Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Forth bridge tolls 'are here to stay', says First Minister

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: 21 February 2007
JACK McConnell yesterday admitted that tolls on the Forth Road Bridge might have to be retained to help pay for a new crossing.
The First Minister said no "snap decision" on scrapping tolls could be made because building a new bridge or tunnel would cost more than £1 billion. However, the SNP accused him of "flawed logic".

Mr McConnell's comments came as ministers await a
report into the future of bridge tolls, which is expected to recommend retention on the Forth because removing them would have limited economic and social impact.

Labour is committed to "positively examine" scrapping tolls, while Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, called at the weekend for the Forth tolls to be removed.

Mr McConnell, who was taking part in an "Ask Jack" event, organised by Radio Forth at an Edinburgh school, said: "I don't think we can [take] a snap decision to get rid of the tolls - particularly because of the fact we are going to have to pay well over £1 billion to replace it with a bridge or tunnel."

He described the situation as "difficult". He said: "The popular thing for any politician to say, even today, would be to abolish them."

However, the First Minister said the cost of a crossing would be "massive" and there were problems of traffic congestion with the existing bridge.

He said: "It is a complex issue - we need to review the toll regime properly, and we need to continually try to improve public transport. I think the bridge is already too busy, and used too much for its construction.

"If we remove the tolls, I think most people would assume the number of people who use the bridge would go up.

"And if that situation arose, the life of the bridge might become even shorter."

Mr McConnell's views echo those of Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat transport minister, who has said the Scottish Executive cannot remove tolls from the bridge until it has a clearer idea of how a replacement crossing will be financed.

But Fergus Ewing, the SNP's transport spokesman, said: "It's nonsense to suggest tolls might have to remain because a new crossing is required.

"The bridge is just another road, and we pay for roads through fuel tax."



The full article contains 386 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 February 2007 10:02 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges , Road tolls
 
1

Statsman,

21/02/2007 02:03:09

Hit the road Jack. Don't come back no more no more.

Funny how the Erskine Bridge is free. I'm done with your West Coast New Labour taxes on the East Coast because we're an easy target.

2

Richard,

west lothian 21/02/2007 02:09:17

Fife you have been warned?

Time to kick the LIB/LAB numpties out and vote for the future, vote S.N.P.!

3

Sophia,

South Gyle,Edinburgh 21/02/2007 02:42:50

Does not give us much faith in the Lib Dems if Tavish Scott and Sir Menzies Campbell say the complete opposite to each other !

Jack thinks the numbers of users would go up if tolls were abolished.......what utter rubbish...didn't stop them taking the tolls off other bridges or is the east of the country treated differently by any chance?

4

Pete39,

Tassy 21/02/2007 08:06:33

Pretty unfair I say. I mean it is not as if the Forth Road Bridge is here to stay.

5

JG,

Fife 21/02/2007 08:51:16

#4 Pete39
Or Jack McConnell, for that matter!!!!

6

Scaramouche,

21/02/2007 08:53:29

Thank's for the hint, #1. Statsman!

Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back
No more no more no more no more,
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back no more

What'd you say
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back
No more no more no more no more,
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back no more

First Minister, First Minister, oh you treat us so mean,
You're the meanest First Minister that we've ever seen,
Well dontcha know that in May or so
You'll have to pack your things and go (that's right)
You'll have to pack your things and go

What'd you say
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back
No more no more no more no more,
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back no more

Now Jack, listen Jack, don't you treat us this-a way
'Cause on 3rd of May we'll be voting that day,
Don't care if you think you ain't understood,
The trouble is you and yore party ain't good
Well dontcha know that in May or so
You'll have to pack your things and go (that's right)
You'll have to pack your things and go

What'd you say
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back
No more no more no more no more,
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back no more

We say ... don'tcha come back no more
Uh, whud we say? - don'tcha come back no more
You didn't understand us - don'tcha come back no more
And we really mean it - don'tcha come back no more
Aw now Jack, please. - don'tcha come back no more
What you been doin' to us? - don'tcha come back no more
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back
No more no more no more no more,
Hit the Road Jack and don'tcha come back no more!

*Adapted from "Hit The Road Jack" by the legendary Ray Charles

7

Unbeliever,

21/02/2007 08:53:51

Democracy in action yet again

8

lisa,

perth 21/02/2007 09:16:06

You have to admire Jack. Never before have we seen someone who is so grimly determined to lose the next election.

We are used to people with an unshakeable faith in the unreasonable, but most of them work in the religion industry, and not in politics.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting to hear from the body set up by Jack to review the future of tolls.

Some days you wonder if its worth even getting up in the morning.

9

Pete39,

Tassy 21/02/2007 09:17:58

I lose track on who is spouting poems on these threads. I have always enjoyed variations of Tam O'Shanter at Burn's suppers, anyone up to give us a political version of Holy Willie's Prayer.

10

livilion,

livingston 21/02/2007 09:31:41

Everyone in Fife, particularly Kirkcaldy, write a letter of protest to Gordon Brown.
Union Joke's tea is oot, and he knows it, so I wouldn't waste my time on him.

As a young Dundee student, at the height of Maggie Thatcher's Miners' Strike, the families of students from the Tory heartlands of the Home Counties had a letter writing campaign to their local Tory MPs complaining about the proposed abolition of Student Grants.

The effect was remarkable.

The Iron Lady, who was not for turning, within weeks caved in and abandoned her plans.

Nothing captures the imagination of a politician so much as the thought of losing their seat.

Imagine, Gordon Brown winning the Labour leadership, becoming the next UK Prime Minister, and having to worry about losing his seat?

Write him a letter, he'll be impressed to know you care, and it'll only cost you the price of a stamp.

Gordon Brown MP
c/o 11 Downing Street
London WC1

will get it there.

What do you have to lose?

11

Calum10,

21/02/2007 09:32:34

Again we find the Lib-Dems taking two opposed views - No to Bridge Tolls - Yes to Bridge Tolls. This represents chronic hypocrisy. It is little wonder that the Lib-Dems are making little headway in the polls.

12

livilion,

livingston 21/02/2007 09:32:35

10. Pete39, Tassy
How about To a louse?

13

GM,

21/02/2007 09:56:21

hmmmm...
The bridge tolls appear to me to cause most of the congestion rather than ease it...

I dont know a single person who decides not to take the car simply because of the £1 toll so I doubt that there would be a sudden increase in traffic by its removal.

Another 'green' initiative deeply flawed as staionery and crawling cars spew out maximum noxious fumes rather than allowing them to drive freely at speeds (around 60mph) where emmissions are at their least.

14

SouthernSkye,

Currently Köln 21/02/2007 10:06:07

OVER 1 billion quid for a new crossing.....
Perhaps they should put out an offer for tenders that can then be seen by us all?
C'mon jack, get a few quotes...I do when i need some work done, then I select the middling price!

15

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 10:22:11

#14 the toll is in the northbound direction, whereas the most congestion is in the morning in the southbound direction, isn't it?

Also, it's not just £1 - it's £1 per day, every day you commute. That's why it can influence behaviour.

It's a contradictory argument: "it's only a pound, noone decides not to take a car because of that!" and "scrap the tolls, they're a terrible burden/evil scheme/spawn of beelzebub"

16

GM,

21/02/2007 10:29:54

But Vic, why introduce artificial congestion Northbound???

Without the tolls, cars would not backup into long queues spewing out all their fumes...

If it was a congestion saver then surely they'd have retained them southbound too!

The theme is simple, if you want to burn more fossil fuels and spew large amounts of unwelcome gas into the atmosphere, build toll booths/road bumps/road narrowers etc...

The car is here to stay - you CANNOT tax people out of it... the ONLY way out is by having modern, clean, cheap, regular, reliable, good coverage public transport... which will NEVER happen.

17

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 10:43:57

So you think that making car travel as cheap as possible will reduce the amount of congestion? Amazing.

18

Dod fae Orkney,

In the hoose 21/02/2007 11:03:18

The Government needs all the money it can get to pay their expenses. What's wrong with you all. Double the tolls to stay in line with the rising expense bill.

19

Pete39,

Tassy 21/02/2007 11:26:34

Aye Livilion, a good idea but I was thinking more on the lines of the unco political rather than the unco unwashed.

20

Rod,

Kirkliston 21/02/2007 11:40:05

Will similar tolls be introduced to pay for the proposed M74 extension, Jack?
Speak up Jack, we can't hear you.

21

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

21/02/2007 11:55:55

The headline says

Forth bridge tolls 'are here to stay', says First Minister

implying that the "are here to stay" part is a direct quote by Jack McConnell. However, it appears that he didn't in fact say this. It's not repeated in any of the statements attributed to him later, and in fact all of these are fairly evasive, as if he's trying to avoid directly saying that the tolls are here to stay. Perhaps the headline should be "Forth bridge tolls 'are here to stay' says reporter in attempt to put words into the mouth of politician"

22

IWright,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 12:18:11

#22
When the upgrade of the A8000 is complete (next year I believe) then the Echline roundabout will not be used for access to the bridge. All traffic from the M9 will join the A90 at a grade separated junction. Might still be congested though.

23

,

21/02/2007 12:29:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 387932, Article id was mapped to record!
24

I'm no really here,

21/02/2007 12:32:29

Wait until they introduce Road Congestion taxes for the bridge crossing.

25

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 12:44:01

#25

Wow what great insults. You must be so proud.

Actually, it's not a statement of fact that "increasing taxes on cars with no viable alternatives DOES NOT reduce car use". Many journeys are discretionary - not commuting of course, but many others.

There. Take a deep breath now.

26

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 12:54:42

#25

Also, it's a juvenile error to believe that someone who doesn't agree with you must be stupid. They could just have a different opinion. It does happen.

27

EG,

21/02/2007 12:56:58

If tolls reduce congestion then slap one on the Kingston bridge. Sorry, forgot - it's in the west.

28

Bob Charles,

Paris 21/02/2007 13:03:25

50p each way- what a bargain!

29

GM,

21/02/2007 13:03:51

no Vic, we probably agree on quite a bit of stuff regarding car use in general, but you deliberately or otherwise misinterpreted a fairly simple post of mine and 'put words into my mouth' that could in no possible way be drawn from that particular post.

Hence, you twisted something to fit your own 'agenda'... where you had a perfect opportunity to debate, you chose otherwise.

Here it is in simple terms -

Do you believe cars pollute more or less at low speeds?

Do you believe that artificial constrictions lower average car speed?

Do you believe that taxation alone will force people to use alternative means of transport (even where none exists)?

Do you believe that taxation of motorists is a progressive form of taxation?

Do you believe Road tolls at the firth road bridge contribute in any way to reduced congestion? If so, why were the southbound tolls removed?

30

GM,

21/02/2007 13:08:47

hahahaha -

The ultimate accolade!
Vic clearly reported my post #25 as unsuitable!

nice one Vic, when you dont like what you read or hear, have it censored!

31

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 13:29:54

Excellent questions.

- Cars pollute more at low and high speeds.
- They lower the average speed at that point in the road network.
- Yes, as many journeys are discretionary, so they can choose to go somewhere else (shop in Fife, for instance). Also, in the longer term job and home location can be changed.
- No it is regressive. As is VAT, alcohol and tobaco duty etc. Where's the campaign to get rid of them?
- The southbound tolls were removed and the toll doubled so that the same amount of money for the return journey was charged only once, addressing your concerns about the 'artificial restriction'.

Essentially, if you make something cheaper, more will be consumed. I would maintain that removing the tolls would give a very localised improvement in traffic flow in the northbound direction. The improvements in local air quality and CO2 emissions would be outweighed by the increase in emissions due to the increase in traffic throughout the road system, and the decreased speeds in other areas due to this traffic increase.

32

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 13:30:33

#32 Ha ha indeed. Read the terms and conditions of the site.

33

Euan404,

21/02/2007 14:15:41

Oh, well done Vic, a true politician's answer. When asked to pick one of two potions, you pick both!

If you could contain yourself to choose a single option, perhaps you could try again.

Do you believe:
a) Cars pollute more when driven at low speeds
b) Cars pollute more when driven at high speeds

I assume your suggestion that "job and home location can be changed" is a tacit admission that public transport is unlikely to provide a solution here either ;)

Glad that you concede that road tolls are a regressive tax which hurt those least able to afford the charges the most.

And since you admit that the tolling boots are an artificial restriction, and that it was an improvement to remove one set of booths ... can you manage to make the logical next step, that removing the other set would ALSO be a progressive step?

Or perhaps you'd prefer to answer a different question, like why it's valid to remove tolls on the Erskine and Skye bridges (after all, people could always move to a new home and get a new job, right?), but not the Forth?

34

TheGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 14:16:45

#33 Vic, the green issue is completely irrelevant. THe tolls are unfair.Simple as that. I don't use the kingston bridge, the Skye bridge, the Erskine bridge or any other bridge in the whole of the uk yet as a tax payer (income and road) I'm expected to contribute to their upkeep?

The £1 per day doesn't put anyone off driving over it. If you need to drive, you need to drive simple as that. You seriously think that by removing the toll you'd get thousands more using the bridge?

35

Forthtag,

South Queensferry 21/02/2007 14:31:38

Get a copy of the Dunfermline press tomorrow and you will see what Jackinory is up to.

They want to build a bridge along side the existing one so they can wrap the two bridges together and sell them off to a concession company that will charge a toll in excess of £10 to pay back the debt.

What jack has not told you is that they intend to cut the traffic back to 66000 vehicle per day from the current 75000, they can only do this by "jacking" up the tolls to a level where they become a deterent, London has proved that this is arround £8 per day

The Lib/Lab were trying to hide this fact till after the election.

User of the bridge use you vote or you will be paying £2,500 per year to support the Lib/Lab government. Bare in mind that this is if they can hold the price to £1.0Bn what about these guys track record on the Parliament Building. IT COULD BE MORE!!!!

36

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 14:42:14

#35 Emissions are lowest at a mid range of speeds, and therefore my answer was factually correct. Sorry about that.

You're next assumption is wrong: I was asked if a tax in the absence of anything else can change behaviour. I answered the question.

'Hurt'? Affect, perhaps.

That next step is not logical. Charging only once for the same amount has the same effect in money terms, but aids local traffic flow in the southbound peak direction.

Making a bad decision (Erskine) is not an excuse to make another one.

37

Gordon S.,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 14:52:11

It never ceases to amaze me, but the pooliticans make it sooo easy for us to make the voting choice.
Can't vote Labour, they support Trident and everything nuclear, which Scotland doesn't want. Can't vote Lib/dem because they refuse to allow the Scots the basic right to vote for a referendum on independence, yet they have in their manifesto that criminals should have the right to vote.. ??
Tories, well.. they 'might' become the protest vote. That only leaves the SNP.. may they get 60 or more seats.

38

Euan404,

21/02/2007 14:56:43

#39, cheers for dodging the simple 'A or B' option again ;)

Still, you point out that emissions are lowest at a 'mid range' of speeds, which is of course true. Crawling along at 5mph is bad, as is screaming along at 100mph.

Using for example http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm as a reference (and I'm willing to look at alternative suggestions), the most fuel efficient speeds are in the range 40-60mph.

The speed limit on the bridge is ... ooh ... bang in the middle of that range, isn't it?

Isn't it therefore far less polluting for cars to travel across the bridge in the 40-50mph speed range, then, with no time spent idling and queueing in traffic?

Changing the language from 'hurt', then, you agree that a regressive toll tax on the bridge most affects those least able to afford it - for example folk who simply cannot afford to live in the city they work in, and thus commute in from the more affordable side of the river?

I note that you feel the removal of tolls from the Erskine bridge was a bad decision - would you therefore argue in favour of re-introducing tolls on that bridge?

Why, or why not, was the removal of tolls from the Skye bridge a mistake? Should tolls (albeit at a less penal level) be re-introduced there too?

39

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 15:02:07

I didn't dodge it: I answered the question. And as you've pointed out, I was right. Thanks.

Before this spiralled I was simply making a point that removing tolls would not be good for emissions, as had been said. That hasn't been challenged:

"I would maintain that removing the tolls would give a very localised improvement in traffic flow in the northbound direction. The improvements in local air quality and CO2 emissions would be outweighed by the increase in emissions due to the increase in traffic throughout the road system, and the decreased speeds in other areas due to this traffic increase."

By the way, using 'toll' and 'tax' in the same sentence is redundant.

40

JG,

Fife 21/02/2007 15:04:54

#40 Vic
I knew that about the driving speeds! My excellent, advanced driver + instructor many years ago also told me it was better for the car to get it into top gear as soon as you could as it helped to cut down on fuel consumption. Not that anyone can do that now, with speed bumps, traffic calming measures, road works, queues etc..

Not much thought has gone in to any of this stuff. The houses in Edinburgh are so expensive people have moved to Fife. They now have to drive to work every day, exacerbating the traffic problem. So.... the government decide that taxing the motorist is the best idea. Public transport is either dreadful, expensive (or both), non existant or infrequent. The aforesaid drivers have no choice but to use their cars so it doesn't actually alleviate the problem - it only costs the driver more money. Is this the best that (what are supposed to be) our "best brains" can come up with? Not very impressive, eh?

41

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 15:11:57

I'm not here to defend or attack the way things are going. What prompted me to post was the fallacy that removing tolls would reduce emissions.

42

JG,

Fife 21/02/2007 15:19:15

#44 Vic
In that case (and given that you have said the optimum speed for cars is in the mid range 40 - 60 p.m.h.) how much would the emissions be reduced if there was not the madness that is the queue heading north at knocking off time (anything between about 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. currently!)?

43

Euan404,

21/02/2007 15:28:49

#42, you were factually correct in pointing out that cars are most efficient when driven in a mid-range of speeds rather than the extremes of which they are capable.

However, you weren't usefully answering the question. You know full well that we're discussing traffic on and around the bridge. Is it really totally unreasonable to therefore interpret "high speed" as meaning "at or near the speed limit for the bridge"?

Do you have comparable figures from other areas to support your assertion that air quality and traffic flow would suffer once you get away from the immediate vicinity of the bridge, were the tolling booths removed? Have the areas around the Skye bridge and Erskine bridge suffered since the removals of their tolls?

Yes, the phrase "toll tax" is redundant, in as much as it's two words meaning the government is taking money off us. Then again, perhaps that's rather appropriate, since the government is charging us more than once to use this part of the country's national roads infrastructure. ;)

And can you answer whether you'd argue in favour of re-introducing tolls on the Erskine bridge, and whether the removal of tolls on the Skye bridge was also a bad decision and should be reversed there too? Or is that too awkward a question?

44

A.A. Andrews,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 15:52:52

Why are people comparing the Skye and Erskine Bridges to the Forth Road Bridge? All the bridges are completely DIFFERENT! Yes, the Skye and Erskine have no tolls, but they have completely different traffic patterns than then Forth Bridge. Skye Bridge is in a really low density geographic area and will be lucky to see a tenth of the traffic that the Forth experiences. The Erskine Bridge connects Dumbartonshire to the motorway network and Glasgow Airport where the Forth Bridge is the main connection between North East Scotland (Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness) to South Scotland and England. Trying to say that by removing the tolls on Skye and Erskine Bridge didn't result in an increase in traffic or vehicle emissions and therefore the same can be assumed for the Forth Road bridge is nonsense. Bah.

45

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 16:10:00

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3...

See figure 2. You'll see that as the Euro standards have tightened, the relationship between speed and the local air quality emissions has hugely decreased. So, it doesn't matter what speed they're going, it's the amount of car travel that counts.

So, speeding up traffic, and therefore inducing traffic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand , will give a very small improvement in local air quality at the expense of more problems all over the place.

Hope this helps.

46

Forthtag,

South Queensferry 21/02/2007 16:17:53

Would one of you experts help us in South Queensferry to work out the additional polution a second bridge will bring to our community?
Please!!!

47

Euan404,

21/02/2007 16:32:30

Make up your mind!

#39 "Emissions are lowest at a mid range of speeds"
#48 "the relationship between speed and the local air quality emissions has hugely decreased. So, it doesn't matter what speed they're going"

So does it matter what speed the cars are travelling at, or not?

You've still failed to answer whether it makes sense to consider "high speed" as meaning "relative to the car's maximum possible speed" or "relative to the road's speed limit". I appreciate this one is awkward, since the road's speed limit is bang in the middle of that mid-range of speeds which you earlier acknowledged as minimising emissions.

You also still haven't managed to answer whether you think tolls should be re-introduced on the Erskine and Skye bridges, though I infer that in general you favour making driving as expensive and miserable an experience as possible in order to drive as many folk as possible off the roads. I'll guess you're not one of the 1.8 million who signed the petition recently. ;)

48

CMac,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 16:36:25

I don't like roads, pollution, drivers, bridges or Jack McConnell. Labour should dump him. He's a liability!

49

Vic,

Edinburgh 21/02/2007 16:39:15

And, as I explained in #44, I'm not going to answer it, as I'm not interested. "What prompted me to post was the fallacy that removing tolls would reduce emissions."

50

Kenmac,

Oban 21/02/2007 16:39:21

Bet he didn't say that during the recent by election

51

Maxie,

21/02/2007 16:45:05

Tolls were removed from the Erskine Bridge on the basis that they was damaging to the local economy.

Not only are current tolls on the Fife bridges damaging the local economy at present, Jack McConnell intends to maintain them there indefinately and damage the local economy in the longer term also.

With a Labour-Liberal executive like that, who needs enemies? Certainly not Fife.

52

Neptune of deep,

Queensferry 21/02/2007 17:11:46

#54 If Forthtag (#38 )are right it could be a lot more and for the next thirty to forty years.

53

Forthtag,

South Queensferry 21/02/2007 17:17:16

Nobody taking up my appeal for help with the effects of polution in South Queensferry?

54

Eve,

Scotland 21/02/2007 18:41:46

Jack McConnell could speak no sences
His deputy could tell no truth.
So together they worked with no sence and no truth to create a Scottish parlment which speaks with little authority and runs Westminster when they come across a potencial wee problem.

55

lisa,

perth 21/02/2007 21:12:40

When Jack says tolls are here to stay he means (at least I hope he means) that they are here until the next election.

You will step down when you lose Jack?

56

D Napier,

Fife 21/02/2007 21:34:15

#38 - Forthtag. Will you please crawl back into your (immersed tube) tunnel and live out your retirement in peace.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not directly involved with a similar concession on the Skye Bridge? I didn't hear you complaining about the profits that your company made from that one.

Having read the recent reports published by Transport Scotland, I can only say that they make better reading than the spurious claims on your website. For example, please justify your statement that a new bridge will be built by foreign labour whereas, an immersed tube tunnel will be built by local labour.

57

lisa,

perth 21/02/2007 21:45:03

#56 Forthtag. When your habitat becomes polluted or you need a bit more lebensraum, as they say, standard historical practice has been to invade some neighbouring country where the natives are backward and can be bought off with trinkets or annihilated in a short war.

In your case, if S Queensferry is becoming uninhabitable, I suggest you invade Bo'ness. It meets the criteria.

58

Miss Jean Brodie,

21/02/2007 21:54:48

It’s all so exciting!

When can we build an Arran Bridge for Jack?

59

livilion,

livingston 21/02/2007 22:22:32

#50. Euan404
Might I add that my car shows a constant readout of fuel consumption on the trip computer?

At times when I'm travelling at, aherm, 70mph, the fuel consumption is reading 180 miles per gallon, or even nothing at all!

but crawling through roadworks or snarled up in traffic doing 20-40 mph it can read 13mpg or sometimes much worse.

In a nutshell the relationship between speed and fuel consumption, therefor emmissions, need have he-haw to do with how fast the vehicle consumes the miles.

It has much more to do with the use of the right and middle pedals.

If there was a clear run from Dunfermline to Barnton, which is all downhill, I could expect to travel at national speed limit velocity and use next to no fuel at all.
Therefor contributing no nasty co2 to South Queensferry's local environment.

No matter what speed a car is travelling at, if you take your foot off the throttle it stops consuming fuel.

Try it for yourself.

So sort out the road network on the southern end of the bridge and make the squirrels and fluffy bunnies happy.

btw If the bridge tolls are about reducing emmissions then having the toll booths on the southerly, downward slope, would've been much more effective, ie less throttle for vehicles to get back up to cruising speed.

60

Bob Charles,

22/02/2007 09:23:10

It isnt the toll booths that causse congestion on the bridge- the limiting factor is the bridge itself as anyone whos been throught the tolls and queues in the entrance to the bridge can see most nights.

The tolls can process more cars than capacity of the the two lanes on the bridge. Tolls or no tolls wont suddenly make the bridge able to handle more vehicles.

Also- Forthtag- after your case for a tunnel evaporated, are you now moving onto tolling

61

Euan404,

22/02/2007 10:15:34

#62 - in a nutshell, don't trust the figures from your car's computer blindly!

Usage of left and right pedals will certainly have an effect on your consumption (as will freewheeling down a slope!), but basic physics means that the faster you travel, the more energy you need to expend to maintain that speed. The link I provided in #41 explains in possibly rather too much detail... :)

62

livilion,

livingston 22/02/2007 10:20:00

#65. Euan404
In a nutshell, my fuel receipts tell me what I need to know.

63

livilion,

livingston 22/02/2007 10:29:09

Remember ""A body remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force""?

Constant braking and accellerating, wastes energy, as in queueing for toll booths or poorly laid out junctions.

I use near double the fuel in heavy stop start traffic than I do for constant high speed cruising on a motorway.

64

John Roebling,

22/02/2007 12:22:01

#38 Forthtag. I have read todays DUNFERMLINE PRESS and I see that you are now an expert on toll charging.

So, your crystal ball tells you that we are going to have a £10 - can you let me have this weekend's winning lottery numbers too please. On the other hand, don't bother, as you have as much chance of getting those right as you have in being correct with your prediction of a £10 toll.

As #59 (D Napier) says, maybe it is about time that you crawl into your immersed tube tunnel and stay there, or why not follow the advice of #60 (Lisa) and move to Bo'ness.

65

Forthtag,

South Queensferry 22/02/2007 18:17:25

#68 As Mr Napier said I did Skye Bridge the first PFI project in Scotland, so yes I am an expert in PFI. poacher come game keeper, what have you and Mr Napier done with your lives, have you two ever done anything constructive?


 

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.