Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

'Iconic' £4bn bridge for the Forth



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:
19 December 2007
A NEW bridge will be built across the Forth in Scotland's biggest construction project for a generation, finance minister John Swinney told MSPs today.
An artist's impression of the new Forth crossing
An artist's impression of the new Forth crossing
The crossing has an estimated cost of between £3.25 billion and £4.22 billion

And Mr Swinney said the bridge – which could open in about nine years time – would become an iconic structure.

A new crossing is required because cables on the existing Forth Road Bridge are corroded, and there is a possibility it may have to close to lorries by 2013 and to all traffic by 2019.

Today Mr Swinney told the Scottish Parliament that action was required to be taken now.

"Doing nothing is not an option," he said.

And he revealed that after considering all the different options – including two different types of tunnels and two different kinds of bridges – the Scottish Government had opted for a cable stayed bridge.
This will have three pylons or towers, with cables running from these supporting the decks of the new bridge.

As well as being the cheapest of the options the government considered, it is also one of the quickest to build, with construction estimated to take some five and a half years.

Mr Swinney told MSPs: "The new Forth crossing is a hugely ambitious project.

"It will be the largest construction project in a generation in Scotland. It will be an iconic structure."

The bridge will run from the northern shore, just west of the existing road bridge, to a point west of South Queensferry.
An artist's impression of the new Forth crossing
An artist's impression of the new Forth crossing

And Mr Swinney said it would maintain a "fundamental link" across the River Forth while providing better connections to the transport network.
He added: "The Forth Rail Bridge created an image of global significance when it was constructed in the 19th century.

"In the 21st century our vision of a new crossing of equal stature and significance is the government's promise today."

Earlier today, haulage leaders and motoring organisations welcomed the announcement.

Phil Flanders, director of the Road Haulage Association in Scotland, said: "We have always argued for a bridge because it means all freight can use it. If you have a tunnel there would be a problem with dangerous goods and the only way they could do it would be to close the tunnel to allow the dangerous goods to go through.

"Plus the cost factors – it's better to have money to do other things than spend it on a tunnel when a bridge will cost less."

Neil Greig, head of policy in Scotland for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said today's announcement was an early Christmas present for drivers in the east of Scotland.

He said: "The bridge was probably the best option – it seems to be cheaper, quicker and means HGVs can use the crossing without restrictions. Now we need to get the details of how to fund it and push on.

"This has been a long-running saga, but it's one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Scotland for decades and they have got to get it right."

Edinburgh transport convener Phil Wheeler described a new bridge as the "least worst option".

He said: "It seems to offer the best value for money, but we are still concerned what effect it may have on the traffic flow on the western side of the city.

"I also hope the new bridge will be built in such a way as to allow a light rail or tram on it in due course. Obviously there isn't one to put on it at the moment, but we should make sure the carriageway is wide enough for the future."

Map showing bridge network access
Map showing bridge network access





The full article contains 606 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 December 2007 5:39 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

alex paterson,

embra 19/12/2007 13:06:31
Ok a bridge is cheaper and faster to build but,would a tunnel not be cheaper to maintain in the long run working out cheaper.
2

General-Blood,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 13:16:40
no a tunnel would not be cheaper to maintain, i mean just exactly how are they supposed to repair a tunnel under the firth of forth i mean yes they can cover up a crack but that wont repair it will it. however a bridge it something needs replacing then as long as its not certain parts they can replace it.
3

Incandescent,

19/12/2007 13:25:57
I see the predicted top cost has crept up to £1.7 Billion! The usual out-of-control Scottish project then before it's even started. It would cost half this and take half the time (or less) to build in any other EU country. With this kind of cash they could build a bridge-tunnel (www.cbbt.com) to the East of Edinburgh AND repair the existing bridge.
4

ex-resident,

selby 19/12/2007 13:28:21
Oh dear, oh dear! "The bridge was probably the best option – it seems to be cheaper, quicker and means HGVs can use the crossing without restrictions" - are these really the right criteria? The current road bridge was built without the expense of weatherproofing the cables, which made the accountants happier in the 60s. What about comparing the lifetime costs of bridge vs trenched tunnel? Also, obviously and sadly, LRT has been abandoned.
5

Chancer,

19/12/2007 13:30:34
"no a tunnel would not be cheaper to maintain, i mean just exactly how are they supposed to repair a tunnel under the firth of forth i mean yes they can cover up a crack but that wont repair it will it"

Liverpool has 3 tunnels under the Mersey ( 1 of which is Victorian )and they seem to be able to cope fine.
6

raythebear,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 13:45:40
more forward thinking by politicians, NOT!
A tunnel really is the sensible option
7

Finbarr Saunders,

19/12/2007 13:56:41
Do we really need this crossing?

I wouldn't lose any sleep if I couldn't easily get to Fife and beyond, let's face it, do we really want to make it any easier for the Fifers to come over here?

When I say Fifers, I, of course, also refer to those from Edinburgh and the Lothians who bought houses in Fife because they are cheaper. They're cheaper for a reason!
8

Calgacus,

Aberdeen 19/12/2007 14:01:19
Chancer #5, the Forth has a Victorian bridge for that matter, which also seems able to cope just fine. I think the problem lies with modern "workers", who have spent so much effort demanding their "rights", that they've forgotten how to actually build anything.
9

Johnno,

19/12/2007 14:23:42
Is the current forth bridge to remain and be repaired or is it being replaced by this new crossing? And will the new crossing be subject to road tolls forecast at between £4 and £7 for a single trip to cover the costs, or is the money coming from somwhere else?
10

Chancer,

19/12/2007 14:43:19
#8 The point I was trying to make to #2 was that all of the Mersey tunnels are basically carriageway tunnels built inside larger maintenance tunnels,think pipe split in two with carriageway being the top half, and are therefore very easy to maintain/repair. I believe that it is possible to even go on guided tours through the maintenance tunnel section.
11

Upbeat,

19/12/2007 14:49:47
We see the Road Haulage association "dumping" on a tunnel plan because they suspect that the carraige of Dangerous goods would be affected.

Just how many vehicles carrying dangerous goods need to cross the Forth at Queensferry each day? Does Mr Flanders actually know this ? The percentage of traffic containing Levels 1 and 2 Dangerous cargos is tiny. To deny Scotland a tunnel for this reason is simply obtuse.

Mr Flanders might care to remind himself where lorries turned away from the present Forth Bridge in high winds find there way across the estuary. He will know that the two options at Kincardine, and at Stirling remain the routes chosen by the vast majority of heavy freight. Traffic which originates in England, Grangemouth or the Glasgow area, will travel these routes anyway . Most freight going south will take the motorway option down to Carlisle. Only those items travelling to North East England , and the Edinburgh area will be affected. The number of Dangerous cargos among this traffic should never be allowed to affect the option of a long term solution to the Forth estuary crossing.

It is a real problem when those businesses who should be best able to benefit from a permanent crossing , use their influence to seek a quick and cheap option. It does appear that out of desperation and panic at the failing cables on the exising bridge, the Scottish RHA has completely overlooked the real infrastructure requirements of Scotland over the next half century. That they have now used their influence to force the "least worst" option onto Politicians who know so little, and understand less, about Road freight, is damning.
12

Lang Spoon,

Leith 19/12/2007 14:59:31
Ignoring all the carefully-considered comments above, the gentle reader can safely assume that the choice will be a bridge; why? because a bridge would be "sexy" and politicians start slavering at the thought of something visible which they can proudly show off (Scotsman colour calendar etc!)

Personally I favour a tunnel, for the weatherproof factor if nothing else; we are building something here to last for the rest of the century, let's get it right!
13

,

19/12/2007 15:07:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

19/12/2007 15:29:35
I can confirm many things but i cant confirm anything at all here.
15

Jams,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 16:37:08
Our cable supported bridge is nackered well before its time and needs replaced. I know! lets build another cable supported bridge. After all it can't happen twice in the same place, can it?

I'm sorry but this makes me think of little pigs continually building straw houses and wondering how come the wolf keeps eating them.
16

ex-resident,

selby 19/12/2007 16:38:13
In my previous post "LRT" meant Light Rapid Transit, though Lothian Regional Transport would make a certain sort of sense.
17

Incandescent,

19/12/2007 16:38:38
Hmmm. I see they simply re-write an existing article following the announcement, changing the figures (ever-upward) and making comments look inaccurate. So, in the space of a couple of hours, the estimated maximums have gone up to £4.22Bn and 9 YEARS to completion? Both of these would dwarf the Akashi Kaikyo - longest suspension bridge in the world - and make Scotland appear backward to the engineering world.

18

TheBridgeTroll,

19/12/2007 16:38:48
I thought we could get a tunnel for £4Bn. How did the cheapest option suddenly become £4Bn and not £1.5Bn provided previously.

Probably to give them some breathing room to destroy previously quoted budgets but they have forgotten they spent 10 times the budget on their parliament building. Look out for a £15 billion bridge delivered near 2030.

Why spend a small fortune on technical studies to come up with the justification of its cheaper and quicker? any idiot could see that.

I would also like no know what happened to the SNP's election pledge of 'We will give serious consideration to a tunnel' - I am still waiting for that.

Surely this kind of unproductive money wasting could be better applied. If only we could train John Swinney and his team to infiltrate a terrorist outfit and squander their cash on ridiculous studies and ultimately blow the budgets on the wrong solution, the fear of terror would be a thing of the past.
19

Johnno,

19/12/2007 16:40:57
Why didn't the government consider simply replacing the cables and deck at a fraction of the cost? This has been done in Vancouver with minimum disruption to bridge users. Or is it, as Lang Spoon above pointed out 'because a bridge would be "sexy" and politicians start slavering at the thought of something visible which they can proudly show off'. And i notice the cost has jumped again.
20

vote them out,

19/12/2007 16:45:22
If you have an explosion or a lorry fire in a tunnel under the Forth it would be very difficult to get to people and it would be very difficult to carry out a subsequent repair. The collapse of a tunnel under the forth does not even bear thinking about.
As pointed out in the article it would also take longer to build and there is simply not enough time left until the existing Forth Road bridge fails, especially since it will be toll free in january with a corresponding increase in traffic.
21

TheBridgeTroll,

19/12/2007 16:47:10
#19

That is half the problem, the study on the feasibility of doing this isn't due until April 2008 (its was mysteriously delayed a year).

It will contain stunning logic such as it will be easy to repair the bridge now we have a new one to carry the traffic. They expect it will cost £300m? and require 50 weekend closures over a 5 year time span as well as lots of contraflow if they have no alternate crossing.

But yes, rather than an economical solution the politicians are a clammering for their name on a plaque on the side of a new bridge.
22

Sods Law,

EDINBURGH 19/12/2007 16:52:00
Would you close a tunnel to high winds?
23

Hector Goodrich (Dr),

19/12/2007 16:53:22
~~7 Some very cogent points there, Finbar. I no longer accept private patients from Fife and am thinking of letting my Dunfermline based investment manager go.
I recall the present road bridge being built and the hype of how it would ease access northwards, opening the Scottish Highlands to economic stimulation. At the time, I said the bridge would be a tactical blunder and mainly serve to provide Fifers unfettered access south of the river / estuary / Firth with a view to diluting the fine breeding stock of the Forth Valley. Time, I fear, has proved me correct!
24

RichieSF,

San Francisco 19/12/2007 17:13:32
Mr Swinney should know better than to refer to the Victorian bridge as the Forth Rail Bridge. It's called the Forth Bridge! The other bridge was designated with "road" to differentiate it from the Forth Bridge. My question is this; what will happen to the current Road Bridge when it is deemed too dangerous for any traffic? What will be the cost of demolishing it? Or will it become a glorious memorial to poor modern construction techniques? What will prevent corrosion affecting this other bridge?
25

Robert12,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 17:15:25
Hector, I'm sure those poor sods in Fife must be gutted with their fresh air, big houses and green fields. Every month when the mortgage comes out I get more and more tempted to move out of over-priced Edinburgh. What exactly am I paying extra for, Edinburgh Council to waste my money on a stupid tram system?

TBH The Forth Bridge has probably hindered development North of the Forth as much as it has helped it. Why bother developing business in Fife, Perthshire, Tayside etc when the locals can just go across to Edinburgh?
26

Hugh,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 17:26:52
#15 Cable-stay bridges can have every cable replaced individually if necessary, like the hangers on the current road bridge. The main cables on the existing bridge cannot be replaced except by spinning new cables above them. However this has been done successfully in Lisbon.
27

Warden An' All, Reborn,

19/12/2007 17:33:30
Headline - snp has tunnel vision on bridge project.
How many years now before we really have a fourth bridge.
28

BusOff,

West Linton 19/12/2007 17:36:54
Re #20.

The Channel Tunnel had an horrendous fire incident not too many years ago - structural damage was 'minimal' - things got back to normal quite quickly - loss of life NIL.

Scenario truck with 'Dangerous Load' EXPLODES on the new Forth Road Bridge - result!!!!!!!

Bridges have always been 'The Cheapest Option' but not necessarily 'The Best' in the long run.

We shall see how well the new bridge stands up to the 'wind funnel' that is the Forth Estauary in the winter months.

A new bridge will be built but it seems that only ONE will meet operational requirements for a number of years.
29

badger464,

leith 19/12/2007 17:39:55
apparently, according to those that backed a tunnel based crossing in the long run that option is the less expensive option, as they do not suffer from damage from the elements and they require much less maintenance. With regard to the construction techniques because there are many working tunnels around the world they are tried and tested practices, where as bridges tend to be more a one off type structure and only time tells as to how they handle wear and tear.
I personally think a tunnel would have been the better option as it would add less impact to the surrounding landscape, but not only that consider this. If a tunnel was used they could then close the bridge completely, repair it properly, and then we would have both, giving commuters a choice of crossings and we would not lose the original Forth Road Bridge, which is after all, part of our engineering and architectural heritage.
30

Ted,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 18:14:40
I love how this waste of £3-4bn was the cheapest option that Ministers considered. Repairing or even replacing the cables on the existing bridge is obvious, and cheaper. But there are marginal seats to be considered, and this Government and its predecessors want to be seen to spend as much as they can on this.

The result will be an utter waste of time and money, plus massive congestion we'll all suffer for perhaps a decade.

Some days, just a few, I despair to be Scottish, and this is one.
31

cataibh,

Bo'ness 19/12/2007 19:03:43
25# Robert no need to move to Fife move either up or down the south side of the Forth.
32

Mallard,

Borders 19/12/2007 19:08:14
Interesting how the Transport Scotland figures have been pauchled towards the bridge option when, not so long ago, the submerged tube tunnel was shown to be the most economic option. How have the relative costs skewed so much when any inflation of construction prices would apply proportionally to each option - so the most economic option remains the same?
33

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The other Forthy Bridge 19/12/2007 19:19:27
What a waste of money. Within 10 years we'll be well down the slippery slope of declining oil production after peak oil in 2010 and there will be far fewer vehicles on the road than today and more freight will be travelling by rail than now! Another EARL project methinks.
34

Joe,

Livingston 19/12/2007 19:55:09
Time to call in audit Scotland? FWIW in nine years time the SNP bubble will have burst and plans for a tunnel to include the WCML will be sensibly mooted by an incoming administration. The original EARL might even re-emerge.
35

Nelbert,

19/12/2007 20:08:05
#34 - i came on to say much the same thing. A complete waste of money, you'd think AS would know this having been an oil economist.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3381#more



36

Sam,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 20:29:16
Just two comments. 1. If the cables are corroding on the Forth Road Bridge why will the cables on the new bridge NOT corrode as well? 2. If the cables on the new bridge will not corrode, why not replace the cables on the existing road bridge with corrosion resistant cables? Surely that solution would be but a fraction of the cost of building an entirely new bridge. I also add, strangely enough the Forth Rail Bridge seems to be holding up quite well. But of course, that was built in those nasty Victorian times.
37

Jams,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 20:45:33
#26 - I think you are missing my point. They are planning for failure. In a harsh marine environment the cables will always be at risk so why not look for a better solution. Did anyone mention a tunnel ? Oh yes but that was going to cost over £3bn..... hang on a minute it's cheaper than a bridge now!

As the great wise one might say DOH!
38

Dr DoGood,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 21:18:08
anybody look at the map and tell us where the newlly built motorway extention is going to go now.
39

Zedwed,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 21:20:55
I lived happily in Fife for 17 years, working in Edinburgh, for many excellent reasons. Then the old (new) bridge became awful at rush hours. Fifers have worked in Edinburgh travelling by rail since the year 19dot. The Severn has had a second bridge since way back - why are we so slow? Hey, and why not bring back the ferry?
40

morris,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 21:51:22
I see the Liberal Demoparts are at it again accusing Alex Salmond of having favoured a tunnel???????? So?????

If there is anything untoward they really will have a hard job proving it on this one. THEY ARE BUILDING A BRIDGE YOU NUMPTIES!

Must be a competition to find th4e stupidest idiot in the lib Dems,(so dont count your chickens yet Nicol despite your absolute howler).You are not alone!
41

morris,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 21:58:32
41

The ferry was actually quite a nice day out.There is an existing ferry of course from Rosyth to Belgium which passes Leith. Im still waiting for somebody to "discover" that it could call in there SINCE IT HAS TO PASS IT ANYWAY! Its only the capital city for GOD SAKE!

Two ferries maybe? I going to Ze Brugge and 1 going back and forward from Rosyth to Leith (not to mention the Hovercraft which was a huge success in exactly the same way as the ferry was when I was a child).

Insetad we are building a TRAM!
42

morris,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 22:08:05
39

Spook

I may be wrong (and I know that there are major improvements in bridge design to accomodate high winds),but the choice of a tunnel and a bridge seems to make infinite sense to me simply because it will teach every single one of us where the advantages of one over the other lie (assuming there are some).
One thing for sure,they cannot both be closed because of high winds.Can they?
If they can build a tunnel under the English channel which is 29 miles at its shortest point Dover to Calais if I recall correctly,surely a tunnel under the Forth should be well possible.

What I find interesting is that for years we were told by engineers that a tunnel could be built in half the time for half the cost.Now its apparently not true? WHY? What has changed ?
43

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 19/12/2007 22:14:30
Jeez, man, I need to sign in as often as a pauper has to sign on.

Feta (say Cheese) has to go one better than the Bridge(s) on the River Tay.

How long will this bridge last?
44

Lastsocialist,

Paris, France. 19/12/2007 22:26:45
A tunnel would have been the farsighted intelligent person's option, but then, we're dealing with numptie politicians here, so we can hardly expect any kind of reason to be in play. Shame that, another wasted opportunity that will be regretted as soon as the bridge is finished in god knows how many years time.
45

Lastsocialist,

Still Paris, Still in France 19/12/2007 22:32:05
Come to think of it, the Americans would have built a bridge between Edinburgh/Burntisland, or Edinburgh/Kirkcaldy years ago. Scotland and England could be great countries again if they applied their native genius to intelligent projects and stopped being so damn negative about everything.
46

rs,

in ma house 19/12/2007 22:35:37
Edinburgh transport convener Phil Wheeler ......."I also hope the new bridge will be built in such a way as to allow a light rail or tram on it in due course. Obviously there isn't one to put on it at the moment,

Has he missed something...the Large Structure to the East of the current road bridge has rails....wouldn't it be better to improve the rail services.....Trains aren't held up by CAR CONGESTION.

Its a bit late for the Edinburgh Council to think about congestion on the west side of Edinburgh....considering the amount of developments that have been built over the last 30 plus years
47

rs,

in ma house 19/12/2007 22:37:47
its a pity the current bridge designers hadn't taken into consideration that its was built across "salty sea water", now what does salt and water do to metal..make it rust!!!!

The old question..that no one has answered..why did it take so long to check the cables..given there importance to the whole structure of the bridge
48

Smackhead,

Fife! 19/12/2007 22:57:03
What a waste of cash. Does this looney tune SNP govt actually have a clue? Lets get Walt Disneys lads over for some more realistic planning.
49

COLINTON.MAINS,

TORONTO/CANADA 19/12/2007 23:03:27
LETS.GET.IT.BUILT/.BY.EXPERTS.LIKE.THE.OLD.FORTH.BRIDGE
50

dvdmmail,

Lockerbie 19/12/2007 23:08:01
Which of the pictured bridges is the new one? The images shown and the accompanying text do not make this clear.
51

Colkitto,

River Clyde 19/12/2007 23:29:17
It has to be a bridge. You can't throw yourself off a tunnel !
52

Shamus,

Glasgow 19/12/2007 23:58:39
A bridge to far and not required. What happened to public transport investment! Dead in its track. What will the wee Green MSPs HAVE to say!!! Collecting their 50k plus salaries!!! and of course expenses.NOTHING. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!
53

morris,

edinburgh 19/12/2007 23:59:22
53

The artists impression is "snapped" from the south shore so the bridge on the left(west) is the proposed construction.This is also shown slightly more clearly on the map.I am curious as to why this bridge will be any better than the other one!
54

Julian,

EDINBURGH 20/12/2007 00:01:34
rs #50

Correct me if I'm wrong but the current bridge is having to be replaced because of the stresses and strains of carrying twice as many vehicles as it was designed to. Therefore you can't blame the designers. More like the people in charge of predicting future traffic volumes.
55

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 20/12/2007 00:04:18
It seems to me that lorry weights have nearly doubled since the 1960's when the bridge was built, lorry journeys have increased, people in Fife drive rather than use the more convenient train, the old bridge is knackered early-hmm why could that be?

Its just a shame that none of the above appear to be paying, its the taxpayer and mostly the English taxpayer in the SE!

56

Julian,

EDINBURGH 20/12/2007 00:05:13
#56 Shamus

So what is your solution to a bridge that is going to have to close within 10 years? Divert to Kincardine? back to the old ferry service?

Public transport investment is alive and well with £570m being spent on the trams, although some may argue it could have been better spent elsewhere.
57

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/12/2007 09:09:11
I hope that Wendy's views have been fully taken into account prior to this decision being made.

Where the he11 is she when we need her? How about you Nicol? Oh sorry I forgot you were fully occupied trying to trash a major inward investment project in your own constituency just to score political points over the SNP Government.
58

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/12/2007 09:11:32
#58 julian

I think you are wrong. This is more to do with the corrosion of the load bearing cables. Had they not been corroding, I don't believe the volume of traffic would be cause for concern.
59

Mr Lucky,

Fifer working in Edinburgh 20/12/2007 09:12:09
I presume the need for the Royal Navy's new carriers to pass under the bridge has been taken into account? Be a bit embarrasing if they could not get out of Rosyth once finished.
60

Kerry,

EDINBURGH 20/12/2007 09:14:36
The new bridge looks remarkably close to the existing one but no mentions of the residents of South Queensferry who have been terrorised for years but the sound of engineeering worrks throughout the night. Marvellous may as well just halve my house price now ! Between throwing up council flats in front of my house and buiiding a second bridge just down the road it's an absolute joke. Except the sad thing is it's just not funny. I honestly can't believe that they couldn't have built it anywhere else to avoid destroying this town any further.
61

McMillar,

Fife 20/12/2007 09:18:25
Wow, this is really good news and a huge project. Let’s do is to a high standard and if it can exceed other recent high profile bridge build then we really will have something to be proud of. Has a lot to live up to in the shadow of FRB (still iconic!) and I really hope they get it right.
62

Kerry,

EDINBURGH 20/12/2007 09:28:25
Yes fantastic news ! They should ensure the new bridge is only open to disabled people, public transport and haulage vehicles so that the longevity of the new bridge is ensured whilst cutting congestion and pollution. Obviously the above inflation increases in train fares will ensure that by this time the train service will provide more than adequate access to Edinburgh.

I also see no mention of the costs involved or any intention to remove the existing bridge or is that going to remain open to small private vehicles that would also be fantastic............
63

subrosa,

20/12/2007 09:49:38
Well I'm delighted. I don't 'do' tunnels.
64

Seaforth,

20/12/2007 10:07:57
Why don't they just hire notorious fud AM2 to speak to the cables for half an hour? That would dry anything out.
65

PaulW,

Occasional Bridge User 20/12/2007 10:23:31
While I agree with comments about the long term maintenance and weather resistence of a tunnel, I understand from a civil engineer that surveys of the seabed of the Forth indicate that it is unsuitable for a tunnel, with many sub-sea trenches etc. cutting across the proposed path for a tunnel. When combined with the larger land-take required for a tunnel on each shore, this forced the choice of a bridge. After this, it was down to the choice of which type of bridge is best and which could be constructed in time to avoid serious damage to the Fife economy. Anyone know anything about whether this is true? It would have been helpful if this article had said more about WHY a tunnel was impractical, if this is true, given that initially the SNP had favoured this. Surely the Scotsman wouldn't be trying to portray the Govt. in an unfavourable light? How about some quality journalism for a change......
66

Steve,

West Lothian 20/12/2007 10:28:58
It's about time this thing was built.
The previous 2 Labour/Lib Dem Executives did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the 15 years since the need for another crossing was identified. The situation is now critical. We must start building asap, before Scotland grinds to a halt. I see plenty of politically motivated swipes at the SNP above, but at least they are making decisions instead of bumbling. The last shower couldn't even decide if they'd keep tolls or not.
67

AJ Fife,

20/12/2007 10:45:05
The Director of Road Haulage has an interesting name, doesn't he - Phil Landers?!!
68

Kerry,

EDINBURGH 20/12/2007 11:22:53

Why was only one site considered for the bridge but 3 sites for the tunnel ??? I wasn't aware of a shortage of unoccupied land along the Forth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5058076.stm

Why couldn't this bridge have been built to accomodate the Forth Bridge traffic ? It's not like we didn't know that it was required.

Oh and if they were that bothered about halting the supposed decay of the bridge they would have prevented thousands of vehicle queuing across it. I look forward to the announcement of the winner of the contract and obviously hope that it is in the best solution for more than certain individuals monetary or polictical gain.
69

Steve,

West Lothian 21/12/2007 10:50:28
Kerry... congratulations, you win the prize for the stupidest post.

70

Miss Jean Brodie,

21/12/2007 11:45:34
Ha ha Kirkliston/Newbridge Scotlands Spaghetti Junction

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.