram tracks jolly well have not yet bin used, but already are in need or repair. 😆
Youse lot can't even sort out something like this, yet some of you want independence? 😯
You'll just spunk all the and gas revenue on other daft grossly overpriced vanity projects, like this tram project, or big fancy bridges and other crap.
If you ask me, we should dissolve the Scottish Parliament (what a waste of money that was) and just turn Scotland into what it should be; a county of England and maybe a penal colony. Actually that might help steer Britain back in the right direction; surely the threat of being sent to Scotland (the new Coventry?) would be sufficient to dissuade would-be criminals...
[i]'You have bin found guilty and are sentenced to death, or a year in Scotland with TJ and Druidh and Cynic Al and them'[/i]
Ooh, blimey, death please!
😀
Elf- trollin!
Another example of the Vanity Bridge Concept, Ladies and Gents I give you the Humber Bridge. The longest single span (in its time) linking no-where to no-where else associated with a boundary change for political reasons.
It cant pay its own debt either.
Sorry if this has been done before.
YouTube nugget re the trams originally posted 2 years ago they must have had a crystal ball
http://www.youtube.com/user/EdinburghsGhost
Couldn't they just resurrect the old name for the national monument, 'Scotlands Disgrace' instead of creating a new Disgrace for the city?