Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Roadworks put brakes on drivers' first toll-free crossing of bridge

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.

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: 12 February 2008
IT SHOULD have been a small victory for hard-pressed motorists, who were finally able to cross one of Scotland's busiest bridges without paying.
However, commuters who hoped to sail over the bridge without stopping to pay were met with two-mile tailbacks because of roadworks to remove tollbooths on the Forth Road Bridge.

Drivers, who had expected a clear run, suffered queues of up to 40 minutes on some northbound approach roads.

To make matters worse, officials warned motorists the disruption would continue for several weeks while the bridge's toll plaza on its northbound carriageway was redesigned.

Stewart Stevenson, the transport minister, also admitted removing tolls from the bridge would increase the length of the morning and evening peak periods for traffic.

The first t o suffer were bridge-bound drivers from West Lothian, who faced two-mile queues on the A904 as far west as Newton. They were delayed on a slip road to the toll plaza by having to give way to traffic from Edinburgh.

Access will not be improved for several weeks until the remaining four of an original seven toll booths and their canopy are removed. However, the £1 million project to scrap the £5 million complex – only a year old – will take four months to complete, as The Scotsman revealed in December.

Traffic is expected to be heavier after West Lothian schools return from their mid-term break tomorrow, and Edinburgh's schools reopen next week.

William Black, from Dunfermline, was the last person to pay a toll on the 44-year-old Forth Road Bridge, shortly before supermarket worker Lorraine Cleverley was presented with a bottle of champagne as she became the first to cross free, at 11:24pm on Sunday.

The charges, which included £1 for cars, were lifted earlier than planned at 12:01am yesterday as preparation work finished ahead of schedule.

Ashley Gregor, a student, was the last to pay to cross the 42-year-old Tay Road Bridge, where tolls were abolished just after midnight on Sunday.

She was followed shortly after by Gordon Struthers, the first to cross free.

Rush-hour queues at the Tay crossing in Dundee were shorter than usual, but congestion remained because approach roads were narrowed to one lane.

Mr Stevenson hailed the abolition of tolls as a victory for fairness for Fife. He said all Scottish taxpayers should pay for the upkeep of the crossings, as they did for the rest of the road network.

He said: "We do not expect any more serious congestion than at present, but the peak hour is likely to be a little longer. We will need to measure that."

• Barry Colford took up the new post of chief engineer and bridgemaster of the Forth Road Bridge yesterday. He was depute to general manager and bridgemaster Alastair Andrew, who is retiring after 14 years.

SNUB TO HAULIERS

ALISTAIR Darling, the Chancellor, declined to make any pledges to hauliers who met him yesterday to press for a planned 2p increase in fuel duty to be abandoned.

Industry leaders fear the rise in April will put at serious risk lorry firms which are already struggling with near record oil prices. However, Roger King, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, said: "The Chancellor made it clear he could do no more than take note of what was being said."

A Treasury spokesman said despite planned annual increases until 2010 to help tackle climate change, the level would still be 11 per cent lower than in 1999.

The full article contains 597 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 February 2008 12:24 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

Highland Mighty,

12/02/2008 00:45:59
"However, commuters who hoped to sail over the bridge without stopping to pay were met with two-mile tailbacks because of roadworks to remove tollbooths on the Forth Road Bridge.

Drivers, who had expected a clear run, suffered queues of up to 40 minutes on some northbound approach roads.

To make matters worse, officials warned motorists the disruption would continue for several weeks while the bridge's toll plaza on its northbound carriageway was redesigned.

Stewart Stevenson, the transport minister, also admitted removing tolls from the bridge would increase the length of the morning and evening peak periods for traffic."

A well-thought out alternative to those crippling £1 tolls then?
2

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 12/02/2008 00:48:35
Dear Scotsman.

Your headline suggests you take great pleasure in seeing an SNP policy allegedly fall flat on it's face.

Did you really expect the tollbooths to be plucked from the sky by an army of hard-working helicopters, quickly tar and re-line the roads while we were all sleeping?

Of course not.

So get real and stop making political capital over non-issues. There are plenty of real issues out there that need good investigative journalism. This is not one of them.
3

Julian.,

edinburgh 12/02/2008 01:49:04
Dear Andrew,

"Roadworks put brakes on drivers' first toll-free crossing of bridge"

That suggests to me a typical headline summary of what's happening. In fact, it actually plays down the situation because it doesn't say anything about the week of horrendous delays we've had to suffer.

And as for this being a non-issue, I think the tens of thousands who have had to sit for hours of roadwork delays would strongly disagree.

Do you really think the headline would be any different if Labour were in power? I doubt it.

Get real and take your SNP paranoia elsewhere.

Blimey, you would have thought getting into government would have well and truly knocked that chip off the shoulder.

4

Beate,

Tbilisi 12/02/2008 04:08:16
why does it take 4 months to remove a few boxes?
5

D Napier,

12/02/2008 05:59:29
This should hardly have been a surprise to regular users of the bridge as FETA undertook a major leafleting campaign at the tolls during the week prior to the abolition of the tolls.
6

Pilrig.,

Livingston 12/02/2008 06:21:13
Tolls should have been scrapped decades ago.
7

Impartial,

Dundee 12/02/2008 06:41:54
I was pleased to read that the Scotsman used the phrase "cross without paying" as opposed to "free." History tells us than when costs are lost in the bottomless pit, of central kitty liabities, they soar. The tolls were an ideal way of ensuring that those who used the bridges paid for them. When the Tay Bridge tolls were introduced, the half crown cost was equivilant to the price of getting in the boys gate at Dens Park. Now, the cost of crossing would purchase half a programme. Can you imagine the furore, if free rail travel were introduced for all, with the cost to be borne by the taxpayer? It is a cheap stunt, which in the grand scheme of things means little - and something free from politicians? Don't make me laugh!
8

an interested party,

12/02/2008 06:53:14
having driven the bridge last night it was clear to see (well apart from the fog)that the design of the road works wasn't exactly conducive to traffic flow.

i am fairly sure that was the intention, at the very least to make you know the booths where being removed, if not to cause one final set of jams as retribution.

9

McMillar,

London 12/02/2008 07:00:18
I drove south over the FRB on Sunday afternoon and the queue heading north was ridiculous. It went for about a mile and there was no major work going on. Will be interesting to see how the traffic flows now at peak times. Removing the tolls is a great idea and we just need to make sure it goes hand in hand with a faster overall journey.
10

McStumpy,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 07:30:15
#1 - I'm afraid the phrases "Stewart Stevenson" and "well thought out" have long been strangers to each other.
11

James,

Dundee 12/02/2008 07:31:11
#7
Dundee FC were in the top flight in 1967.
Tam Moore and JL Stewart were doing what the Labour Party do best.
You were using £SD.
Sounds like you still might be?
12

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 12/02/2008 07:37:59
Were the queues caused by people waiting until it was free to cross?
13

Phil C,

12/02/2008 07:53:35
The very negative slant of the Scotsman's report does not tell the true story. Most of the traffic, particularly from Edinburgh, did sail over the brodge without stopping. This is completely different to the oft-repeated logjams which existed previously. There was a feeling of fairness and freedom without the fumble for tickets or coins. With traffic flowing more freely, the environment is helped. Excellent stuff. Well done Mr Salmond. Keep it up!

Why the Scotsman has to be so miserable about everything SNP, when so many are happy, is beyond me. This paper's biased attitude simply strengthens my wish to rid ourselves of the dishonest, pernicious and invasive threat that is a return to Labour ways. Each time the Scotsman puts it's own unique positive slant on Wendy's woes, or negative view on SNP common sense, it makes me more determined to help us gain independence.

I suggest that those suffering from the new West Lothian question might prefer to use the Kincardine Bridge if they don't want delays, until they take Labour's wasteful toll plaza away! £10 million down the pan. Thanks Joke!
14

conservative,

12/02/2008 08:01:20
The jams were created because the bridge authorities (sic) decided to do the work at peak traffic hours instead of planning it for off-peak and night-time. Since they were thgoroughly opposed to removing the tolls this is their snide way of protesting. The FETA quango should be scrapped along with the tolls. From the Fife side Rumney managed to destroy most of Fife's roads network through lack of maintenance during his stay so why on earth let him anywhere near the bridge?
15

Dood,

Stuck in traffic.....Again..... 12/02/2008 08:01:22
#2. Your location gives it away. Not exactly got a local vested interest, eh?

This isn't about wishing an SNP policy to fall on it's face. In the grand scheme of things, it's a no brainer. I've yet to see the hard facts that this policy will actually benefit SCOTLAND.

Put quite simply, I gather that FETA collected in the region of £23m from tolls last year. Assuming that they don't use this money for junkets, jollies and .... personal expenses (ach, hang on now, that's just the MSP's isn't it?), then what do they actually spend it on? Stand by....... Bridge maintenance and the like. So who funds that now? Oh aye, the taxpayer.

This is simply a vote winning policy. Aye, great, I'll save approx £20 per month in toll fees - but they'll get me in the pocket elsewhere. Meanwhile, I'll also suffer traffic mayhem and misery due to the fact that the halfwits rushed this motion through without thinking of the consequences.

Frankly, I'd rather pay the pound. Hey ho.

It wasn't broken, don't bother fixing it. And no, not the bridge.
16

Phil C,

12/02/2008 08:07:45
#16 Dood
You're obviously a pretty bright spark in working out that the taxpayer pays for the road network! Give your £1 to charity but the good people of Fife, and many others, can now go about their business without this tax which had been abolished everywhere else in Scotland.
17

rancid brown,

Fife 12/02/2008 08:11:04
Idiots. The new toll booths turned out to be a complete waste of money. They'll only be put back when the EU tells us that we need to toll our roads.

Best thing to do would be to leave the EU, then we can afford to maintain the UK's bridges, and even build a dozen new bridges over the Forth (and would wouldn't be compelled to display pro-EU propaganda signs - the ones stating that the project has been part funded by the European Union)
18

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 08:13:09
Hmm. Two mile tailbacks, eh? 40 minute delays? And an admission from the minister that "removing tolls from the bridge would increase the length of the morning and evening peak periods for traffic".

Anyone who was slagging me yesterday care to comment on this one?
19

conservative,

12/02/2008 08:15:09
#16 Dood
The point is that instead of the few tens of thousands (mostly Fifers) paying their £250 per year it will be spread more fairly across the 2 million or so taxpayers including the cyclists, motorcyclists and bus passengers who've had a more or less free ride up to now.
20

Steve,

Bo'ness 12/02/2008 08:20:54
"The first t o suffer were bridge-bound drivers from West Lothian, who faced two-mile queues on the A904 as far west as Newton. They were delayed on a slip road to the toll plaza by having to give way to traffic from Edinburgh."

The reporter obviously doesn't use this road, or he'd healise these tailbacks occurred every single day WITH tolls. Shocking story. Yet more ill informed anti-SNP spin from this rag.
21

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 08:24:48
#21 That's just not true. The tailbacks were far worse yesterday, and your denial doesn't change that. Even the SNP minister accepts it is true.
22

Steve,

Bo'ness, BY NEWTON 12/02/2008 08:48:44
22, there are tailbacks to Newton every single day. It's a normal everyday occurrance.
Trust me, I live at the end of the Newton Road.
If they were "far worse" than 2 miles, the article would have said so, surely?
23

blair,

North Berwick 12/02/2008 08:51:20
Wouldn't it have been simpler just to raise the barriers instead of dismantling the toll booths? After all, they might have to reimpose tolls to raise funds for maintenance.
24

Steve,

Bo'ness 12/02/2008 08:52:11
And the part about regulating traffic by "being delayed by a slip road" wont change either, unless of course the traffic lights are being removed, which they are not.
25

Steve,

Bo'ness 12/02/2008 08:54:27
24, personally I would have kept the tollbooth barriers there, so that the bridge could be closed if necesary. If anything, they helped to channel the traffic into lanes.
26

feta man,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 08:57:11
One more time. Research shows that removal of the tolls will lead to an increase in traffic of about 20%. The capacity of the bridge has always been the cause of congestion, not the tolls. More traffic means greater congestion. So it's a case of save a pound but spend longer in a queue. And if that's how you want to live your life fair enoungh ................
27

Phil C,

12/02/2008 08:59:55
#19 & 22 DiE

Duncan, I'd be very quiet if I were you after your nonsense yesterday! The traffic flowed freely most of the day for everyone- much better than usual. Surprisingly, given the roadworks. The delays from West Lothian, picked up in the report, were not representative of the success of this fair initiative by the government. These delays were very common in the past! The aim of free crossings was fairness, not some attempt to ease congestion.

Yesterday pointed to an easing of congestion and therefore a reduction in polution from the daily tailbacks, so what a bonus!! All those responsible, take a bow.
28

A Scott,

Glasgow 12/02/2008 09:23:13
You cannot please all of the people all of the time and of course the SNP cannot please the North Briton any of the time , thats life.
As for those numpty,s who still want to pay a pound GIVE IT TO CHARETEEE...OK.
P.S. As a proud weegie I honestly dont understand why anybody would want to visit Edinburgh anyway, its to bloody cauld for me.
29

C,

Glasgow 12/02/2008 09:23:40
How ludicrous, removal of a device that requires vehicles to come to a complete stop increases congestion?
The barriers should have been left in place for the very good reasons of minimal costs and easing the ability to close the bridge due to high winds etc.
Then again, this country thinks its a marvelous idea to cripple the capital for a tram project that few want, will overrun in costs and timescale then be underutilised until it too has to become free to get people to use it.
The only winners here are the construction industry.
30

pf9,

Aberdeen 12/02/2008 09:35:10
#16 dood,
Please note that British motorists currently contribute £50 billion pounds per annum to the Treasury. Only £7 billion pounds is returned to the British roads infrastructure per annum. A simple math indicates that the tax paypayer per se will not foot the bills to perform the maintenance on the bridges.
What is the remaining £43 billion pounds used for? Subsidising what at the British motorists expense?
31

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 09:46:07
#28 Phil C, did you read the article? What happened was exactly what I said would happen in my "nonsense yesterday". It's called being proved right. And given your comments yesterday, I suggest you need to learn what being proved wrong means. Because you have been.

As I said in that thread, unlike those arguing against me I make no demands for apologies - everyone makes mistakes - but you and the rest should at least try to learn from them rather than pretend they didn't happen. He who does not learn from his mistakes is doomed to repeat them.
32

MaryM,

Aberdeen 12/02/2008 09:48:21
I have to agree with C, Glasgow. There will surely have to still be some way to close the bridge and I've yet to see any plans for traffic management of squeezing 4 lanes of traffic approaching the bridge into 2. As usual SNP try a crowd pleaser without actually thinking about the consequences.
33

stmonan,

London 12/02/2008 09:50:26
What a moronic story. Obviously something like this will cause disruption because they need to do the work but in the long run it will be better, especially for those of us who used the bridge off-peak and still had to queue because they only had 2 or 3 booths open.
34

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 10:00:49
Oh Please road works cause congestions everywhere they set up should we just do away with them altogether then?
When the booths have been shifted the traffic will flow end of non story.
Give me a break.
35

BMeister,

12/02/2008 10:04:58
#34 DiE
Did you read the story, you argued yesterday that congestion would be increased by several lanes reducing to two when the tollbooths are gone. However according to this article it was the roadworks which caused the problem. Whether you are right or not remains to be seen.
36

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 10:05:16
35

Mary the M90 is only 2 lanes all the way to Perth you then have only another 2 lanes to Dundee and then another 2 lanes to Aberdeen etc etc etc.
I am sure 4 lane motorways all over Scotland are the answer I wonder if they could do this without the road works though? what do you think?
37

,

12/02/2008 10:12:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 10:17:14
#40 You are nothing but an abusive troll. Stop it, and grow up.
39

,

12/02/2008 10:21:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Phil C,

12/02/2008 10:26:14
#34 Duncan in loonyland

HELLO!!!! Duncan Is anyone there? Does anything penetrate that stubborn head of yours? You said a few things yesterday which were total nonsense. Amongst other daft opininions, you put forward that the Scotsman was not anti-SNP in it's spin!! HO! HO!

You also said..."As I have been saying for months, we will find out the truth at 5pm tonight, and then after that nightmare has been explained away by the notion that this change has to "settle in", in a few weeks people will start asking how long this settling in period will last, exactly. And the answer is until the new crossing is built. Or the twelfth of never, as I believe it is known." and "Removal of this management will have a significant effect on traffic flow. Just wait for 5 o'clock."

I say 'NONSENSE SHMONSENCE!' The truth was traffic flowed beautifully at 5pm- much better than usual!

You said..."I'm simply pointing out a) that being in government means getting criticism all the time - the Lab/Lib coalition got the same; and b) there is a very clear piece of logic which says that congestion will increase as a result of this measure, notwithstanding its populism."

Yesterday there was one problem road, a road that's always jammed up. HELLO!! Duncan!!! Is it getting through?

You also argued..."As of this morning, we have unmanaged filtering of vehicles from 5-6 lanes at the national speed limit, to 2 lanes at 50mph. Instead of a toll plaza feeding the bridge at up to its maximum capacity, come 5pm we will have commuters vying with each other to get home as quickly as possible."

Unadulterated nonsense.

You said..."Haha" I agree with you there!
41

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 10:43:40
#43 You're saying that the 2 mile, 40 minute queues that happened yesterday are an everyday occurrence? You're wrong. Until yesterday, at peak hours there were two toll booths for traffic coming down from the roundabout, and four for traffic coming along from the M90. Yesterday, there was a dual carriageway for the traffic coming along from the M90, and one lane filtering into that dual carriageway from the roundabout.

If you are going to be so pig-headed as to deny that that is what caused the congestion yesterday, and if you are going to insist that this is somehow a temporary issue despite there still being 5 lanes going to 2 at this point, then there is no point in discussing it further with you.

As to spin, this is a real problem with the SNP's support around here. You cry bias at every headline that opposes you, and completely fail to notice every headline that supports you. You are stuck in an oppositional mindset, when in fact you are in government.
42

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 10:45:54
This story rates right up there with the Independence will cost billions in defence contracts story on the other thread. And not a peep about Wendy or the total corruption scandals comming out of Westminster and the Edinburgh Parliaments.
I honestly feel I am living in a bananna republic.
43

BMeister,

12/02/2008 10:48:42
#41 DiE
You didn't answer the point in 38 and 40 I see.
44

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 10:50:01
44

The congestion was exasabated by the traffic having to come to a full stop at the toll booths and you know it but why let that little fact get in the way of your little troll games?
at the other end of the bridge the traffic comes off the 2 lanes and onto 2 lanes but the speed increaces from 50 to 70 hence the congestion clears now what do you think would happen if there were another set of toll booths at this point?
45

firhill,

12/02/2008 10:52:01
#15

what pathetic drivel
46

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 10:54:54
#46 I have already addressed the point. As I said, this congestion will initially be blamed on the transition to toll-free crossings, but that won't be able to last long. Stewart Stevenson agreed that peak hours congestion will go on for longer even after the roadworks are completed.

I'm happy to wait and see on this too, but there are some very basic facts here in my favour. The volume of cars crossing the bridge is predicted to increase. The number of lanes is not.
47

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 12/02/2008 11:03:12
"However, commuters who hoped to sail over the bridge without stopping to pay were met with two-mile tailbacks because of roadworks to remove tollbooths on the Forth Road Bridge."

This whole article reeks of a reluctance to celebrate a good decision to remove these tolls and free up traffic. I mean, who realistically would have expected to "sail over" the bridge (nice choice of metaphor given the state of the cables) with booths being removed. Obviously there will be a transition period where motorists are inconvenienced. It's also not clear why it should take several weeks, or 4 months to achieve.

Despite fog and narrowed lane due to roadworks, Tay Bridge seemed to fare better. Give it a few weeks and works completed then we'll be in a position to judge.

Meanwhile traffic flowed freely over the toll-free Friarton Bridge at Perth...

48

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:08:17
16

Consecutive Governments have been raking in billions in taxes from you all your life yet your tax burden increases every year way beyond the rate of inflation yet we never seem to be able to pay enough taxes to get everything done that needs to be done. Very little it seems is accomplished. The more money plowed into the NHS, Transport, Education etc the more money they ask for why because they need it or because they know it will be given to them?
The problem doesnt lie in how much tax we are paying but
by how its managed, distributed, and allocated.
People in every day life make do when they dont have and its that principle which is lacking in our society.
The people who are demanding our taxes will take and take and take as long as there is something left to take and then will decide what to spend it on not the other way around.
If 50 billion is available then 50 billion will be
spent if only 30 billion is available then 30 billion will do the same job.
They tell us that taxes have to be increased to avoid cuts in services so our taxes increase but our services are cut anyway. Everybody knows it but so many still argue the case for more taxation I have never understood it.
49

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:17:36
49

Duncan road works cause congestion, traffic lights cause congestion, roundabouts cause congestion, road pile ups cause congestions in fact any obstruction put in front of traffic causes congestions now what is a toll booth if it is not an obstruction to traffic????

Nobody has claimed as you are now trying to that there will be no congestion when the toll booths are removed but the normal congestion will no longer be exasebated by the toll booths. The congestion will ease you and the oppositions spin on this is that the toll booths ease the congestion by somehow regulating traffic through them. So dont go trying to wriggle out of your stupid argument by shifting the goal posts.
50

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:20:58
Whoever came up with the daft idea of removing these toll booths IMMEDIATELY should have their head forcably rammed down the hopper of a mincer---then their estate used to compensate all the drivers who have wasted gallons of fuel waiting in traffic queues.
51

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:24:31
49

The volume of traffic is predicted to increase? by whom? and why? because of the removal of the toll? or because of the increase in foreign workers in Scotland?or an increase in the population perhaps? or the opening of new housing estates in Fife perhaps? or the need for first time buyers in Edinburgh to find affordable housing if Fife maybe?
How is anybody going to equate a possible increase in traffic volumes to the removal of the tolls unless it happens the following day very suddenly and continues everyday after.
You post very much like AM2 has anybody ever told you that. He of course is another sh*t stirring troll and wind up merchant.
52

Impartial,

Dundee. 12/02/2008 11:33:26
Re 12. Yes James, you're a Dundonian all right, whether tolls are a good idea or not, is not party polital, although I appreciate checking facts is an alien concept...just do so.
53

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 11:33:48
#54 The volume of traffic is predicted to increase according to a study commissioned and published by the Scottish Government. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your belief system, but it's one of those annoying facts.

Please stop insulting me. It does your cause no good.
54

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:37:00
56

And did they state this will be because of the removal of tolls Duncan??
55

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:46:49
56

Are you still there Duncan? hows about the question posted at 57 any chance of an answer? not compulsory of course but surely you have to say yes to continue arguing your case?
56

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:49:17
59

So what is it you think you are going to pay for that your not already paying for?
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 11:52:33
#58 I'm not at your beck and call sunshine. Cool it.

Why not read the report for yourself. It isn't hard to find. You'll discover that among the predictions, the long term effect of the removal of tolls is predicted, by the government, to increase the volume of traffic over the bridge.

I'm sure your next step will be to state your disagreement with this prediction. I won't be surprised.
58

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:54:19
#56:

Ah yes Duncan. Another one of your "annoying facts"

Like "Passive smoking kills 3000 people a year".
Like "Speed Kills".

Please tell us all... Why exactly do you read so much propaganda and then quote it back at us as though it was actually true?

Propaganda by it's very definition is not strictly true. It is a slant, an "angle" designed to change the way you think. In most cases nowadays it is a tissue of complete and utter lies.

There could only be three possible explanations for your supposed "stance"...

1. You are remarkably impressionable and cannot think for yourself.
2. You are a propagandist yourself.
3. You are winding us all up.

Come on mate! Come clean. Which one is it?
59

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:58:28
61

I see and which Government would this be? the present Scottish government? the past Scottish Government or the UK Government?
and did they mention how they came to this conclusion? how they can actually equate or calculate how much traffic will increase by due to the removal of a 1 pound toll? is there a formula? does it work on the same mathematical principles whereby traffic congestion is eased by the removal of obsticles from their path???
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 12:09:12
#62 Or 4. Having read the evidence myself I happen to believe it. Which of course means that to me, it isn't propaganda at all.

I do like how you stick to your guns though. Despite all the evidence, you tell us that passive smoking is harmless, speed is never a factor in road accidents, and now, all traffic modelling is flawed unless it agrees with your prejudices.

I think we know who is the wind-up merchant around here, me old mucker.
61

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 12:14:10
#63 Oh go and read it yourself for goodness sake. It isn't hard to find and you'll find all the answers to your sensible questions in there.
62

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 12:42:15
65

You are of course referring to the 2 phased report commissioned by the previous Lab/Lib Government in 2004.
Here is a very interesting statement from this report which looks suspiciously like a disclamer to me.

"Each of the tests run by MVA was analysed to provide a general understanding of the likely effects of changes to the toll regimes at each of the three tolled bridges. The analysis is limited to more general effects as opposed to specific junction delay or link effects at each bridge or principal alternative route. For this reason there can be some variation in the detail when comparing TMfS results with results from traffic models that have been specifically designed to evaluate local traffic conditions. Accordingly, TMfS results should be read as indicative predictions only and interpreted in this report as being relative rather than absolute values."

It also states:

"Removing or decreasing tolls at the Forth Road Bridge has the potential to attract additional traffic, principally from Kincardine Bridge. As the Forth Road Bridge is already heavily congested in the morning and evening peaks, additional traffic would further increase journey times and extend the duration of the peak periods."

Are they telling us that they believe there are folk driving between Edinburgh or Glasgow to Fife via the Kincardine bridge in order to avoid the 1 pound tolls??? Is this a serious assessment????

Do you really expect us to believe you actually believe this p*sh?



This is the kind of p*sh I would expect from AM2. The similarities between you two is quite scary. It like reading posts from clones.

So this is what you base youre stupid arguments on is it? a party political subjective report with its own disclaimer commissioned by the Honest brokers of the Lab/Lib pact.

Gospel indeed Duncan.

63

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 12:48:24
#66 Well done, you found it.

I assume, given that you are criticising this independently researched report based on recent traffic, that you have an alternative, equally well researched report to offer, which supports your apparent view that toll removal will have no effect on traffic flows?

I'd be grateful if you could let me see it.
64

Steve,

Bo'ness 12/02/2008 12:52:13
Duncan in Edinburgh. Talk sense!

Do you really really beleive that taking away a £1 toll will "encourage" people to drive over a bridge?

Will it encourage YOU to drive over it more often?

Absolute garbage.
Personally, I go over the Forth because I need to get somewhere. That's the only reason. It's not for the stunning views of Rosyth Dockyard.

I wont waste ££££ in petrol and wear&tear on the car just because I'm going to save a £1 toll. THINK ABOUT IT.
65

pf9,

aberdeen 12/02/2008 12:57:44
#59
Suggest you check my comment at #33 which is based on fact.
FETA the unaccountable quango probably intentionaly created the queues to detract from the abolition of tolls. The sooner that quango is disbanded the better.
#67
Common sense informs the individual that if an obstruction is removed from the highway traffic will flow more freely. Any independent body will confirm this fact.
66

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:00:06
67

And very independently disclaimed by its own authors or didnt you notice ?

"which supports your apparent view that toll removal will have no effect on traffic flows?"

Trying to shift the goalposts of the argument again Duncan? the tactics of a loser.

Havent I stated the removal of the booths represents a removal of a phyisical obstical to traffic which can only relieve congestion enough times to make it clear???

My proof is in the laws of physics and mathematics while yours lies within the realms of partisan party politics now which would seem to be the more reliable?

67

Phil C,

12/02/2008 13:00:47
Any report commissioned by Labour has to be treated with a huge pinch of salt. They are put forward as 'independent' but guess who pays for it? Their intention is either to whitewash wrong-doings (Wendy, Hutton etc) or to support a Labour stance.

#66 Foulkes, it's not worth getting worked up about Duncan. Like AM2 he is a pedantic and stubborn bore. People like them lack any vision. They just try to disprove with 'facts' that they cunjure out of some report or other. They are obstinate and stubborn and you will never win an argument against them because they never stop arguing. The best thing is to ignore them. I know it's difficult not to rise to the bait, given the nonsense they spout, but this is what we should maybe try to do.
68

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:10:52
71

I am not trying to win an argument with this troll I am only drawing him out for what he is and for what I strongly suspect he is and at the same time hammering points home with regards to the story.
Whether or not Duncan ends up agreeing with me is totally irrelevant the points will have been made and Duncan will be exposed as the troll he is.
What else is there to do on these threads?
Duncan in his own way is having his fun and I am having mine.
69

Phil C,

12/02/2008 13:15:44
#71 Fair dos! Im off to get the snip so there won't be any more mini-Phil Cs. Luckily I don't have to cross either Bridge today. With all that incredible and disastrous congestion I might be late! Mind you, maybe I'd like to be late for this one!
70

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 13:16:59
#70 It's not me who is moving the goalposts sunshine. You quite correctly identified the only recent independent assessment of traffic flows on the bridge, and it supports my contention. You have an alternative contention, which I invited you to support with some evidence. Where is your evidence?

You seem to think that predicting traffic flow is simple. This suggests that you really have no idea. Nonetheless, I invite you again to present your alternative evidence to support your claim that removal of tolls will have a positive effect on traffic flow.
71

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:17:54
#72 I have to laugh - it seems to me that you fit the bill of trollness far more than Duncan does - you castigate him when he fails to respond within 10 minutes of you posting a question, yet you ignore blindly any evidence which doesn't fit your own beliefs - these are classic symptoms of a troll to me.
72

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 13:19:10
#68 Believe? What has this got to do with belief? I have read evidence and understood a logical argument. You clearly haven't. As with the Foulkes personality, I invite you to show me the evidence that supports your contention that removal of tolls will have no effect on bridge usage. I've shown you mine, you show me yours.
73

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 13:22:14
#71 Actually the report was commissioned by the Lib Dem Transport Minister. Do they get tarred with the same brush? Are you one of those for whom everyone not SNP is Labour a.k.a. "Unionist"?

It strikes me that your disagreement with me has nothing to do with fact and everything to do with your political allegiance.
74

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:25:52
All, can we agree on one thing? Decreasing the cost of a commodity, in this case road travel, tends to increase demand - this is surely not rocket science? So why would anybody be surprised that traffic will increase as a direct result? As I recall, many people against toll removal have called for smart tolling rather than toll booths; anyone that promotes a straw man argument that someone has never made is severely delusional.
75

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:27:51
74

Where is your evidence Duncan? I gave you mine but here it is again in case you missed it.
If you remove an obsticle from the path of traffic you remove the congestion caused by that obsticle now how does your party politically commissioned report prove the opposite????

75

I didnt ignore the evidence at all I investigated it mulled over it and gave it the credibility it undoubtably deserves. I have also presented my own evidence yet to be discredited how about you do you think that by moving a phyical obsticle from the path of traffic, traffic congestion would be eased or increased??
76

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 13:31:00
#79 I think perhaps your lack of understanding of the word "evidence" is the biggest "obsticle" to this discussion. What you have presented is simplistic theory, not evidence. Try again.
77

,

12/02/2008 13:31:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
78

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:34:53
80

No Duncan you obviously dont recognise hard facts when you trip over them. Its a hard FACT that obsticles in the way of traffic cause congestion. This is not a theory this is a FACT!! a PROVEN Fact!! unlike the conclusion within your theoretical report which isnt a FACT but a conjecture a party politically motivated conjecture.
Do you understand the difference yet??
79

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 13:35:26
#81 You might make a little more headway if you stop semi-swearing at people in your posts. It makes you seem somewhat unhinged.
80

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 13:38:48
#82 I don't think we're going to get round the "obsticle" of your failure to understand, which I suspect is based on a simple unwillingness to listen.

Let's try this one step at a time.

Do you agree that the bridge has a finite capacity?
81

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:39:36
83

Is that troll speak for yes I do see what it is you are saying and right enough obsticles do cause traffic congestion silly me I had my party political specs on but I am all better now. By any chance?
82

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:40:39
84

For what?
83

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:55:35
87

All of the maintenance in the world isnt going to help the bridge the threads within the support cables are snapping and cant be replaced or fixed which is why they are looking at a new crossing. The money taken from the tolls far outweighed the cost of the maintenance on the bridge because nobody was discouraged from using it because of the cost. The FACT remains there is no cheaper easier alternative to travel between Edinburgh and Glasow to Fife and vice versa without the bridge so all of this talk of traffic volume increase due to tolls is mince.
There may very well be several other reasons why the volume of traffic will increase over the bridge over time as mentioned in posts above but the saving of a 1 pound toll is not one of them.
84

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 13:58:12
88

Of course congestion can occur without obsticles but the fact remains that by putting an obsticle in the middle of a congestion will only increase that congestion not decrease it.
Have you actually taken the time to read the posts on this thread?
85

HughB,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:01:35
Lets all try to remember what is actually causing all this commuting in the first place: ridiculous house prices!
This means that most people can no longer afford a decent standard of living if they want to live close to where they work, so they have to live in a area with lower housing costs, and so they have to travel.
The more the house prices increase, the further people will have to travel, and with a public transport system that only suits a few people, it's not surprising that more and more people have to travel by car.

I remember when they used to have tolls in both directions on the Edinburgh side of the bridge. Imagine the strain that put on the cables on the southbound side of the bridge with a solid queue of traffic on the bridge, while on the northbound side the traffic was flowing freely.

I wonder how many of the environmental spokepersons who are complaining about removing the bridge tolls have more than one house, so contributing to the commuter pressure.
86

treacleswamp,

12/02/2008 14:07:30
Tolls should go, but the Forth Bridge should perhaps have been phased out - its already so congested. Tearing all the booths out immediately is naive - surely there is more to gain politically by leaving them intact with the barriers up - no cost, no increased congestion.
87

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 14:07:49
#89 Interesting that you seem to believe without question the government-funded report which alleges that the cables are irreparable. Here again we disagree. I have looked at that allegation and found it unsupported by fact; I think it was a convenient scare-point to encourage the commissioning of a new bridge, and I am confident that a "miracle" solution to the cable repair issue will be found and the current bridge will remain open to cars for a long time.

Tell me, what makes you accept one government report at face value when its evidence is flimsy, and reject another when its evidence is solid?

Incidentally, I'm waiting for a more sensible answer from you to #84 than #86. You know exactly what for.
88

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:13:43
91

Dont make me laugh folk use the bridge because its the most economical or shortest route to where they are going full stop. And that wont change with the scrapping of the tolls.
The oppostions problem with this is they had ample oportunity to introduce this policy themselves but they didnt because they are the parties of high taxation and it goes against their political dogma so now they dont want the SNP to take credit for implementing a popular policy which should have been implemented years ago.
And thats where we are now hence the spin and b*llshit with regards to the effects of lifting the tolls.
89

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:22:25
93

Maybe because that report is accepted by all parties within Parliament and not just one partisan side of it. I do believe its an engineering report complete with PHYISCAL evidence to support it unlike yer theoretical conjecture with guesses for conclusions trying to pass itself of as a report.
Of course we can all take your stance and ignore it until it drops into the Forth.

No Duncan I dont why dont you enlighten me or will that mean being less of a troll?
90

HughB,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:31:43
...and what caused the property grabbing culture that we now have? It was Gordon Browns raiding of pension schemes which made the wealthier among the population decide to create their own pension schemes in the form of property speculation, and because of this, people who just buy a house to live in can no longer afford to choose where they want to live.

So there you have it: it is Gordon Brown who is causing the congenstion.

I wonder what will happen when all the speculators want to cash in their pension schemes???
91

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 14:34:03
#95 Eh? What report has been accepted by all parties in the Parliament? The FETA one which hedges its bets about cable repairs? No it hasn't.

And I'm not going to rise to your badgering. You understood #84 perfectly, you just don't want to let me take you step by step through the argument because you'll be proved wrong.
92

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:34:21
96

That is actually a sounder argument than any produced by Duncan so far. How sad is that?
93

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 14:35:01
#96 Oh for pity's sake - property investment started with Gordon Brown did it? Nothing whatsoever to do with Thatcher's right-to-buy?
94

Steve,

Bo'ness 12/02/2008 14:35:29
Duncan in Edinburgh. Talk sense!

Do you really really beleive that taking away a £1 toll will "encourage" people to drive over a bridge?

Will it encourage YOU to drive over it more often?

Absolute garbage.
Personally, I go over the Forth because I need to get somewhere. That's the only reason. It's not for the stunning views of Rosyth Dockyard.

I wont waste ££££ in petrol and wear&tear on the car just because I'm going to save a £1 toll. THINK ABOUT IT.
95

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:40:33
97

Feel free to step away Duncan the problem you have is in detail. You need obscurity and vague statements to hide yer empty arguments. The deeper you go the more yer c*ap is exposed which is why yer fudging now.
Christ knows where you plan to go with this but no doubt it will be irrelevant and obscure and very very trollish but hey I have nothing better to do at the moment anyway.
96

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:42:01
99

True or not it still has more merit than your arguments so far.
97

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 14:57:57
#100 You're repeating yourself Steve.

#101 I'm trying to be quite precise in order to help you understand, but while you refuse to even answer the first question, as posed in #84, then I can make no more progress with you.

I say again, do you agree that the bridge has a finite capacity?
98

BMeister,

12/02/2008 14:58:56
#93 DiE
'Interesting that you seem to believe without question the government-funded report which alleges that the cables are irreparable. Here again we disagree. I have looked at that allegation and found it unsupported by fact'

Foulkes believes that report and not the one which indicates an increase in congestion. You believe report alleging increased congetsion but not the one alleging the cables are irreparable.

Ironic or bare-faced double standards, itr's one of the two.
99

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 15:09:10
#104 I find the concept of belief, as brought up repeatedly in this discussion, a very strange one. I no more "believe" in a report than I do in extra-terrestrials or the existence of god.

What I have said throughout, is that I have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. That is not belief.

The evidence that says the bridge cables cannot be repaired is flimsy, and most people accept that it is highly likely that the current bridge will stand for decades.

In contrast, the evidence that the removal of tolls will contribute to an increase in traffic is robust, based on extant comparable examples, and widely accepted as accurate. Including by members of the present SNP government.

No irony, no double standards.
100

,

12/02/2008 15:13:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 15:17:17
105

Most people?? relative to the population of Edinburgh, Scotland, the UK, Europe the world? or just you?


Widely accepted as accurate? By whom? how widely?

See what I mean about obscurity?
102

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 15:23:40
#106 I'm not going to play your silly little game. It is patently obvious what the capacity of a bridge refers to, especially when we have been talking about vehicular flow and congestion in this entire thread, so I conclude that your only possible purpose in asking that question is to block the discussion.
103

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 15:28:40
108

Duncan you no presenting yer step by step analysis of yer argument is no skin of my nose and I am sure there will be a collective sigh of relief throughout this thread that everybody is going to be spared more of yer sh*te. Present it if you want I doubt anybody really gives a to**.
104

BMeister,

12/02/2008 16:16:20
#105
'What I have said throughout, is that I have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. That is not belief.'

Not for you, if you look at the evidence and come to a conclusion then it is a fact. For everyone else however, if they look at the evidence and come to a conclusion then it is a belief.
105

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 16:21:12
#110 Of course it isn't fact. It's opinion.
106

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:25:24
111

Thats right and when you put an obsticle in front of traffic it causes a congestion Thats a FACT not an opinion.
107

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 16:28:43
#113 You and your obsticles, you're a hoot.
108

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:35:27
112

No the tolls exasebate the congestion problem of too many vehicles being in the same place at the same time they cause traffic to STOP dead before accelerating off at a reduced speed they are responsible for allowing more cars to compact closer together than would happen if they werent there.
They cause heavy vehicles to come to a dead stop which means they have to work their way through all their gears to get up to speed again which some will never do until they get over to the other side providing of course the way in front of them is clear.
Why are you having difficulty understanding the very basic principles involved in obstructing traffic with relation to congestion?
109

JG,

Fife 12/02/2008 16:38:48
#114 Duncan
What do you mean by the "finite" capacity of the bridge? Do you mean how many vehicles will have to drive over it before it falls down? Or do you mean how many vehicles can there be on the bridge at the same time before it falls down? Either way I have no idea of the answer - I suspect no one else does either!

I also can't see how there will be increased traffic over it. If 100,000 drive from Fife to Edinburgh every day to go to work (the main reason for people using the bridge) there aren't going to be 120,000 just because there are no tolls. The only difference now will be where the congestion will occur during the rush hours.
110

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:38:58
112

Traffic lights and roundabouts are not designed to alleiviate congestion they are there to allow random flow through junctions from different directions. These obsticles cause congestion everybody knows that because every driver has experianced it except Duncan of course.
111

No thanks...,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:41:08
The simple fact is that too many people have moved into Fife / West Lothian but work in Edinburgh. The more you build the roads, bridges etc, the more people will move to fife and it just jams up again. I see them in their thousands sitting in their smelly polluting cars queueing to come in and out of Edinburgh. These people dont care that they are killing people with their fumes, but they should care as those same fumes are probably killing them as well.
Besides at this rate, with traffic congestion increasing around the bridge, it will just ware out quicker... and then what. The new bridge wont be open for a long time. Sorry but its time to limit the cars coming in and out on the bridge. Face the facts!
The queensferry road should hopefully be getting a greenway installed as with all the others major routes e.g., calder road, st johns road etc.
112

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 16:42:44
#116 Try to think of some other meanings of capacity. Remember, we're talking about traffic flow. I know you can do it.
113

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 16:43:51
#117 That has to be your best post yet. Of course, we have traffic lights and roundabouts to randomise the traffic, otherwise everyone would arrive in order. What planet do you live on?
114

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:49:38
120

Randomise the traffic?? I said they randomise the flow of traffic from different directions and cause an obstruction in doing so hence the frequent congestions at road junctions and roundabouts.
Is there no limit to your capacity to make an erse o yersel? hows that for another meaning and here we are talking aboot flow as well.
115

BMeister,

12/02/2008 16:50:46
111
So what's the difference between belief and opinion? If you believe the report then in your opinion it's correct, no?
116

Goat Boy,

12/02/2008 16:51:53
No thanks: you raise some valid points there. But watch what you wish for; greenways create more congestion and congestion means even more pollution. Greenways will only work if the Council first reduces the volume of traffic on the roads. The congestion charging scheme would have done this, but it was voted out by the people of Edinburgh. Ironically, these same people (who live in the controlled parking zones) now have to pay to keep the commuters out of their streets.
117

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:51:54
122

That should say talking aboot traffic flow as well but I am sure you get meaning.
118

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 16:55:25
123

A belief is an unproven fact an opinion is not any kind of fact and a fact is something that has been proven.

I think.
119

JG,

12/02/2008 16:56:07
#119 Duncan
Sorry my question was too hard for you. Just to help with the dictionary meaning of "capacity", I have copied it for you below.
1. The power of receiving/containing; extent of room or space; passive power;-used in reference to physical things.
2. The power of receiving and holding ideas, knowledge, etc.; the comprehensiveness of the mind; the receptive faculty; capability of undestanding or feeling.
3. Ability; power pertaining to, or resulting from, the possession of strength, wealth, or talent; possibility of being or of doing.
4. Outward condition or circumstances; occupation; profession; character; position; as, to work in the capacity of a mason or a carpenter.

There is also the "legal capacity" definition which clearly didn't apply.

I didn't think my comment before was too complicated. Apparently it was!

120

firhill,

12/02/2008 17:10:01
Let me make it simple for you.

The bridge has a total lane capacity of 3,500 vehicles capacity per hour (northbound.

Each toll booth could previously process over 500 vehicles per hour (7 x 500= 3,500 min)
Whilst vehicles had to stop at the tolls the real congestion factor remains the available lane capacity and this is why there is congestion at peak just before the merge at the bridge. Like a sink draining, it doesnt matter how much water you pour in, it can only drain at a certain rate and if you keep adding, you overflow.
121

Daily user,

Queensferry 12/02/2008 17:10:52
Pol(l)arised opinion. Nothing's going to change as a result of us all getting heated. Will anyone care in a month's time?
122

JG,

Fife 12/02/2008 17:14:06
#128 firhill
So, as I said, all that will change will be the place that the congestion occurs - it was at the tolls before, now it could be anywhere vehicles are trying to merge.
123

Russell339,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 17:36:07
Scrapping the tolls was a cheap stab at generating votes amongst the uneducated proletarians. It slaps national policy in the face and completely undermines attempts to promote sustainable transport modes.

Perhaps a better solution would have been to increase peak time tolls to say £5 and then have the bridge toll free during off peak and weekend periods. All that the Scottish Government have done is landed the taxpayer with an ageing and failing liability to maintain.

The tolls more than covered the bridge maintenance, and also paid for the M9 spur entension may i add. How does this move encourage people to use rail or bus services ?
124

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 17:41:09
128

Uneffinbelievable! The whole entire debate here is whether or not the tolls will increase or decrease the congestion not whether the tolls are the cause or the cure!!!! are we with it so far?????
There will be congestion at the bridge whether there are tolls there or not the question is do the toll booths EXACERBATE the problem or in fact as has been claimed by this story and others whether the booths alleviate the congestion??

Now where the f*ck lies the confusion???
If you stop the water flow dead in its tracks will it no back up faster and further than allowing it to flow at a reduced rate?????
125

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 17:51:37
131

That post beats Duncans posts hands down for idiocy and shear ignorance in fact I am too stunned to even attempt to answer, it actually looks like you posted it without reading anything at all I have posted up to now.
I dont mind being pulled up for something I may have said but not for being accused of posting something I havent.

You Moron!
126

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 18:13:23
136

Thats not true I dont actually accuse everybody else of being an idiot just idiots like you for obvious reasons. I mean why not call a spade a spade?
Do you actually read the posts you comment on before or after?
127

JG,

Fife 12/02/2008 18:19:33
I take it we all agree that the bulk of the traffic on the bridge is workers going from their houses in Fife to work in Edinburgh? That being the case, the schools in Fife were NOT off this week so how would that have affected the traffic?
128

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 18:28:59
142

Oh come on is this the bottom of the barrel or what?
If there is congestion from folk trying to get on the bridge then how is having toll booths present going to alleviate it? how will these toll booths no make it worse?
129

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/02/2008 18:58:44
Apart from querying the genius who gave planning permission for the Tesco near the Echline roundabout I would like to offer the following suggestions in traffic management (in my capacity as a driver who has to suffer these bottlenecks, dammit)

The roundabout problem would be solved if drivers obeyed the highway code and didn't block the through access. How very Edinburgh that is.

Two speed cameras at the approach to the bridge are required. The first at the start of the 50mph zone and a second, of 30mph at the Echline roundabout. This would create enough gaps in the traffic to allow filtering from the left. Filter road signs seem to work when leaving Edinburgh between Chesser and Sighthill, so why shouldn't they work at the bridge.

You will still get tailbacks whenever you impose speed limits but the traffic will still move. However drivers require gentle reminding about how they passed their driving tests in the first place.
130

beckypumps1,

Fife 12/02/2008 19:33:27
Would it be worthwhile to keep one booth as a tourist info/directions point for visitors to the country travelling north it could be run by a couple of people on a job share basis sponsored by one of the tourist organisations, I am sure that there are some people in south queensferry looking for part time work. Just a thought.
131

geekpie,

forfar 12/02/2008 20:29:42
Stick with the 2p increase in fuel duty, Chancellor, but get the money into the railways.
132

BK,

12/02/2008 21:29:01
#4 "why does it take 4 months to remove a few boxes?"
Well do you think the bridge authorities are in a hurry to be proved wrong?
133

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/02/2008 23:17:16
Indeed ColB, 151, apart from the indicators. Edinburgh is where drivers filter for miles, slowing down the traffic. Edinburgh is where drivers deliberately tailgate and block box junctions.

Edinburgh is also the place where drivers suddenly remember their highway code whenever a motorbyke policeman sits whisting at a set of lights with a box junction and the congestion suddenly clears. For it is they - the Edinburghers - who cause the congestion.

It is my opinion that the douce Edinburghers are the most ignorant and selfish drivers in the country.
134

Reckless,

hffu 13/02/2008 18:54:00
1)Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy. Attacks on the people,other controlling acts, told we're in a ‘global war, the scare of vague ‘terrorist attacks to knock us off-balance and (run to the government)for protection.

2)Create a Gulag. Now that we're all scared so a prison system is made outside the ‘rule of Law.We support it because it's for “Them” but soon it becomes for “us”. Many are secret. Special ‘Court's develop and many of us could be caught without bail, lawyers or even trials)

3)Develop scary thugs.(have paramilitary scary men/contractors to intimidate people. Today these are to create fear. It's so-called ‘security to restore public order)

4)Set up an internal surveillance system.(spying on regular people. High visibility wiretaps, reading emails, tax intimidation and all for fabricated ‘national security)

5)Harass citizens groups.(Infiltrate normal citizens groups.Call them suspicious incidents and accuse them of potential terrorist's events which scares the hell out of regular people)

6)Engage in detention and release.(This is to scare ordinary people. You become a target for security searches without cause. If you support the constitution you're a potential terrorist. You're harassed over and over. Picked up and released. Picked up and released until you break and isolate. They win)

7)Target Key individuals (Threaten people with job loss that supports them. Launch attacks on university teachers if they don't support current ideological demands. This paves the way for the brutal ways that will follow soon and they are caught in a trap)

8)Control the press.(threats against life and limb if you don't toe the line… often wounded or killed. Real news is supplanted by fake news and you must report what is given you or suffer consequences. It gets so crazy you soon can't sort out the real from unreal.Citizens can't tell either so give up in stages since it reaches a point when nothing is credible.

9)Dissent equals treaso
135

eric,

Lothian 14/02/2008 11:56:36
Who cares .anyway the M74 got go ahead.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.