Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 12th October 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 The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

New £4.2bn road bridge over Forth could be a double-decker



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 April 2008
THE new £4.2 billion crossing over the Forth could be a double- decker bridge, The Scotsman can reveal.
Buses or trams would travel on a separate deck below other traffic, according to one of three designs from the project team.

Those masterminding the crossing want to create a world-beating structure, with the triple-tower, cable-stayed bridge like
ly to be among the biggest of its kind anywhere.

However, they admit to facing a unique global challenge – building a 21st-century road bridge beside its 20th-century counterpart and the iconic, 19th-century rail bridge.

Naeem Hussain, the main crossing manager for consultant Jacobs Arup, which is spearheading the work, said it was important the new bridge did not overshadow the others – it must be distinctive, not dominant.

The crossing's three towers will be designed to complement the Forth Bridge's three cantilevers, with the Forth Road Bridge's two towers between them.

Bill Black, a director of Richard Murphy Architects in Edinburgh, was impressed by the preliminary designs. He said: "Both the current bridges are such amazing pieces of engineering, and the new one looks like it will be equally elegant."

Malcolm Fraser, another leading Edinburgh architect, said he was pleased at the "economy" of the designs and that a "gratuitous icon" had not been created. However, he is opposed to a new bridge, as it will increase road use.

The project was approved in December because of fears about the state of the Forth Road Bridge. Corrosion of its main cables from water seepage could force a lorry ban as early as 2013 and closure six years later.

However, the new bridge will not be completed for eight years, and ministers have yet to announce how the structure will be funded and approved.

Alan Seywright, the project director for Jacobs Arup, said the choice of decks would depend on the design of connecting roads at either end of the bridge. The northern landfall in Fife is particularly challenging because of the narrow peninsula and rocky terrain. The precise route of the bridge has still to be decided, but the centre tower will be on the Beamer Rock, midway across the Forth.

Feasibility studies are due to be completed by the summer, with designs being developed early next year and then submitted for approval – probably through an Act of Parliament to be passed in 2010. A competition will be launched to select a builder that year, with construction expected to start in 2011 and be completed by 2016.

The team is also considering restricting the present Forth Road Bridge to vehicles carrying passengers if its corrosion can be halted or the cables replaced.

Many campaigned for a tunnel rather than a bridge, to reduce the impact.

BRIDGE OF SIGHS


RESIDENTS of South Queensferry are far from seduced by the crossing designs and have launched a protest group, fearing construction will ruin their lives.

People living on the western edge of the town said ground investigations had started in a field yards from their houses, without warning.

Alan Doig, of Clufflat, near Port Edgar, said: "This crossing will decimate our families' way of life and severely restrict us financially. This whole project has nothing to do with what is best, it is to do with leaving a legacy and an iconic structure to point at and claim a success."

The Transport Scotland agency, which is in overall charge of the project, said it was committed to "minimise any disruption to communities associated with the new bridge".

A spokesman said: "It is inevitable there will be some disruption, but we will ensure these impacts are mitigated against as much as possible."

OPTION 1

CARS and lorries would use an upper deck while the lower one would be reserved for buses, trams, or possibly other vehicles carrying passengers.

The protractors-style design features tower legs nearly meeting at the top but wide apart at the bottom, joined by a cross member two-thirds of the way up. This option would enable a narrower access road corridor at either end of the bridge.

OPTION 2

A SINGLE deck would carry all vehicles, with buses or trams travelling in dedicated central lanes which pass through the towers.

Other traffic would follow a dual carriageway, with hard shoulder, on the outside of the towers.

In this option, the legs of the three towers would taper to a single point above and below the deck, creating a diamond-shaped space.



OPTION 3

THE deck would be the same as in the second option, with buses or trams running in the central two lanes inside the towers and other traffic on a dual carriageway on either side of them.

However, the three legs would each taper to a single point at the top, but follow a straight line through the deck to form a triangle. Bill Black, of Richard Murphy Architects, favoured this option. He said he liked the "wine bottle" shape.





The full article contains 836 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 April 2008 10:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 00:19:19
As I understand it global warming will create far more high winds than we have now, which will surely mean the bridge closed to high sided vehicles far more than it is now or even closed altogether.

So unless some 21st bridge building technique is able to combat future high winds I would go for a tunnel. However, if we must have a bridge let it be a world beater.

A feature of our modern world is fantastic new building projects. We need to build the best designed bridge using the best materials we can afford, if only to keep up with third world countries like Malaysia, e.g. Petronas Towers, great design, expensive materials, tallest building in the world for a time. Now a major tourist attraction.
2

Hen Mc Stoorie,

Port William 19/04/2008 00:30:20
A submerged tunnel with train/tram,lorry and car lanes.
1/4 the price and 1/2 the time to build.
3

truthsleuth,

19/04/2008 00:59:02
Can only agree with above comments however the more sensible and futuristic thinking would have had no new bridge whatsoever and a rail tunnel capable of taking hig speed trains. Heavy lorries (they do not p[ay their way and do the damage)would be banned from the existing road bridge and be diverted to upriver bridges. This would leave the existing bridge with a much extended life and increased capacity for buses and cars.
But then a certain powerful bus operator would not allow the SNP to do such sensible thinking.
4

Padraig,

19/04/2008 01:00:02
#3 said "A double deck makes sense. Why not a triple deck to include trains on one of the levels?"

1. Additional cost.
2. The rail bridge is not fully used so it has spare capacity. This is not likely to change because of the difficulty in parking at stations, making them more difficult to access.
5

truthsleuth,

19/04/2008 01:00:14
£4.2 billion now!!!!!
6

truthsleuth,

19/04/2008 01:01:24
This would build a marvelous high speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
7

Navvy,

19/04/2008 02:29:45
#2 has it right
8

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 19/04/2008 02:31:27
Ah a bridge across troubled Waters .

What a novel idea .

Just keep up the squawking and the squawking . Ur so called debates.

WOW its all going Black again

GC
9

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 19/04/2008 02:33:02
No No a Bridge OVER Troubled Waters ...dudes

Get a grip dudes . The blackness disappeared

WOW

GC

10

A laughing nationalist with a glib outlook,

19/04/2008 04:17:45
Haha, the bridge is free now, hehe, oil fund will pay for everything, hoho, only the pessimism of the union sais fifers don't bring 4.2 BILLION worth of stuff to the capital.

LOL

Haha, your union is dead, the SNP have budgets for big bridges.
11

Mr Mud,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 07:09:03
Winds won't go away, they will just get worse. We have to have a tunnel. "Fifotunnel" (after Eurotunnel) - a monument to forward thinking.
12

eric,

Lothian 19/04/2008 07:19:07
Hilarious .
13

Greenheatman,

TAIN 19/04/2008 07:47:14
........just ask the nice engineers in Scandinavia to built it for us - for a 10th of the price
14

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 07:48:39
A bridge is impractical. A tunnel is the only sensible option, but as Salmond will get a better publicity picture pointing to a bridge than a tunnel, it may be the former.

15

1745,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 07:51:55
Why don't those advocating a tunnel investigate the reasons for a tunnel being abandoned? The depth of mud in the river at the site;the angle at which the tunnel would enter the Forth: The distance back at which the infrastructure would have to begin ? Do a little research before belittling a bridge.
16

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 19/04/2008 07:55:31
Neither bridge nor tunnel, but a causeway upstream of Rosyth: cheaper, quicker, safer, wider, expandable, wind-proof, terrorist proof, road and rail - and a barrier against rising sea levels.

Still no answer to the question of why the new bridge is to cost eleven times the present one (allowing for inflation). Imagine the schools, hospitals, restored rail links and so on we could have for that money instead.
17

Badgerczars,

wired to the moon 19/04/2008 08:09:45
The projected cost is being kept artificially low in order to appease the public. The winning architect is widely expected to be a Patagonian with a vision of creating the ultimate Scottish icon when viewed from the air by visitors arriving at Edinburgh airport. The shopping trolley half buried in a burn! Competition to sponsor the structure is expected to be fierce, but the insider trading tip is that while Sainsburys is thought to be a front runner (it is South Queensferry after all) Lidl will be the banner which adorns the structure. Final costs of £60bn will be explained by the Scottish Perliament as a typo, but possibly near the true figure
18

danielrober,

19/04/2008 08:25:21
Honestlyi'm cheered up now. I just love a good laugth, also slightly relived that i never put in the application form for Arup. Ove would turn in his grave. High vehicles on the lower road, that's a good way to push costs up for no reason. What increase in steel use by 1.5%?
19

Mike555,

19/04/2008 08:42:37
With the history of the last brige a tunnel was the logical way to go.

No corrosion problems, no weather and wind problems and just over half the cost of a bridge. Oh and it would be completed in half the time.

Whoever gave the nod for this way to go should be sacked!!!!
20

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 08:55:45
#15 Graham

I suspect you're right. The hubris of that old fraud Dewar springs to mind and look at the monstrous moneypit we ended up with.
21

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 19/04/2008 09:28:40
A tunnel is out of the question: 1. to obtain the correct slopes and for a depth to avoid interrupting shipping to Rosyth, the approaches would be miles long. 2. a tunnel of that length is a potential death trap in a fire, accident, terrorist or earthquake situation. 3. A tunnel cannot be easily expanded. 4. A tunnel does nothing to protect against rising sea levels. A tunnel only makes even slight sense when there are no alternatives. This is not the case here.

None of these problems apply to a causeway upstream of Rosyth.
22

danielrober,

19/04/2008 09:36:37
# 22

I'm not familar with this project. Do you have any detail and has the tidal enegy benefits been considered? At £4.2 billion we could build the first full scale tidal scheme in Europe since La Rance.
23

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 19/04/2008 10:30:09
Will it be paid for by Independent Scotland funds, vehicle taxation, EU funds, or will it just be daily/weekly/season tickets? Surely its not expected for the UNITED Kingdom to pay for it?
24

No thanks...,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 10:56:24
And where are all these people going to and from? Edinburgh... sorry, but the level of pollution and congestion is already too great for this small city which is not designed for the levels of traffic coming in and out. Use this money to develop Fifes economey so that the people in Fife etc stay in their own areas and reduce the need for road trips. This notion that you can have all these people live in one area and then drive in each day to a congested small city with little roads each in their own cars is not sustainable.
25

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 19/04/2008 12:05:19
Whenever the wind blows the bridge traffic is diverted causing chaos that must cost the economy of Scotland millions one way or another. The sensible option is a tunnel so why the powers that be (who probably are never caught up in the chaos!) can't have a rethink I'll never know. What a shambles.
26

danielrober,

19/04/2008 13:49:40
# 23

I always thought it was just money. But considering todays construction bugets i do wonder if it might not be a design fault. I still think Europe should try again. Given the advantages the UK might gain, a small La Rance sized scheme might be a good option.

We could call it Loch Salmond.
27

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 19/04/2008 14:26:24
#27 What a brilliant solution! Is the Disbandment Treaty payout approved already? Or is it just a figment of some prospective leaders imagination? At the rate 'payment for services received' is being discarded by our present Scottish government, we are certainly going to be in need of some increased funding in a few years time. We could do with the coming Olympics being held in Argyll, that way we might get a reasonable surface on the roads. I don't see much sign of the SNP (or any other party)insisting that we have a road equal to the one to Aberdeen.
28

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 19/04/2008 15:05:53
I hope the design will have capability for heavy rail, not just trams and buses. Remember that with declining oil supplies, there will also be declining traffic in the future. In 20 years time the airport will have been forgotton, private cars will once again be the preserve of the rich and the road haulage industry will have been replaced by much more efficient rail freight.

One does have to ask whether the existing bridges could do the job in those circumstances, and whether the 4 billion pounds would not be better spent on transport schemes that consider the real future, rather than an imaginary one!
29

Hamish Scott,

19/04/2008 18:05:10
The intention is that the new bridge will be better designed to allow vehicles to cross in high winds.
Is the tidal flow in the Forth worth the cost of tapping it?
Edinburgh is a growing city, if it doesn't draw in commuters from elsewhere, which it already dependes on, then the city would probably double in size and yiu could wave goodbye to anything like the greenbelt. High quality public transport that moves people eficently in and out of the city is much of the answer abd to be fair that is recognised by the authorities. Fife is consiering ppromoting a tram link between Dunermline and Edinburgh, West Lothian and Edinburgh want an etension to Livingston, the wish list goes on, the challenge is to meet it.
30

Hamish Scott,

19/04/2008 18:06:00
#32 Sorry for the typos, I blame the keyboard.
31

Andrew,

19/04/2008 18:08:02
How about 'hover-trams' from Leith? (Joe King)!
32

geekpie,

forfar 19/04/2008 18:36:55
"The team is also considering restricting the present Forth Road Bridge to vehicles carrying passengers if its corrosion can be halted or the cables replaced."

This should be brought in right away. So far the SNP has not showed any leadership on transport other than appeasing car drivers.
33

Yankee girl,

USA 19/04/2008 20:15:10
I'm an American civil engineer and #16 and #22 are spot on about the tunnel issues. It's all in the reports on the Transport's website at http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/projects/headline-projects/forth-replacement-crossing
34

Yankee girl,

USA 19/04/2008 21:01:41
P.S. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is a double-decker. Originally, rail traffic was carreid on the lower deck but it was changed to traffic in the 1950s. Here's an article about the 50th anniversary of that change (this Sunday), if you're interested: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAGI107DK9.DTL
35

D Napier,

19/04/2008 23:05:23
#17. Can you please explain how the causeway would be wind proof and terrorist proof?????
36

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 19/04/2008 23:50:12
Say that again?? £4.2 BILLION???
That's £4,200,000,000 - for a bridge to cross the Forth. The original cost £30 million in 1963!

Sounds like the ultimate pork-barrel project - I mean why bother to have a real economy at all - let's just build endless pie in the sky projects and forget about reality.
37

firhill,

20/04/2008 08:53:55
£4.2 billion- how will this be paid??

By tolls of course as there is no other realistic financing option but the SNP just don't want to admit this yet!
38

rongorongo,

Fife 22/04/2008 11:30:05
#40. The TransportScotland site which YankeeGirl mentions above states that the figure of £4.2bn is calculated in 2016 prices. Quite why they choose to do this or how much it inflates the figure in 2008 prices I do not know.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you agree with the plan to put wind breaks on the Forth Road Bridge?
Yes, if they stop lorries being blown over
No, they’ll spoil the view from the crossing
No, truck drivers should just obey the warning signs

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.