[Closed] New Forth Road Bridge

The old bridge is/will be open to non motorway traffic atleast that was the plan?

So...

Tractors local traffic non learners etc bikes peds busses etc on the old bridge.

Busses, taxis, pedestrians and cyclists only I'm sure.

What about horses?

From [url] https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/35785/forth-replacement-crossing-q-and-a-30-mar-2017.pdf [/url]:

What provision has been made for motorcycles?
As a consequence of the motorway status of the bridge, motorcycles with an engine capacity less than 50cc will not be permitted on the Queensferry Crossing. Learner riders with a Compulsory Basic Training certificate will be allowed to use the existing Forth Road Bridge on motorcycles, displaying €œL-plates" with an engine capacity of less than 50cc. Those wishing to cross the Forth Replacement Bridge on a motorcycle with an engine capacity of 50cc or greater will have to ensure that they are in possession of a full licence.

So buses and taxis aren't the only motorised traffic that will continue to use the old road bridge.

Hate to say it, but using both bridges for different vehicle types sounds terribly sensible...and well thought out.

Whoda funk it.

The new bridge has no cycling/ped infrastructure cause it doesn't go anywhere near towns, villages, inhabited or anything else type areas.

With a design life >100 years, I'd be prepared to bet (somewhat pointlessly, as I'll be dead) that at some point in it's lifespan the bridge will connect more populous areas.

On top of that, the north side hits land at just a few hundred metres apart, and the south side maybe a kilometre. Hardly entering the wilderness! (Ignoring the whole Fife thing)

Did they really build pedestrian access into the old bridge to give the folk of North and South Queensferry a nice but noisy walk? Sounds like bllx to me.

I crossed it late last night to pick up my mother from the airport naively thinking it would be quiet. Every Fifer and his dug was doing a loop of the bridge too. The traffic jam extended from the slip road roundabout on the south side all the way back to the Admiralty flyover. We still point at planes on this side 😀

I think one of the reasons for lack of pedestrian access to the new bridge is to make it harder for people to jump off.

We still point at planes on this side

....and buses.

"Look! A hoose wi' wheels !"

I think one of the reasons for lack of pedestrian access to the new bridge is to make it harder for people to jump off.

Does jumping off the old bridge not have the same effect?

No, it's Scotland the further east in the central belt you go the more soft and effete everything gets.

I can't think of any decent reason for not including pedestrian access in the new bridge other than budgetary constraints.

Seems you won't be cycling on any bridge on Monday

The bridge will be closed to both pedestrians and cyclists on Monday for the Queen’s visit. The east footway re-opens for use by both from Tuesday.

Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/drivers-cause-traffic-chaos-on-queensferry-crossing-first-day-1-4546978

GrahamS - yes I believe it does. It just means that they don't have two bridges to monitor round the clock.

If only there were other, cheaper, and more effective ways to prevent people jumping off the bridges.

[img] [/img]

Nice and dry inside too. And no wind concerns.

ACH...bloody photobucket...

I can't think of any decent reason for not including pedestrian access in the new bridge other than budgetary constraints.

I think anything that keeps people from ending up in Rosyth is a good thing 😉

Leaving work at 8.15pm last night I thought I'd take a detour over the new bridge - nope! backed up for about 3 miles. Ended up cutting through Newgate and home via the usual M9.

Graham S - The numerous fire escape doors required from a 1.6 mile long enclosed walkway may give somewhat easy access to the outside.

Okay, but wouldn't such fire escapes open onto the roadside rather than a hundred foot fall to the sea??

Point is, such things [i]can[/i] be designed and exist in other countries, it just requires the public and political will.

I expect they might well open onto the roadway, which in turn would mean you need safe zones at the escapes, with no access to possible jumping areas.... and so it goes on. Suicides from the existing bridge are a big problem. They aren't publicised any more.

Yes I see your point of view, but I suppose like most things it comes down to money and political issues.

Other countries also seem to be able to build nice new houses. We don't seem to be able to do that in the UK.

Odd about the opening of the new one too. Open it, close it so they can do a walk on the new bridge, close it again for an opening ceremony, open it again, close it again. Then open it properly.

The contract with the developer was based on the bridge being open to traffic by a deadline. If the Scottish Govt had refused, they would have been in breach.

So it opens to allow the developer to meet their contractual requirements. Then closes again so that there can be the grand opening, walking across, etc. Had it been ready further in advance, they probably would have waited to put traffic on it instead.

There's a bridge from Denmark to Sweeden where cyclists have to take the train as there is no cycleway.

I'd imagine that has something to do with the overall crossing being 16km long, including 3.5km that isn't a bridge but a fume filled tunnel....

I'd imagine that has something to do with the overall crossing being 16km long, including 3.5km that isn't a bridge but a fume filled tunnel....

Not to mention the risks of finding a dead politician at the border mark?

The new bridge has no cycling/ped infrastructure cause it doesn't go anywhere near towns, villages, inhabited or anything else type areas.

No, as pointed out above, the north landing is right next to the existing bridge, and the south landing and feeder road runs right past the west boundary of South Queensferry.
They dropped cycling and pedestrian access to save money. I think it's a disgrace that they would even consider building major transport infrastructure without such access nowadays.

I commuted by bike over the existing bridge for a couple of years, and I don't think there was a single week where there wasn't sections of the path obstructed with repair vehicles or barriers. I rode over on Monday, and only one side was open, sections were still blocked for repair work, and a works truck was driving along the cycle path. The north exit was a mess of temporary coned paths and works access. I'll be surprised if it changes much in the future, and of course the old bridge will still be subject to high wind closures. Of course, cycling commuters don't need all weather access.

I think they also lost the opportunity for a ready made tourist attraction; a cycle route that looped around both bridges would have been really popular with visitors.

It's just really short sighted and shows how cycling and pedestrian access is still an afterthought, not an integral part of Scottish transport planning (see also tram routes...)

contingency for closures on the new bridge
I wonder how many other places keep a spare bridge handy just in case

IME a good percentage of the closures of the old bridge were due to high winds and bad weather anyway.

[cough]Severn Bridges[/cough]
The original bridge built in 1963 or thereabouts, is a two-lane motorway, originally the M4, now M48, and has all normal motorway regulations, despite only being two lanes, it also has a footpath and cycle-path on each side.
It functions in parallel with the new bridge, which doesn't have a path either side, and is particularly handy when someone puts a van on its side on one carriageway, like the other day when I had to drop a car off in Newport, then
come back to get home, so we just turned off onto the M48 and used the old bridge, looking across I could see stationary trucks in the middle of the new bridge.

contingency for closures on the new bridge
I wonder how many other places keep a spare bridge handy just in case

Hint: look upstream.