The debate over the Forth Road Bridge finished today with the Greens, once again, fruitlessly pleading for common sense to prevail over the proposal to build an unnecessary (but pleasingly shiny) new bridge when the existing one can be fixed for a fraction of the £2bn+ price using methods that have been tested and proven the world over.
In a bittersweet twist, a think tank announced this afternoon that the cuts to Scotland’s budget in the coming years could be £2bn. I shall oblige anyway but it doesn’t take an accountant to point out that a £2bn saving here and a £2bn expense there can be netted off for a crowd-pleasing nil gain and nil loss settlement at precisely the time when every pound counts.
I say crowd-pleasing, of course, in reference to the poll that showed 57% of Scots back repairing the bridge to the 34% of Scots who want a new one. This is in stark contrast to the 113 MSPs who voted today for a new bridge to the 3 MSPs who want to repair (2 Greens + Kenny MacAskill).
Well, parliamentary democracy has spoken, the stupid £2bn proposal lives on and such is life, so I won’t go rehashing the arguments here but I will mention one interesting aspect to today’s Holyrood debate.
I reckon it is fair to say that Fife and Edinburgh MSPs will be more interested in this debate than, say, a Dumfries or Argyll MSP. Granted, £2bn out of a nation’s budget is a big deal and will (or should) concentrate minds but for those MSPs living on the Forth’s riverbank with commuters who traverse the watery mile each day, this issue is surely a big one for them and opinions will be long considered but deeply held.
Well, this all makes me wonder why Edinburgh West MSP, the Liberal Democrats’ Margaret Smith, decided to abstain in today’s vote. Could someone who represents an area that either includes or just falls short of the bridge itself really have no opinion on the matter that she wants to put on the record? Is it possible that the member representing the bridge, or at least its shadow, understands the flaws in her party’s position and couldn’t bring herself to vote alongside?
Put simply, it beggars belief that Margaret Smith has a view of the Forth Road Bridge from her constituency but no views on its potential replacement.
SNP Tax
4 minutes ago
21 comments:
Well said Jeff, this decision is bonkers.
Second that Jeff. Lookin' ahead ye have tae see bigger cuts comin' an' fixin' the bridge raither than biggin' a new yin will seem mair sensible as time goes on. Why can oor MSPs no see sense in makin' that decision now before millions are spent oan consultancy, design an' the rest. That third crossin' will no come for years, an' neither should it.
Agreed.
However the £2bn shortfall is presumably a recurring shortfall whereas the £2bn cost of the new bridge is a one-off cost that will be borrowed for and paid back over 50 years or so. I don't know - these are my guesses.
I fear that Alex Salmond is succumbing to Pat Lally syndrome.
A couple of points.
Firstly the survey that showed that 57% wanted the bridge repaired was commissioned by the anti bridge campaign and the wording clearly showed that.
It wasn't quite;
"Would you like this bridge that only needs a lick of paint repaired at virtually no cost or would you rather we bankrupted the country for generations by building one made out of babies assembled with child Labour"
but it was certainly loaded to give the result they wanted. I think you can find the actual wording on the Yougov archive somewhere.
Secondly the £2bn for £2bn is a red herring as the money for the bridge will come from borrowing which willl be over probably more than 30 years or more.
Even if by some bizarre notion we were going to pay it all in cash, the cuts won't be a one off, they will be year on year, so no bridge would only delay them.
Peter.
Peter, assuming, as you do, that payment for this new bridge come over years rather than instantaneously, there will be interest payments attached to it which is all the more reason not to bring this unnecessary bridge into fruition.
As someone who lives in a pretty good sized city cut in half by a river, I am passing acquainted with bridges. (Look up Portland, Oregon if you want a count)
I don't know how much you need a new bridge and infrastructure is a pretty complicated subject, especially in the middle of a severe economic downturn. But there are s number of things to be considered such as whether repairs really would keep the bridge safe (often a heck of a lot harder and more expensive than one would think) as well as the boost to construction companies, supply companies and construction workers.
I'm just saying... maybe there are more things to consider than you're bringing forth. There might be if Labour actually brought itself to vote on the same side as the SNP. Now there is a shock.
The capital vs revenue stream is an important argument Jeff, that you're not addressing at all. Plus, how do you know how easy the bridge will be to repair?
What further impact would it have on our economy if the current bridge closed during these repairs, or at least one side was closed for that length of time?
Moreover, since your argument is entirely based on the finance - how much would the repairs cost? How long would they last?
What's Pat Lally syndrome? I can think of a number of possible answers.
I did not find Patrick Harvie very persuasive on Newsnight.
Essentially he gave the impression that he was prepared to risk the Forth crossing being compromised.
The economic conseqences of that would be catastrophic and would affect the whole of Scotland.
In my view the fact that the vote was pretty much unanimous speaks for itself. If the case the SG was putting forward was in any way unsound I would expect Opposition members to exploit that.
But they didn't. Rather they acknowledged that repair of the existing bridge is an option that has too many downsides. It is too big a risk.
Charlie Gordon's point about EU funding was interesting and I hope will be pursued.
Well, as the tram project shows, politicians have an unhealthy habit of wanting to build new things when there's no real need. However, I'm inclined to side with parliament on this one. Labour's tendency to build new things rather than repairing them was a result of their obsession with PFI, but this isn't how the bridge will be funded, and like Jeanne and Grogipher, I suspect there is more to this decision than purely the cost of new bridge vs cost of repairs.
I travel along the A80 every weekend, and it's so depressing due to the roadworks, even though they're only a 10 mile part of the journey. I suspect part of the reasoning behind the new bridge is the inevitable disruption that would be caused by repairing the current one, which would just annoy people no end. I remember trying to cross the bridge soon after the toll booths started to get removed, and the hold-ups were just hellish. There's also the fact that a new bridge could cost less in the long run, as the current one could need further repairs in a few years, whereas a new one wouldn't.
I just hope the new one is built to include some sort of system that forces people to pull into the left-hand lane when they're not overtaking anyone - why do people seem to think it's acceptable to stay in the overtaking lane needlessly just because it's a bridge?
Keeping up with The Bridged Jones
tut tut! - You are awful! but I like it... ;-)
"why do people seem to think it's acceptable to stay in the overtaking lane needlessly just because it's a bridge?"
Maybe the big sign telling people to stay in lane when on the bridge ?
I'd imagine Margaret Smith's silence is more to do with (understandable) local opposition due to the disruption to her constituents, not some sort of revelation that the bridge isn't needed. Strange that all parties agree if it's such a bad idea - it's not like Labour to miss a chance to beat the government. Perhaps they've been convinced by engineering evidence rather than over-optimistic propaganda from the Forthright Alliance.
Does anyone really talk like Sophia writes?
I shall oblige anyway but it doesn’t take an accountant to point out that a £2bn saving here and a £2bn expense there can be netted off for a crowd-pleasing nil gain and nil loss settlement at precisely the time when every pound counts.
I'm unsure what your point is. An accountant should be able to tell you that, as the bridge expense is not a one-off payment but spread over many decades of repayment (plus interest), it cannot be compared directly to even a series of one-off payments in the form of budgetary cuts.
As others have said, the public surveys are suspect as not only are those question'd not civil engineers or have invested the time to investigate the project as MSPs(in theory, at least) have, they have been asked loaded questions by a Party which believes a trend to returning to doing our washing by whacking clothes against rocks.
Assuming repairs would have to be made, this would presumably involve access restrictions which may not seem much to Edinburghers but would be highly significant to Fifers. The existing bridge cannot be widened, for instance, but was build at a time of much lower traffic transit.
And, what is the Pat Lally syndrome?
The issue with the bridge financing is that certain politicians were arguing that it could not be paid for over decades unless it was constructed under PFI. The alternative - they argued - was to pay for it within one three year budget cycle.
That argument seems to have withered somewhat as Charlie Gordon now acknowledges that PFI funding would not be appropriate and the Westminster Govt shows signs of flexibility re borrowing powers.
The Pat Lally syndrome is basically vanity projects.
I seriously don't think the SNP can be accused of this. They opposed the Edinburgh trams and srcapped GARL because they don't think it is necessary.
Clearly they do think a new Forth Crossing is necessary and so does every other MSP, other than the Greens.
Such a show of consensus in the run up to an election can really only mean one thing!
Jeff I believe the current road bridge is just within Margaret's constituency, the proposed new one is just over the boundary in Linlithgow on the other side of Queensferry.
Maybe the big sign telling people to stay in lane when on the bridge ?
Ah, just shows how much I pay attention to road signs... Still, people aren't particularly quick to adhere to the overhead signs after the bridge saying to pull in after overtaking!
Totally agree Jeff.
Amusing to see those opposing your view tying themselves in knots about recurrent v. one-off expenditure.
And shock horror, repairing the existing bridge will cause lane closures and delays. Have any of these correspondents used the bridge over the last ten years?
Apart from all the rest, a nation which prides itself on its engineering should be able to build a bridge/causeway/tunnel for no more than £500 million.
Other nations can and do.
Jeff,
I have only read about this here, so you'll excuse me for being informed solely by what you have to say?
It seems to me that the existing Forth Road bridge will be required into the future. So expenditure on it will be a necessity? Correct me if I am wrong. I'd have assumed that there is no option that allows the existing bridge to fall into the Firth?
So, what we are talking about is not whether there is a need for a bridge, it is whether or not there is a need for two bridges?
It would be an extravagance to provide a second bridge without maintaining the first bridge.
Could you explain what is wrong with that?
Amusing to see those opposing your view tying themselves in knots about recurrent v. one-off expenditure.
Who's doing that? Jeff asserted X which was predicated on the eliding of the distinction between the two. Readers picked him up on it. It was a wrong thing to say.
Nothing substantial has been offered in response, so no-one has pursued the matter.
And shock horror, repairing the existing bridge will cause lane closures and delays. Have any of these correspondents used the bridge over the last ten years?
Yes. There currently are delays which will become more and more irksome when repairs become more and more pressing.
How to avoid that? Build another bridge?
As Indy said Pat Lally Syndrome is basically vanity projects, like the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall. To be yer actual syndrome two further symptons are common.
1. The said politician must be in complete control
2. The said politician must either be devoid of a greater purpose, or have their opportunities of achieving their greater purpose heavily diminished. So their political power is diverted into grandiose projects: a sports centre or a community hall is simply not prestigious enough.
Post a Comment