That the billion pounds project to build the additional Forth crossing will involve years of disruption probably doesn't constitute 'news' in many people's minds, certainly not surprising news, but the prospect of traffic being disrupted for over three years due to a single junction should at least make Ministers reconsider their options. Patrick Harvie leads that very charge in the Scotsman today.
I do appreciate that Scotland can't afford to get this decision wrong, that to be without a direct road link between Edinburgh, Fife and beyond is not an option, but the repairing or replacing of the existing cables in the existing bridge is, for me, by far the more attractive solution. Until there is a clear list of reasons as to why this option cannot be adopted I will remain implacably opposed to spending billions on something we may not need, a plan B even.
Murdo Fraser for the Tories says that the congestion for this junction will be lighter than the congestion in the event of the existing Forth Road bridge being closed for repairs. This suggests the wrong option is being selected over the right one in deference to how many drivers may be inconvenienced in a relatively short space of time. Not good enough if you ask me.
One final thought before I step down from this well worn soapbox and no doubt get sent off to join the Greens from commenters again. There is a real risk that these 3 bridges standing so close together could become something of a national embarrassment. Scotland has a proud engineering pedigree but if asked by a visitor why we need two road bridges over one short space of water, the answer of 'we couldn't fix the first one' would sound a bit daft to me.
Does competition help the NHS?
21 minutes ago
21 comments:
It's infuriating to see Ministers (like their predecessors, like the non-Green opposition parties) systematically puffing up work on the existing bridge as impossibly costly while ignoring the costs of work on a new bridge.
The tide is turning: imagine the Courier running this coverage three years ago.
The SNP administration will pay a real price for this project if it goes ahead, as delays and cost increases follow a familiar pattern, as the existing bridge stands idle, and as congestion spreads like a bruise north and south of the Forth. The first opposition party to join Green efforts to save £2bn+ will reap massive rewards.
Personally I'd rather John Swinney just did the right thing and at least postponed the decision a year or three until the next reports on the dehumidifation work are in.
Fix the old one, the only option.
Otherwise wasting money on a Trident like scale.
As I understand it fixing the old bridge would involve making it effectively one lane each way for a period of years.
I don't live in the east coast, I don't use the Forth Road Bridge.
However I can imagine the impact that kind of restriction would have on the Kingston Bridge. It would cause utter chaos.
So while I'm quite prepared to support repairing the old bridge as opposed to building a new one (as that would save us money) people like James and Redcliffe need to be able to demonstrate that there will be alternative ways to keep the flow of traffic, including heavy goods vehicles, moving while the work is ongoing.
How will you guarantee this?
There are other factors when thinking of trying to fix the bridge namely the volume of traffic and the safety margin of carrying that extra weight.
As well as the known problems with the cable breaks.
We should let engineering dictate if we require a new bridge and not politics.
These are good questions, but we know the answers. The FETA report in 2008 confirmed that the old bridge would go down to two lanes for 34 weeks out of three years if a new cable was added to the side. Annoying, true, but not a show-stopper. And much less than the disruption associated with the new bridge, as revealed in today's letters from Transport Scotland and FETA.
It's a commonplace exercise, delivered in many other places. There's no reason why it won't work here. It's also the cheapest of the recabling options, just £91m rather than £2,300m and likely to rise for a new bridge.
Jeff
I just do not understand the need for a new bridge.
I was in Lisbon last year and they have a bridge similar to and the same age as the FRB.
The American Bridge company have done the following to this bridge over the years.
Re-cabled the whole bridge, they claim without disrupting the traffic below.
Increased from four lanes to six lane, four of which are "tidal" and switched as traffic increases.
Built a full size railway under the roadway.
Information on this is on American Bridge web site.
If this can be done in Portugal, why not in Scotland?
Indy, I have to say I am puzzled by the 'we can't have one lane' argument as a reason to spend £1.9bn more than we need to.
The bridge underwent a lot of work a few years ago and I worked in Glenrothes for a while during it. Get there at 8am and it was choked. Get there at 7.30am and you sailed right through. For 34 weeks out of 3 years, I'd take that quite happily and remember how little extra disruption there would be if you don't have to link up roads and move bus terminals etc.
Tormod is right and puts it very well, this should be an engineering rather than a political decision. Given that, I heartily recommend a read of some of the reports on the Forthright Alliance (might be Forthside) which do point towards at least giving a bit more time to see how the dehumidification process goes.
As redcliffe suggests, this could be an error on a Trident scale so well worth getting right.
When there was major repairs on the Kingston Bridge about ten years ago the traffic flowed more quickly because drivers weren't able to change lanes. If you got on at the wrong lane you had to leave at the wrong exit. Unsurprisingly drivers got very good at picking the right lane and sticking to it. So without the constant criss-crossing the traffic actually flowed more freely.
Perhaps there is an option to explore removing other bottle necks that would allow the traffic to flow more freely.
Perhaps 3 narrow lanes could be created with the middle being southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon.
On the lane restriction you would have to put roughly 1-2 hrs on your journey time to cross the bridge using the experience of what happened when the bridge was being resurfaced.
I have only seen 1 example myself of an extra lane being added to a bridge and that was in California.
My major concern is the state of the main cable, and what ratio of breakage real and potential to safety margin.
If the SNP government are advised that this margin is going be compromised and that retro fitting is not guaranteed success I feel they have no option but to build a new bridge.
It was a lot easier in John and Washington Roeblings day that's for sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_span_replacement_of_the_San_Francisco_%E2%80%93_Oakland_Bay_Bridge
I saw it back in May 2002
I am basing my supposition on the fact that when traffic on the Kingston Bridge has been restricted it creates massive problems - yet there are more alternatives to using the Kingston Bridge than there are to using the Forth Rd Bridge.
Whether we like it or not putting 1- 2 hrs on journey times as Tormod suggests would just not be accepted, given the number of people who commute as well as all the commercial vehicles using the bridge.
If on the other hand they can find a way to do repair it that just adds, say, half an hour to weach journey then fair enough. People would just have to put up an extra hour stuck in traffic each day.
1-2 hours extra, though well meaning and based on experience, seems an arbitrary estimation of delay per journey to me so let's leave such stats to the experts.
And anyway, the current plan is hardly disruption free and I don't see any evidence beyond the words of politicians as to which scheme is more disruptive than the other. That's the kind of thing that needs to be crystal clear before a decision can be reached, surely.
Tormod, your (impressively technical) explanation for why a new bridge may be necessary sounds valid to me but if Ministers have received such info, wouldn't they forcibly put it in the public domain to shut these stories down?
It would certainly beat the Murdo Fraser approach of my queue's shorter than your queue.
Hi Geoff the Scottish Government web page has a lot of the info on the safety margins of the current bridge against other bridges.
The big unknown is the main cable, as estimates are based on it's life span.
I hope to god the dehumification works I really do.
They will have several scenarios in play.
It all depends on those 11,000 odd steel cables, in each of the main cables.
here is one of the many reports it's a bit techie and will require a few read throughs
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/03154220/16
Thanks Tormod, will check it out when I next get a chance. Probably well worth reading both sides simultaneously. And, to be fair, how often do all 4 parties agree on something so it must have a decent chance of being correct for that reason alone!
Put the commercial vehicles onto the Trains. Especially the super markets and large daily deliveries for chain stores.
The investment in infrastructure would be no where near the investment in a new bridge.
Bringing permanent improvement and environmental advantages.
Without the Commercial vehicles the level of traffic would be reduced and the delays reduced as a consequence.
The end result would be faster transport, cheaper transport and less conjestion on the roads from slow moving pollution machines.
Worked for Inverness.
I agree a lot of the freight should be on the trains but the road haulage firms have an awful lot of political friends in the lobby.
Is it feasable to put extra supports to spread the load on existing piers to lessen the strain on the cables?
My local bridge here in Oz had 3 lanes, with the middle one changing north-south at peak time for traffic flow.
In 5 years I was held up perhaps twice crossing it. Both times with accidents.
Now they have built next to this structure a brand new whizz bang bridge and we will after upgrades have BOTH bridges operating with up to 6 lanes, 3 each way.
Total overkill and unnecessary.
The railway we actually needed and the pollies promised has yet to be started but that is another story.
Moral of the story, governments like to build brand new bridges even if there are doubts whether it is even needed.
Google "Hornibrook Bridge" if you want to read the official blurb how wonderful it is and how it will change everything for the better.....
Bridges close together are embarrassing? I hope you're joking.
The city where I live is justly famous (and proud) of its four bridges within sight of each other. What a silly criticism.
Is this the solution for Edinburgh? I don't know but do keep your criticism realistic.
http://www.portlandbridges.com/
The Golden Gate Bridge has been virtually rebuilt (mostly to withstand earthquakes - but also to replace corroded parts) without (as far as Im aware) that much disruption. The power of Google will bring you the story - Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit. The costs have been considerable - but then so would a new bridge be!
Perhaps politicians there thought there was as much kudos in preserving a unique symbol as in getting to open a new bridge
Post a Comment