Forth road bridge

[rob murray]

Some information from http://wingsoverscotland.com/water-under-the-bridge/ all with references as to fact.

The decision not to replace the entire section of bridge containing the part which is now defective was made in 2010 by the now-defunct Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA), a non-government organisation dominated by Labour and Lib Dem board members. (The SNP had just three out of 10.)


They elected to defer replacement after the Scottish Government reduced FETA’s capital funding in 2011. However, an Audit Scotland report in October 2012 noted that “FETA’s reserves will be utilised to meet planned capital funding shortfalls over the next three years”.

The decision not to use the reserves to replace the section was FETA’s, which didn’t consider the work a priority in the light of other concerns.

There is more detail given in the post....but the conclusion states (though i don't know enough to agree or disagree with it)

Sometimes things break and it’s inconvenient. But the fact is that all the money in the world wouldn’t have stopped the Forth Road Bridge from having to be closed at some point. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the only thing which offered any possibility of minimising disruption was NOT to do the work in 2010. FETA made the right choice, but sadly weren’t vindicated by fortune.

Sorry...wingsoverscotland......your having a laugh, and proving a point several people make on this site, on pro indys qouting copying from the nonsense spouted on wings : seriously as I said given dubity, double speak / contradictions etc why should there not be an enquiry to bottom out why this debacle happened ? WHy not, why hide over it / deny etc .WOS : We’ve been struggling to get a good grip on what’s happening with the Forth Road Bridge this week. It’s a confusing tale full of contradictory financial and engineering detail, being flayed for all it’s worth by the Unionist media and opposition. There you have it 2 words gives the game away, unionist media, well we are in the union arent we, so WOS are the only media source to be relied on eh ...get real

[Alrock]

Sometimes things break and it’s inconvenient. But the fact is that all the money in the world wouldn’t have stopped the Forth Road Bridge from having to be closed at some point. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the only thing which offered any possibility of minimising disruption was NOT to do the work in 2010. FETA made the right choice, but sadly weren’t vindicated by fortune.

I can see their point, they took the gamble that the new bridge would be open before it got to the stage that it needed to be closed & lost...

[rob murray]

I can see their point, they took the gamble that the new bridge would be open before it got to the stage that it needed to be closed & lost...

Look the SNP are not responsible for the new bridge the decision was take prior to them attaining power what the dud do was exactly what you said cancel spends on bridge gambling that the new bridge would be up ...its not and a new bridge wasn't their call anyway.

[Oddquine]

Look the SNP are not responsible for the new bridge the decision was take prior to them attaining power what the dud do was exactly what you said cancel spends on bridge gambling that the new bridge would be up ...its not and a new bridge wasn't their call anyway.

I have had this conversation elsewhere, with another set of rabid NO voters, who, having won the referendum, have continually replaced their previous "Union GOOD - SNP BAD" with eternal "SNP BAD" posts.

In 1995, at the time a Tory Secretary of State, the MP for Edinburgh West, was responding, in Westminster on questions on a proven need for traffic management in the Edinburgh area, prompted by demands from his own constituents, and was considering a second Forth crossing, for which there was much support in the area, Alistair Darling, the Labour MP for Edinburgh Central opposed him, calling the possible second Forth Crossing "this ridiculous bridge", and in 1997, when the Labour Party took power, the idea was scrapped.

In 2003, Nicol Stephen, the Transport Minister in the Scottish Executive at the time, commissioned a study into a new bridge, which was estimated at that time to cost £300 million and be up to 11 years before opening, but that was as far as it went then. So, in the first and most of the second terms of the Lab/LibDem Scottish Executive from 1999, and despite pressure from the Campaign for a New Bridge, and a majority Labour FETA membership, nothing much was done, because Edinburgh Councillors, predominantly Labour, were against one, but by 2005, corrosion was found on the main cables, and it was believed that the bridge would need to be closed to HGVs by 2014 and to all traffic by 2019. At that stage, FETA proposed the construction of a new bridge, the cost of which was estimated at £640 million, and, between making the decision, undertaking all the design/planning requirements etc, it was estimated it would open in 12 years.

However, Tavish Scott, the Transport Minister, said he would not be rushed into a decision, and commissioned, in November 2005, an independent report on the state of the bridge, due to be received at the end of January 2006. In the meantime, during a by-election in Dunfermline and West Fife, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling jumped, at last, on the "we are for a new bridge" bandwagon. The detailed study concluded that if a solution to the corrosion could not be found, the bridge may have to be closed to lorries at some time between 2013 and 2018 and to all other traffic at some time between 2019 and 2024.

In 2006, Transport Scotland commissioned the Forth Replacement Crossing Study to examine options for a new crossing, and this study produced its first reports in early 2007, at which stage, in February, in fact, the Scottish Executive came to the decision, at long last, to support a new Forth Crossing, with a new suspension bridge being their favoured option of the three options recommended...and that was as far as anything got before the 2007 election. a proposal with three options for crossing and route.

No definite decision as to suspension/tunnel/cable, or route to whatever was decided, no contracts for design/construction commissioned, no attempt to undertake the planning issues involved, find the money, and more importantly, no attempt made to get a bill through Parliament. So, after the 12 years since a new bridge was first mooted in Westminster, two terms of a Lab/LibDem Scottish Executive, and the pressure applied by the Campaign for a new bridge in that time, we had a set of options by 2007...no decisions.......and then you and others are claiming that a decision was made by the Scottish Executive prior to the election, and the bridge had nothing to do with the SNP. Yeah, right! They could just as easily have decided, as the Labour Government in 1997 did, with the Tory proposition, to ignore the "decision" altogether. And they could have done this, because it wasn't a decision.....it was a set of possibilities on which to base a decision. And, to give the SNP their due....they accepted the report commissioned by the previous Scottish Executive as a basis for their own decisions, when they could just as easily have required a further report to make it all their own, but unlike the previous Scottish Executive, the SNP did understand that a new bridge was needed sooner rather than later.

It seems to me that the only decision made on the second Forth Crossing in the whole time the Scottish Executive existed from 199-2007 was not to make a decision........so they put off doing anything until they were obliged, by circumstances, to do something.........which, as Governments are wont to do, was to commission a study, to put off the evil day of actually having to decide on anything constructive......or, if one is going to be cynical, to have a useful, popular manifesto commitment for waving at the 2007 election...(because it worked so well for the Labour vote in the 2006 by-election, when Alistair Darling decided that the bridge was no longer a ridiculous idea...and Willie Rennie took the seat.).

The necessity for a bridge was decided in 1995 by the Scottish Office, though more for traffic management than safety reasons, and dithered over by the Scottish Executive until they were forced to do as little as possible.

By the way, the SNP did not choose the Scottish Executive's preferred option, but went for the cable-tied bridge, with financial approval in December 2007, although the design was changed in 2008 to make the bridge narrower and half as costly, with the intention of HGV traffic, as well as cars using that bridge. In 2009, while the various necessary procedures were taking place, the Edinburgh City Council called for a decision on whether or not to build a new bridge to be deferred until 2011, by which time it would be known whether or not the dehumidification work on the current bridge is successful..........so Labour still wasn't convinced of the necessity for a second crossing, even then. The Bill was introduced in November 2009, amid growing opposition from everybody who wasn't SNP, though mostly over cost......although the cost includes, afaik, the infrastructure connecting to the bridge.

Just think, if something had been done by a Labour Government in Westminster after 1997, under the Scottish Office.......or if something had been done and the Scottish Executive had made a decision after 1999, before starting to underspend and hand money back to Westminster....or in 2003, when they were still handing money back to Westminster, when a bridge was going to be £300 million..........or in 2005, when they handed about £250 million back to Westminster, when a bridge was going to cost £640 million, we wouldn't have been commissioning it after the financial crash, in the middle of austerity, and when Westminster was cutting our budget, which had to pay for it.............(because they wouldn't advance us any Scottish capital expenditure for some future years in order to help finance the new crossing, despite the £1.5 billion they had in their "handed back by the Scottish Executive" kitty) .......would we?

[cptdodger]

I have had this conversation elsewhere, with another set of rabid NO voters,

And that is where you lost me. To me the continual insults just show your lack of intelligence. You lost and that's the best you can come up with.

[bekisman]

I have to agree with cptdodger above ("I have had this conversation elsewhere, with another set of rabid NO voters, who, having won the referendum, have continually replaced their previous "Union GOOD - SNP BAD" with eternal "SNP BAD" posts.")
I take time to read your posts, but really oddquine there is NO need for such language, I am NOT rabid.. please tone down these insulting remarks.. let's keep these threads civilised..

[rob murray]

I have to agree with cptdodger above ("I have had this conversation elsewhere, with another set of rabid NO voters, who, having won the referendum, have continually replaced their previous "Union GOOD - SNP BAD" with eternal "SNP BAD" posts.")
I take time to read your posts, but really oddquine there is NO need for such language, I am NOT rabid.. please tone down these insulting remarks.. let's keep these threads civilised..

WIth or without a parliamentary enquiry in to the wheres and whats of the bridge scenario, the daily economic effects and disruptions will have some effect in next years election, people wont forget nor forgive, they'll make their own minds up

[cptdodger]

"Focused Inquiry to be held into Forth Bridge Closure"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-35112946

[rob murray]

"Focused Inquiry to be held into Forth Bridge Closure"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-35112946

Thats good, if its not the scottish governments fault then we will all know and accept the situation, until then theres so many stories / spins / counter stories etc its hard to know whats going on other than 1 The bridge is still standing 2 Its closed 3 We dont really impartially know why / what / when happened