Bloody Trams – Edinburgh Content – Now only going to Haymarket.

Seriously… the bridge supports and deck were there looooong before anyone got round to putting offices on it.

St Andrews Square it is.

One assumes they’ll use the square for the (unplanned/uncosted) turning circle, in which case it’ll be handy for the bus station and not too far from Waverley either.

Does it need a turning circle? I thought it could drive both ways

Why would the need a turning circle? Would it not be cheaper to fit the trams with a reverse gear? Wonder how much the trams will eventually cost…

One of the issues with the Haymarket proposal was that there was no turning circle. I’m guessing that it’s also an issue of having multiple trams running up and down the line – they need to pass each other pass each other at some point. So, you either need a circle or an extension past the terminus with a set of points so the tram can switch lines?

As for the eventual cost……

I understand for their next trick Edinburgh Cooncil will be attempting to organise an alocohol free trip to a brewery.

i’m an idiot.

Small mercies an all that.

Such a shambles and it could have been great if not for an awful lot of what ifs over the last 6/7 years.

I really hope they succeed and eventually get expanded to the original full vision (preferably with better controlled costs). I know there are alternatives that would have been prefered but it’s too late for that now, so lets embrace what we (will, hopefully, eventually) have.

Fingers crossed the replacement bridge will get a re-think and made into something fit for purpose before it gets too far down the line and too late to change…

Fingers crossed the replacement bridge will get a re-think and made into something fit for purpose before it gets too far down teh line and too late to change

Are you able to explain why you consider FRC is not fit for purpose?

It won’t get a rethink, contracts have been signed for Main Crossing, Junction 1A and Fife ITS.

Hopefully the new bridge will be cancelled. Its too expensive, it will cause great congestion north and south and its not needed. repair the old bridge instead.

it will cause great congestion

How’d you figure that? Why should it be any more congestion than current setup?

EDIT – agree with you on the expensive bit BTW.

Because there will be two bridges not one – but the same bottlenecks further north and south.

Its shown time and time again that this sort of project increases congestion – it does not relieve it

They are already building the new bridge.

Move house.

Its too expensive, it will cause great congestion north and south and its not needed. repair the old bridge instead.

It’s not too expensive. It’s capital funded with ring fenced infrastructure cash and came in considerably under budget.

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.

Any “additional” congestion will be relieved by J1A project.

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

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