Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Only a third of Scots want new Forth Road Bridge

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: 08 November 2009
Just over a third of people support £2.3 billion plans for a new Forth road bridge, a poll today found.
More than half of Scots say that the current bridge should be repaired instead.

The Scottish Government is expected to publish legislation later this month which would authorise the new bridge if approved.

Green party co-leader Patrick Harvie s
aid today: "The massive scare campaign Ministers have run against the existing Forth Road Bridge has clearly failed.

"Like everyone else, Greens believe we do need a road crossing over the Forth, and fortunately there already is one.

"There's still time for Scottish Ministers to listen to public opinion and fix the existing bridge for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the disruption."

The SNP Government want to build a new road bridge to the west of the existing one.

The YouGov poll surveyed 1,114 people and was commissioned by the Greens, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the ForthRight Alliance. It asked people if they backed a new bridge at a cost of £2,300 million – or replacing the current one at a cost of £122 million.

It found that 34% support the plans for a new bridge being built, while 57% believe that the existing Forth Road Bridge should be repaired.

Support for repair was highest among Tory supporters (64%) and lowest among the SNP voters (51%).

Nationalists (41%) were the biggest supporters of a new bridge, while Tory supporters (30%) were least supportive of this.

Duncan McLaren, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "The time is coming for Parliament to choose between an unpopular and unnecessary bridge and progress on delivering the ambitious climate change targets MSPs passed less than six months ago.

"Even the Scottish Government have finally admitted that their plans are for an additional bridge, not a replacement."




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 November 2009 4:13 PM
  • Source: scotsman.com
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

Boston sports fan,

08/11/2009 17:00:19
How did the Scots who use this route feel when polled? If the existing bridge falls into the forth, how would drivers reach their destinations and how much longer would it take?
2

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 08/11/2009 18:13:30
"Nationalists (41%) were the biggest supporters of a new bridge, while Tory supporters (30%) were least supportive of this."

So three of the Tory supporters are in favour.
3

Jimmy Fae the West,

In the Land O' Green Ginger. (HULL) 08/11/2009 21:22:47
(Chortle) Only one ten thousandth of Scots wanted a Glasgow airport rail link!

I personally think most Scots would prefer a Forth tunnel anyway. Bridges are expensive to maintain.

Perhaps the people of Britain will pay for it in the same way the Scots, Welsh and Irish paid for the Chunnel.
4

Julian.,

edinburgh 08/11/2009 22:48:02
I'm slightly confused. If the current bridge can be repaired for £122m who in their right mind would want to spend £2.3bn on a new one? Something doesn't seem quite right with that.
5

Hmm ...,

09/11/2009 00:08:40
The vast majority of Scots do not support the Green Party, which commissioned this "survey" - as can be seen in the Scottish Parliament!

I am heartily sick of the Green loony left who want to dismantle our economy, for which good transport links are a major requirement. We do need a second crossing and we need it now - the previous project was blocked by the Forth Alliance, made up of The National Trust of Scotland, RSPB, WWF and the other usual suspects.

We were better able to give the Greens their due attention when they wore sandwich boards saying "we are all doomed" - the message has not changed but the internet has given them an audience they don't deserve.
6

Hmm ...,

09/11/2009 00:14:04
... easy, Julian - we need an additional crossing to cope with the traffic growth that everyone but the Greens recognise is the sign of a growing economy - the last thing they want! This talk of "replacement" is simply to soften the blow for them, a consideration they frankly don't deserve.

That Duncan McLaren, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "The time is coming for Parliament to choose between an unpopular and unnecessary bridge and progress on delivering the ambitious climate change targets MSPs passed less than six months ago" demonstrates only his daftness - no one in his right mind would consider the survey by his organisation and its fellow travellers as anything other than naked propaganda!
7

Julian.,

edinburgh 09/11/2009 02:21:46
Hmmm,

You may have a point there but that's the first time I've heard that reason.

We've had it drummed in to us over the past 2 years that the current bridge may have to close to heavy vehicles in 5 years and all vehicles in 10. Now we're being told it can be repaired. Well which one is it?
8

Navvy,

09/11/2009 08:27:19
#3 has it

Building anothrof the same is just plain daft
9

El Franko,

09/11/2009 10:10:33
Greenie organisations such as FoE and the 'Greens' are disgraceful because of their wish to gain power by scaring people with exaggerated stories about the 'environment'. I reach for the salt wherever and whenever they make any claim. I wish journalists would do the same and not merely act as conduits for press releases.
10

Shave,

Edinburgh 09/11/2009 11:48:18
#5 Hmm - "We do need a second crossing and we need it now"

What they are proposing is a FIFTH crossing, not a second crossing.

It is not needed.
11

Rosscobhoy,

09/11/2009 16:27:58
If it needs to be replaced it should be replaced by a tunnel. Sadly i think the SNP are looking for an iconic postcard picture design type thing when really they should settle for something far cheaper and just as functionable.
12

Soosider,

Glasgow 09/11/2009 18:17:20
The present provision for a new Forth crossing is only in place as at the time the advise was that it was unlikely that the existing Road Bridge could be repaired, that we could not wait to see if remedial work would be successful. All indications are that the scheme to dry out the cables is being successful, that being the case there will not be another crossing. It does not merit the priority when compared to other priorities in Scotland, I am sure the Sg will make the correct decision, given that they have already reduced the proposed budget from £4.3b to £ 2.2b. Personally I think even this is too much, given that the Millau Bridge in France cost 600 m euros, and the worlds longest road tunnel in Norway cost $125m. Any crossing over the Forth is a fairly standard piece of civil engineering why should it cost so much?
13

truthsleuth,

11/11/2009 00:13:46
The bridge is a waste of money.

Let those who thinkit is necessary put theur money where there mouth is.

Headed by the main beneficiaries of any second bridge and the main cause of damage to the existing bridge the heavy lorry brigade they could set up a private company and sell shares in the second bridge.. Those who purchase shares will get 'free passes' to use the new bridge allothers will pay a toll.

There you have it it couldn't be fairer, put up or shut up.

PS Heavy Lorry operators are pressing for 82tonne trucks nearly twice as long as existing lorries I suspect that this is the source of pressure for the new crossing.

So once again motorists, taxpayers and ratepayers will be paying the profits of the heavy brigade.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More News

More News >>

More Forth Bridges

More Forth Bridges >>

Features

Drink Driving - Don't Risk It Drink Driving - Don't Risk It
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


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.