Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Transport body accused of ignoring new Forth bridge fears

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 March 2009
THE Scottish Government's transport body Transport Scotland has been accused of being "unaccountable, evasive and frequently unresponsive" in its dealings over the new Forth Road Bridge.
Politicians, campaigners and local people told a meeting in South Queensferry that their attempts to engage with the transport body were stonewalled, passed over or met with incomplete or contradictory answers.

The meeting at Queensferry High Scho
ol, which brought together a cross-party panel of MSPs, lobbyists and around 60 residents, heard a variety of views on the cost, design, purpose and impact of the bridge.

Edinburgh West Liberal Democrat MSP Margaret Smith, who voted for the bridge once her preferred option of a tunnel was ruled out on cost grounds, said: "I asked Transport Scotland a series of simple questions regarding emissions and the impact the bridge will have on the quality of life but they ducked and dived the issues.

"There seems to be no vision for this bridge whatsoever, and all we're being presented with is penny-pinching and lies."

Ms Smith said that her direct appeals to Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson for information were also referred on to Transport Scotland for comment, and met with the same "inadequate response".

Green MSP Patrick Harvie, one of the only MSPs who opposed the new crossing, added: "To say Transport Scotland is opaque would be an understatement."

Queensferry resident Craig Boath, 37, a company director, told the meeting, organised by anti-bridge campaigners the ForthRight Alliance, the transport body had continually stonewalled his requests for information on how the new bridge would affect him and his family.

He said: "I've telephoned them and sent letters by e-mail, fax and recorded delivery and even asked for a meeting to discuss it face-to-face, but they have continually failed to respond and I find that deplorable and disgraceful."

Scottish Labour transport spokesman Des McNulty MSP said: "We've already seen gross mismanagement of the Edinburgh Trams project, and we don't want to see mismanagement of the bridge as well."

Even the Scottish Government's own representative at the meeting, Lothians SNP MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville, agreed that the transport body's efforts to engage with the community had been "unacceptable".

No-one from Transport Scotland was represented at the meeting last night, but a spokeswoman said: "We have attended community meetings, met with people one-to-one, held a series of exhibitions and we will continue that engagement and do our best to answer their questions."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Hmm ...,

18/03/2009 11:50:05
... LibDems, Greens and Forthright Alliance - these people just don't want ANY improvement in the road network which ALONE keeps Scotland's economy running.

And don't mention rail. The numbers of passengers and loads of freight carried by rail is dwarfed by road transport. Why? Because at either end of their journeys, both passengers and freight loads need a road journey to and from the railway station/depot and require two transfers along the way.

And Margaret Smith was in favour of a tunnel but is now concerned by bridge emissions! What logic drove that viewpoint?

The Greens are just loony Left. What is the LibDems' excuse?
2

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 12:08:22
#1 So it's now an argument about improving the road network? Odd that, since when it was conceived it was about replacing the Forth Road Bridge.

The current bridge turns out to be fully reparable, for a fraction of the cost of even this new, environmentally disastrous (for the people of S Queensferry) crossing. So why do we need it at all?
3

alfonsa pedrosa,

embra 18/03/2009 12:10:32
Does anyone know what they are doing,because nobody tells the truth.
4

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 12:17:52
NIMBYs
5

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 12:20:03
#2 The current bridge is reparable if you're prepared to put up with 7 years of continuous traffic restrictions on the bridge.

The impact of this on South Queensferry, let alone the strategic roads network, would be horrific - this is why Queensferry Community Council chose not to support last night's meeting.
6

Hmm ...,

18/03/2009 12:31:55
... consistent as ever Duncan (2)!

As I understand it, the second bridge was intended to replace the original in the even that it was not repairable. However, we already NEEDED a second crossing as the original was not designed to carry the weight of modern trucks.. Odd then that the current plan is to restrict the original bridge to public transport, which is pretty heavy to my thinking.

Although I do realise that the weight of transport is of no concern to you - you just toe the Labour Party line - and they want everyone on public transport and preferably that it should be incredibly expensive and inflexible trams. Party dogma really has got in the way of Scotland's economy in the last twelve years and we just don't have the money to waste on dogma.
7

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 12:40:46
#6 Buses are way lighter than HGVs, so no problem here.

I agree we need a new crossing whether or not the current bridge can be repaired however. It's too important a link to gamble with.
8

noswod,

Honestas 18/03/2009 12:43:20
See you people coming up with objections, wanting information, putting forward words like accountability, asking why, how much and who. Your no wanted here we decide for you and whats good for you because we are bridge people and didn't know that the wires were going rusty on the auld bridge. We will give you a new bridge at twice if not three times the cost of the bridges over to Scandanvia or the big bridge over the gorges in France because the contracts go to people who canny work fast or have the best bridge building technology. We are going to tell you nothing but heres the bill for £2.4bn please pay up Whitehall. There nice chaps doon there we send them bills they pay and we dinny have to worry aboot charging people tax in our electorate which may have electorial consequencies look at a' the free stuff we have been able to blag, hospital parking, free perscriptions, Student fees for the middle class, free old age health care, free £300bn bail oot frae the banks. Welcome to the Scottish Governement "Free Stuff" representation withoot taxation.
9

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 12:48:10
#5 I wasn't aware that any such estimate had been properly made. 7 years of continuous traffic restrictions on the bridge, eh? Don't suppose you have any evidence to back that up? And I don't mean a quote from "sources" in a newspaper article - I mean evidence.

Thanks.
10

Smasher,

18/03/2009 12:50:28
Good. Keep ignoring these people. Left to them we'd all have to cycle to work in our knitted hats.

It's amazing we ever built anything in this country. Imagine the form filling in to build the Castle these days. It still wouldn't be built if left to the greens. These tree huggers impose their dark ages thinking and hold up almost everything. DON'T VOTE FOR THEM.........EVER.
11

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 12:50:43
#6 The weight of transport is of significant concern to me. But I'm glad that you've made the point that, now that it has been established that the current bridge is reparable, the only reason we need a second crossing is to shorten the journeys for 44-tonne trucks, which were introduced by the road haulage industry long after the current bridge was built.

So, as I have consistently said, the road haulage industry should pay the cost of the new bridge.
12

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 12:51:38
#9 It's on the bridge authority's website:

http://www.feta.gov.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=65

Read it and weep.
13

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 12:53:31
#5 It seems to me rather odd that "Queensferry Community Council" would choose not to attend such a high profile meeting, rather than to attend and make their case. Did they think the meeting was beneath them or something?
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 12:59:29
#12 I'm not sure what you *think* that 1-year-old press release from a highly biased party says, but it does not say "7 years of continuous traffic restrictions on the bridge". It says that there are three different possible approaches, that they would each cost different amounts of money and take different amounts of time, and that they would likely involve "significant periods" of lane closures. NOT "continuous traffic restrictions" or anything approaching that.

For example, if option C was chosen, a significant proportion of the work would involve the building of the side supports, which would not impact on the roadway at all.

The phrase "7 years of continuous traffic restrictions" is baseless scaremongering.
15

jtdx,

18/03/2009 13:30:22
#14 if you read the full report on the sire, then "Table 2" show how many weeks the bridge will be partially closed for each option. That is actual numbers and how many lanes will be closed etc.

I reckon that actually *reading* the report might be a good idea before you critise it.

For example: Option C takes 7 years. 26 weeeks with one lane closed in year 3, 26 weeks with one lane closed in year 4, 4 weeks with two lanes closed in year 4, 14 weeks with two lanes closed in year 6, 16 weeks with two lanes closed in year 7. That is full weeks closed- weekend and night closures are excluded.

Btw, why should building the side supports not involve lane closures? Are they going to climb up on ladders from boats underneath the bridge when they do the work?
16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 13:35:00
#15 Thank you for proving my point, much appreciated. It sounds like a lot less than 2 years' total lane closures over the course of 7 years. Making #5's statement of "7 years of continuous traffic restrictions" utterly unsupportable.

BTW, the side supports for option C would need to be built separately from the current structure, otherwise they wouldn't work. :-)
17

Adso,

18/03/2009 13:41:07
We are forgetting a couple of points in this whole argument:

1) As a nation we are incapable of building a new bridge. It will not be built on time or budget and is unlikely to be safe when complete. We could kid ourselves that we are capable - but we are not.

2) Any bridge we do build is 100% sure to be under-capacity for present day traffic volumes never mind the volumes in 2050 when it is completed.

A new fit for purpose bridge is a great concept. A shoddy, half cut, unthought through, insubstantial, unstable, not-fit for purpose shambles of a bridge is unfortunately what we are going to get.
18

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special 18/03/2009 13:41:14
"Queensferry resident Craig Boath, 37, a company director, told the meeting, organised by anti-bridge campaigners the ForthRight Alliance, the transport body had continually stonewalled his requests for information on how the new bridge would affect him and his family."

Welcome to the Mark McLaughlin Clause Festival.
19

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 13:42:43
#16 Duncan - I didn't realise you were a bridge engineer.
20

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 13:48:09
#19 :-) I don't think it takes a bridge engineer to realise that if you are adding new support to an existing suspension bridge there would be no point building it on top of the existing structure!
21

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 13:48:15
#16 You also conveniently forget to quote the bit that says:

"The study concluded that major maintenance works on the Forth Road Bridge over a sustained period, involving lane and carriageway closures, would potentially result in economic output falling by around £1 billion, a drop in turnover in excess of £1.3 billion and a loss of around 3,200 jobs, some of which may turn out to be permanent."

And after all that, you'd still be left with an inadequate crossing with no dedicated provision for public transport.

Do you really think this is a price worth paying?
22

no more roads,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 13:54:09
The 'study is simply scaremongering. The study had a vested interest because it was commissioned by business groups in Fife. Feta has a vested interest in building more bridges and the politicians and business leaders make money from us monkeys.

What about the studies showing the increased CO2 which will be generated by doubling bridge capacity? the permanent damage to our climate, coasts and air quality? Public transport = No More Roads
23

Build me a tunnel,

18/03/2009 13:55:32
I was at the meeting last night and backup the claims that Transport Scotland have ignored the people of South Queensferry, and continue to do so. Shirley-Anne Somerville freely admited that Transport Scotland have been cr#p but she's failed to do anything about it. She's also confused about whether a bridge is actually going to be built - "Yes" and "I'm of the belief" are two different statements so it doesn't matter whether you are dealing with Transport Scotland or the Government direct - they both don't know what they are talking about !

We won't know how bad the state of the current bridge is unti,la further two years. Would it not be prudent to wait before signing-off 2 billion of our money on something that may not be required ? Even now, they can replace the cables and yes, it may take 7 years and discuption will take place, but would only cost @100million and the new crossing would also take 7 years, but cost 1,900 million more !!

Public Transport only equates to 8% of current users; you will also have two bridges to maintain; everyone knows that if you build more roads or bridges the amont of traffic increases.

As for South Queensferry Community Council - total waste of space. They WERE represented (in as far as they were sitting with the minions and not a the head table) but had nothing positive to give - total let down.
24

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 13:57:39
#21 No I don't think it would be a price worth paying. But happily, I don't think there is even a shred of truth in it either. The estimates and assumptions used to calculate these scaremongering figures are ridiculously over-simplified. There are 3 road crossings over the Forth. Are jobs lost every time the FRB is closed to high-sided vehicles? Or, in fact, are a small number of journeys extended by about 20 minutes?

I'm not saying repair would be painless, but FETA's role throughout has been to bully and scare and force their preferred option of a second crossing through. They even went as far as to claim that the present bridge would have to close, which naturally turned out to be a big fat lie.

This report was written to bolster that case. It's scaremongering about the economic costs of repair is shameful and should be ignored.
25

Man of Reason,

18/03/2009 13:59:52
#14 It's interesting that you describe the engineers responsible for maintaining the bridge as "highly biased".

Surely they are no more "biased" than doctors are when it comes to running hospitals, or teachers are when it comes to running schools?

Surely the engineers' opinion has more weight than that of any pressure group or politician?
26

Statsman,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 14:01:45
It's just militant communist Greens trying to hold the Scottish economy hostage again.
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:05:47
#25 I agree to an extent; but just as the demands of a hospital are framed by managers and administrators after expertise supplied by medical staff is selectively chosen, so the PR position of FETA is written by managers and administrators after the expertise supplied by engineers is selectively chosen.

It has been clear for a long time that FETA's position was to build a new bridge. They stonewalled discussions of a tunnel, they spread scare stories about the state of the current bridge, some suggest they even dragged out roadworks in order to shape the public mood in favour of investment in a new crossing.

I have no doubt that their engineers gave their managers honest opinion; but the filter which brought it to the public was anything but honest.
28

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:06:16
#23 I have every respect for your right as a local resident to object to the plans.

There's one thing I don't understand though - surely it will be a good thing for South Queensferry to have 92% of bridge traffic bypass the town completely via the new approach road? After all, 100% of traffic currently drives straight through the middle of the town onto the bridge?
29

CRAGman,

18/03/2009 14:12:19
... all the data re. the need for lane closures should cable drying fail to sufficiently arrest the cable corrosion are already in the pubic domain - see the 22 Feb. 2008 report on the FETA website. There's only one year where 2 lanes would be closed for 26 weeks to put in a new cable. Cable augmentation would require even less lane closures.
Of course, given the extensive roadworks needed at Ferrytoll for a new bridge, there's a lot of disruption involved in going for that option - whereas re-cabling might not be required at all and is costed at around £100m not the £2000 - £4000 million for a new bridge.
Schools, hospitals and other transport projects will be hit all across Scotland if this unnecessary and damaging additional bridge is built.
As for HGVs, 55% of freight tonnage lifted in Fife stays in Fife. Only 12.6% is headed to the Lothians and the Borders. The vast majority is headed to the west of Scotland and, in particular, north-west England. They shouldn't really be going via Queensferry - but they do as anyone going over the bridge on a regular basis will tell you as they see lorries peeling off on to the new M9 spur. A study should be undertaken now to see if going via Kincardine could be encouraged instead and what infrastructure might support that - together with use of rail freight from a rejuvenated Thornton yard (massive but rusting away for years now) and Rosyth.
30

Statsman,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 14:12:40
10 Smasher

All the communists were never taken seriously then this green opportunity came and it was down with the red flag and up with the green.

Fake environmentalism is simply a way for traditional enemy of the state communist usurpers to try and ruin the economy and bring in communism.
31

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:13:30
#28 Have you ever been to South Queensferry? Apart from anything else it is physically impossible to drive through the middle of the town onto the bridge! I'd would safely estimate that 99% of bridge traffic goes nowhere near South Queensferry.
32

Man of Reason,

18/03/2009 14:15:25
#27 What utter paranoid nonsense.

FETA's chief official is the Chief Engineer & Bridgemaster - note the job title, he's an engineer!

The report on the FETA website was produced by the consulting engineers WA Fairhusrst & Partners, in association with Ammann & Whitney and COWI. Look these guys up - they are some of the most respected engineers in their field!

Once you start concocting conspiracy theories you might as well accept that you have lost the argument.
33

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:15:52
#29 Great post. Agree 100%. By the sounds of the plans for Ferrytoll the disruption cause there by the new bridge will be far worse than anything predicted in FETA's worst case scenario for repair of the current bridge.
34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:17:47
#32 And once you start pronouncing on other people losing the argument you have lost the argument!

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory. I'm pointing out the well known political position of FETA. They are not neutral players here, and they have pursued a second bridge agenda for many years. Nobody with any experience of their PR would seriously deny that.
35

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:19:13
#31 I drive through South Queensferry every day on my way over the bridge - there is housing on either side of the approach to the bridge, as well as underneath it. Look at a map if you don't believe me.
36

Statsman,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 14:21:47
34 Duncan in Edinburgh

Comrade Duncan. You still haven't explained how goods are to be moved without a new bridge?

Any new ideas? Sellotaping bags of crisps to homing pigeons?
37

Dood,

18/03/2009 14:22:49
Bearing in mind that it is a complete dump, would it not make better sense to just bulldoze South Queensferry?

Hey presto, one obstacle hurdled!!!
38

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:25:46
#35 Oh, I see, you were just being silly. Okay.
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:28:14
#36 Well, just exactly the way they are moved today, though I would like to see a shift to better usage of the existing rail freight network where possible.
40

Statsman,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 14:32:38
39 Duncan in Edinburgh

No goods for St. Andrews then? That's not going to work well.
41

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:35:40
#40 Nope, no idea what you're talking about. You do realise that the whole thrust of this argument is to retain and repair the current bridge? Hence retaining the current road provision? In what way does this deny the good people of St Andrews their opportunity to trade?
42

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:36:20
#34 Have you considered that the bridge engineers might be pursuing a second bridge because they genuinely think it's needed?

I agree with Man of Reason - their opinion counts for more than most.
43

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:38:44
#38 No I wasn't being silly - please look at a map.

The current approach road cuts straight through South Queensferry, while the proposed new approach will completely bypass South Queensferry to the south and west.
44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:40:07
#42 It's quite possible. Many people genuinely think that the answer to road congestion is to build more roads, so it's not unthinkable that there are people who hold the same view about bridges.

In my opinion both groups are dead wrong, because traffic will always increase to fill the available roadspace, and eventually the tide will have to be stopped before we concrete over the entire country.
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:42:09
#43 The current road does not "cut through" S Queensferry. Instead of a map, what you need is a history book. The road cannot "cut through" something which wasn't there when it was built.
46

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:43:38
Duncan - here's a map for you - look at this and justify your assertion that "99% of bridge traffic goes nowhere near South Queensferry":

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=south+queensferry&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=18.96579,39.550781&ie=UTF8&ll=55.985179,-3.394003&spn=0.034954,0.077248&t=h&z=14&iwloc=addr

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
47

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:45:47
#45 Are you for real?

Maybe you think it is still 1964, but the rest of us are living in the year 2009!
48

Build me a tunnel,

18/03/2009 14:48:44
#28 Appreciate that, Heretic.


The new crossing was supposed to be a replacement bridge NOT an additional bridge. In 2016 we are going to have two bridges both carrying vehicles of one type or another - both providing ample amounts of noise and air pollution. When the new bridge is built, my property will be between the two, so effectively I will be "bridge-locked" so no mater where the wind blows I'll be coughing and spluttering whilst enjoying the summer sunshine in my garden. Not to mention the 7 years of noise and air pollution building the bridge.
49

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 14:54:03
#48 I can completely understand why you wouldn't be happy about that. Hopefully Transport Scotland will take on board local residents' concerns and do what they can to minimise noise and pollution.
50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 14:58:47
#47 I'm well aware of the date. I'm not sure why you are trying to pretend that the A90 "cuts through" South Queensferry, but in no reasonable interpretation of the phrase could that possibly be correct, and you must know that. For something to cut through something else, that something else has to be in existence at the time! The building of housing and retail estates next to the A90 after it was built does not make it "cut through" S Queensferry, and you know it.
51

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 15:01:40
#50 So how exactly does the 99% of bridge traffic that does not go anywhere near South Queensferry get onto the bridge?
52

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 15:05:08
#51 On the A90.
53

Incognito,

South Queensferry 18/03/2009 15:08:59
I too was at the meeting last night. While it wasn't clear who out of the panel was to be believed (or trusted), what was abundantly clear is that Transport Scotland have done and continue to do an appalling job job on this project (in terms of consultation; justifying its decisions; responding to concerns; and keeping the public updated on developments). The political process has been used as a shield to railroad the decision through - e.g apparently, MSPs were given papers on the three options only two or three days in advance of the vote (and have since been denied access to background reports which the SNP refer to to back up their claim that a new bridge is the only option).

In addition, none of the costings on which the decision to build a bridge (as opposed to a tunnel) were based seem to be credible (the original estimated cost of the bridge has been miraculously halved).

So, what Scotland will get is a second rate additional bridge with no capacity to take pedestrians or cyclist and which will quickly reach its full capacity, while the old bridge will apparently be used only for public transport busses. Great forward thinking...

This is not just something which residents north and south of the bridge should be concerned about.
54

Brian Ferrari,

18/03/2009 15:14:45
I fear the same sort of people that brought you the trams will get you a new bridge.

It makes more sense to repair he existing bridge and require heavy lorries to make more use of the M9 or the Kincardine Bridge (as they presently have to do when high wind prevents them crossing).

Instead we're more likely to get another Public Sector Waste-Fest.
55

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 15:28:41
#32 Man of Reason

"The report on the FETA website was produced by the consulting engineers WA Fairhusrst & Partners, in association with Ammann & Whitney and COWI. Look these guys up - they are some of the most respected engineers in their field!"

Oh! So they didn't bother then to commission reports from "real" engineering companies who have successfully replaced suspension cables on similar-sized bridges (Portugal being one example) while keeping them in full operation? I wonder why? The information is easily accessible. Perhaps they don't know how to use Google? Or, maybe they simply wanted a report that outlined a range of nightmare scenarios. Hmm. Interesting.
56

Man of Reason,

18/03/2009 15:48:58
#55 Incandescent

You really should have taken my advice and looked these guys up before embarrassing yourself:

www.cowi.com
www.ammann-whitney.com
www.fairhurst.co.uk

They've worked on some of the biggest bridges in the world and are among the most respected engineers in their field.

As for the bridge in Lisbon - it is very unlikely they would be able to augment their cables without traffic restrictions under today's regulations. Back in 1997 there was a very different environment so far as health and safety was concerned.
57

Heretic_,

18/03/2009 16:06:58
#52 You didn't look at that map, did you?
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 16:27:40
#57 This is a pointless side discussion, and you are only perpetuating it because you have lost the substantive argument. Your baseless claim that repairing the bridge will result in 7 years continuous traffic restrictions has been blown out of the water - even the "evidence" you yourself presented doesn't support your position.

The Forth Road Bridge was built between South Queensferry and the Port Edgar naval base. It did not "cut through" anything. Since then, houses and retail units have been built, Port Edgar has become a residential area and marina, and the whole area has for administrative purposes been referred to as South Queensferry.

But the bridge no more "cut through" that than the city bypass cut through Straiton.
59

,

18/03/2009 17:13:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

No thanks...,

Cramond 18/03/2009 17:14:08
The thing about the main cables on the bridge is not what can be seen and treated its what you cant see. Back a few years ago a man coming back from the pub fell into the anchor rooms where all the cables attached to rods that are buried into the anchor blocks. He died, clearly not funny!, so they filled them in with concrete, so the primary area of risk, the anchor points, cant be inspected. If I were the bridge engineers I would be more worried about what you cant see, not what you can...
61

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 17:15:58
#59 A strange admonishment on a comments page. If you don't want to read what I say, don't read it.
62

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 17:20:30
#56

Not embarrassed in the slightest.

"They've worked on some of the biggest bridges in the world and are among the most respected engineers in their field."

...and which one do you work for?


63

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 17:22:30
60. The anchor rooms were never open, at least on the south side.
64

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 17:27:37
#61 Duncan

I actually support you on this one. The western development of SQ occured over the period since the bridge was built. Those who bought the houses nearest to the carriageway did so in the full knowledge that it was there. The houses directly beneath the southern section of the bridge were then entirely owned by the Local Authority, so tenants had no recourse.
65

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 17:34:40
#64 Wahey! Thank you Incandescent. (Did you notice I congratulated the SNP govt on funding the Mining Museum the other day? Consensus politics is here, eh? :-)
66

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 17:46:17
#56 Man of Reason

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

Part 4

Traffic routes
36.—(1) Every construction site shall be organised in such a way that, so far as is reasonably practicable, pedestrians and vehicles can move safely and without risks to health.

(2) Traffic routes shall be suitable for the persons or vehicles using them, sufficient in number, in suitable positions and of sufficient size.
67

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 17:48:53
#65 Duncan

You're welcome.

That's good about the mining museum, but am I correct in drawing from that comment that you are assuming my political views based on my logical objection to the tram project?
68

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/03/2009 18:43:51
#67 No, trams is an issue which can cut across party lines - though SNP supporters take the greatest delight in doing it down. I'm basing my assumption on, among other things, your quite ardent defence of the SNP's failure to deliver on police recruitment. And, I should add, the only assumption I'm drawing is that you have defended the SNP from time to time - not that you are some sort of party hack.

I'm sure you aren't offended by that!
69

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 19:17:00
#68 Duncan

I think I might have argued that it was about additional police on the beat, rather than focusing on new recruits. Anything further than that is lost in the mists of time, but an "ardent defence" is surprising to me.
70

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 18/03/2009 20:53:45
As there isn't going to be reasonably priced petrol and diesel when the bridge is completed (thanks to peak oil) I often wonder just what exactly will be crossing the new bridge?

The old structure, even in its weakened state will be strong enough to cope with the falling traffic volumes and the new bridge will be completely superfluous. Anyone who believes traffic volumes will increase, or even remain at current levels in the midst of falling oil availability, is deluding themselves
71

No thanks...,

Cramond 18/03/2009 21:17:24
#63 Incandescent
Seemingly they were free of concrete for a while. My uncle was one of the structural and design engineers with Freeman fox on not just this bridge and few others, humber etc. I dont know the date they were filled but his thinkings are that this will be the weakest spot is and the key area that cant be inspected. Scary or what :)
72

D Napier,

18/03/2009 21:41:30
#63 and 71.

Yes, the anchorages are filled with concrete. If they weren't then the bridge wouldn't be standing.

I wish you guys would do some proper research before spouting complete and utter drivel.

Go and see if you can find a copy of the Proceedings Papers of the Institution of Civil Engineers on the design and constructionn of the bridge which were published shortly after it opened.

A colleague of mine has a copy and it is VERY interesting reading.

#60. My understanding is that the chap who died fell, while drunk, into one of the anchor chambers which was flooded with water at the time following another incident. They evidently found his body when they pumped the water out. This information came from a relative who lived in South Queensferry at the time. Maybe there is a story in the Evening News archive.
73

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 22:31:34
72 D Napier

"Yes, the anchorages are filled with concrete. If they weren't then the bridge wouldn't be standing."

Perhaps you should "do some proper research before spouting complete and utter drivel."!

http://hsewsf.sedsh.gov.uk/hslive/hsstart?P_HBNUM=47778

"Main cables anchored in rock below approach viaducts in concrete anchor chambers with Corennie granite transferred aggregate facing"

The cables are bolted deep into rock and then the tunnel was plugged with concrete. The inspection chamber (note the word "chamber", not "hole" or "pit") was never open and, as a matter of fact, is above the level of the maintenance road that passes from one side to the other (under the south approach, at least). it would simply not be possible to "fall in" by accident.

Hopefully your facetious statement refers only to the anchorages, not the anchor inspection chambers. If not, you obviously don't know the definition of "chamber".



74

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 22:39:28
72 D Napier

"My understanding is that the chap who died fell, while drunk, into one of the anchor chambers which was flooded with water at the time following another incident. They evidently found his body when they pumped the water out. This information came from a relative who lived in South Queensferry at the time."

I grew up in SQ in the '70s and '80s. I heard about every single bridge jumper, but never an inkling of this. Me and friends were often playing around the service road and there is no access to anchor points except a substantial door on each side. Presumably the drunk guy staggered right off the pavement, across the grass, and fell against the (outward opening) steel door with such force that he burst through it into the chamber, tumbled down the remaining section of anchor tunnel and fell face down into a puddle at the bottom?
75

Cabbie,

Stuck in traffic 18/03/2009 22:43:17
Duncan of Edinburgh you are talkng mince.

Although most but not all of the west side of South Queensferry was built after the existing road bridge was constructed the fact is that it did cut through Queensferry as they had to demolish a number of houses to build the bridge.

Go and have a look under the bridge and see for yourself the houses that are there. It's easy to tell what houses were there before and after 1964.
76

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 22:45:36
A far more likely scenario is someone fell into the shuttered anchor groundworks during construction when, like any big hole in the ground, it would be prone to flooding during heavy rain. When the chamber was subsequently completed, the locals who saw concrete pumping in operation thought the hole was being filled in to prevent anyone else falling in (we're talking '60s SQ here).
77

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 22:54:36
75 There's a former shop almost directly beneath the deck that adjoins the fenced maintenance yard. There are houses that pre-date the bridge on either side of the path down to the crossroads from the service road with only fields south of that point before 1964. If anything was demolished, it was a maximum of one 4-in-block '30s council-owned house.
78

Incandescent,

18/03/2009 22:58:27
75 - Might have been some farm cottages on the old Edinburgh Road demolished for the A90, but, again, rented/tied, so occupants would have been rehoused locally at no personal loss.
79

D Napier,

19/03/2009 08:15:51
#73/74/76. Yet again you are making again you are make rash statements beased on only part of the information.

I had a look at the link you provided and I'm afraid to say that this only gives part of the story.

Why not go and do some proper research before your next post.
80

Heretic_,

19/03/2009 10:01:33
Duncan/Incandescent

It doesn't make any difference when the houses were built - my point was that 100% of traffic on the A90 approach, today, in 2009, goes straight through South Queensferry, with housing on either side and underneath the bridge.

Under the new scheme over 90% of this traffic will bypass the town on the other side of fields to the south and west - I thought SQ residents might be pleased about this.

However, I appreciate Build Me a Tunnel's point at #48 that the residents stuck between two bridges are worried about noise and pollution.
81

Duncan in Edinburgh,

19/03/2009 10:06:48
#80 I repeat, though clearly without hope that you will acknowledge it, that saying that the A90 goes "straight through" South Queensferry is like saying that the A720 goes straight through Straiton. The A90 goes nowhere near the centre of South Queensferry. It is, in fact, a South Queensferry bypass. That housing has expanded around this bypass does not change that.
82

Heretic_,

19/03/2009 10:13:29
Whack!

Whack!

Whack!

Ouch!

(Thats the cound of me banging my head against a brick wall)
83

Heretic_,

19/03/2009 10:13:46
Sorry, "sound"
84

Duncan in Edinburgh,

19/03/2009 11:01:15
#82 It might ease your painful head if you acknowledged that "7 years of continuous traffic restrictions" was a barefaced fib, and the reality would be less than 2 years total over a 7 year period. Which makes the idea of a repaired existing bridge, with heavy trucks moved permanently to Kincardine, an affordable, effective and sensible option.
85

Arrow,

edinburgh 19/03/2009 12:26:15
the A90 and the A904 leading to the M8 via Newton is the southern boundary of South Queensferry. beyond that to the south is the green belt and more enviromentally protected land that you could shake a stick at. to the west of the proposed road is the designed landscape grounds of Hopetoun house (a no-go area)and the large hi tec (as was) factory. the new bridge is west of the present bridge and away from the main part of SQ.
and finally the Scottish Executive (as it was then known) bought the landfall site for an earlier bridge design from a house builder that already had detailed planning permission and paid full whck (£2m at that time) and then made a start to keep the permission alive and it still is. so if the bridge ain't built there will be more houses on the west of SQ.

protestors no more!!!
86

D Williams,

SQ - soon to be the home of SNP f*ck-ups 19/03/2009 13:46:03
#79 D Napier

Schoolboy SV650s where are you ? Your wee pal from Fife is spreading sh*te again.

D Napier - your a plank. A new bridge is going to have serious adverse affects on local people - of which you are not one - so away and stay in your wee pit in Dunfermline.
87

Incandescent,

19/03/2009 16:55:01
#79 D Napier

"rash statements"? Your own "rash" (and predictably arrogant) statement:

"Yes, the anchorages are filled with concrete. If they weren't then the bridge wouldn't be standing. Perhaps you should "do some proper research before spouting complete and utter drivel."!

claims that, even if the "chambers" *are* filled with concrete, it is necessary to provide structural integrity. This is in direct contradiction to your own statement at #72:

"My understanding is that the chap who died fell, while drunk, into one of the anchor chambers which was flooded with water at the time following another incident"

Hmm. Hoist by your own petard, it seems. I fear that #86 is spot on in his analysis.
88

D Napier,

19/03/2009 21:26:16
#87. I'm not being arrogant. I'm just concerned that you don't have the correct information and are making decisions accordingly.

There is way too much spurious information flying about.

#86. I don't live in Dunfermline or South Queensferry, but that does not mean that I don't live local to the bridge or that I won't be affected by the construction of the new crossing.
89

SV650s,

23/03/2009 13:55:11
#88


"I don't live in .....South Queensferry"


Well f**k off then

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Would you support the return of tolls to fund a new Forth Road Bridge?
No, it should be paid for in the same way as other roads.
Yes, it’s fairer for users to bear the brunt of the cost.
Yes, as long as it was only for a fixed amount of time.


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.