You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
£3/4Bn not £3-4Bn. As in £750M. There is also the projected £4M annual loss.
Oh right.
Still seems a hell of a lot though, relatively.
http://www.edinburghtrams.com/index.php/route_map/ Take a look at that link if you want to see some absolute comedy gold. For those who arent local it will now start at Haymarket which is at the jumction of the A8 and the A70. The gray and white line that the tram follows for most of the route is the existing railway line.
The Forth Replacement Crossing was originally budgetted at £2 BN but is currently forecast to come in significantly under that original budget. It may well go over the current estimate but I doubt it will exceed the original budget. The scandal is not that it might go over budget or take longer than expected - that sort of thing is unfortunately expected with big capital infrastructure projects and should have been considered in the ROI calculations. The scandal is they are building a bridge which is already too small for the required capacity.
The scandal is they are building a new bridge at all!
The capacity is irrelevant - there is no room to get any more cars into edinburgh so a larger bridge just means larger queues to get into Edinburgh
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
£750 million for this??? Was gonna take a pic of where the track stops for no reason at the junction with Waverly bridge but just couldn't be arsed. It's literally just round the corner from St Andrews square though- what an utter shambles...
Epicsteve- Corstorphin resident unhappy with something? That'll be a first!! It won't run down Corstorphin road but can you imagine the outrage there would have been if it did! How would they have been able to drive to work if they were taking months (I'm guessing) digging up the road to instal the tracks??
Looking at the route tho, it's only about a 5 to 10 min walk from Corstophin rd isn't it? I suppose the fact that it only goes to Haymarket does render it pretty much useless for everyone, tourists and residents alike!! Unless your office is across the road from Haymarket that is!!
Interested to know where the bridge to nowhere is in Glasgow though? Is that the off ramp south of the Kingston bridge for what was orinally supposed to be where the m74 joined on? That's the only one I can think of.. Or possibly the pedestrian bridge that stretches over the northern end of the M8/Kingston bridge but only reaches the ground on one side?
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14713476 ]She's not singing yet...[/url]
althepal: your answer is probably on one of the best sites on the internet, pathetic motorways: http://pathetic.org.uk/
What's the expression "You've made your bed..."
Edinburgh council need to suck this up and complete the project. Stopping at Haymarket I mean WTF!!
The whole project is mired in incompetence and stupidity but to now not run it along Princes Street (where they already laid the tracks!!)
Not all infrastucture projects in Scotland need to be late and over budget, the M74 was on time and within budget
althepal: your answer is probably on one of the best sites on the internet, pathetic motorways: http://pathetic.org.uk
"Best sites on the internet", that's stretching it a bit
So to summarise, government spent a lot of money, new government don't want to spend that money, government can't decide where to stop and where to start trams, construction company do piss poor job then complain they need more money, Edinburgh complains, no one else cares because it's just Edinburgh complaining again.
And Japan can get a motorway back in service ten days after a Tsunami? go figure
"Best sites on the internet", that's stretching it a bit
On the contrary. It has a clear vision, a consistent tone, a decent user experience and interface, it is comprehensive on its subject, it has a snappy URL and it's free. What else do you want?
The scandal is they are building a new bridge at all!The capacity is irrelevant - there is no room to get any more cars into edinburgh so a larger bridge just means larger queues to get into Edinburgh
brilliant idea - close the arterial route to the north east of scotland. And how do you propose that traffic to and from the north east gets in and out of edinburgh? through dunfermline and over the kincardine bridge?
What else do you want?
A tinfoil hat so the paranoia rayguns don't get me
The scandal is they are building a new bridge at all!The capacity is irrelevant - there is no room to get any more cars into edinburgh so a larger bridge just means larger queues to get into Edinburgh
brilliant idea - close the arterial route to the north east of scotland. And how do you propose that traffic to and from the north east gets in and out of edinburgh? through dunfermline and over the kincardine bridge?
Thing is the current bridge is falling down so needs to be replaced. You aren't going to replace it with a shittier bridge are you?
Saw the tram lines near Murrayfield recently. Would make quite a nice cycle track if they scrap the project.
A question to people who live in Edinburgh, Why didn't they just put a spur off the railway line which runs right past the airport to a new station at the airport? (not trolling, just curious...seems like an obvious thing to do?)
there was such a project, called Edinburgh Airport Rail Link http://www.earlproject.com/
It was pulled by the SNP as they didn't want 2 large infrastructure projects serving the airport, sadly as it has turned out it would have provided the same route service and cheaper option in the end, who'da thunk it.
I think that wasting this much money on a pointless tram line should be a criminal offence and people responsible should be punished accordingly, it is an absolute farce.
And my understanding is the lines already laid on Princes St will not actually be removed, but they will replace the tarmac around them as they put the wrong stuff down but leave them there to be removed again at a later date?
Thing is the current bridge is falling down so needs to be replaced. You aren't going to replace it with a shittier bridge are you?
I think tj's argument was that the bridge shouldn't be replaced because it adds to congestion in Edinburgh.
Typical Little Englander attitude "nothing north of me matters"
Typical Little Englander attitude "nothing north of me matters"
Or maybe he just hadn't considered it... wind your neck in.
On a happier note, The Scottish Government has stepped it. After the SNP abstained from the cooncil vote, they're now throwing some weight around by withholding money:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14713476
Wunundredanwun! 😀
It's the New Wunundred... 8)
'Pathetic Motorways'; see, this is the beauty of tinternet, to bring you such joys of a website for arguing about mortorways! 😀
Thank you STW.
Typical Little Englander attitude "nothing north of me matters"
I think you'll find RichMTB ain't a 'little engurlander', but is actually a Scot.
I think you'll find the barb was aimed at TJ 🙂
The money spent achieving **** all in Edinburgh would have dualled the A9 to Inverness with plenty left over.
BigButSlimmerBloke - MemberThing is the current bridge is falling down so needs to be replaced. You aren't going to replace it with a shittier bridge are you?
I think tj's argument was that the bridge shouldn't be replaced because it adds to congestion in Edinburgh.
Typical Little Englander attitude "nothing north of me matters"
Nope. thats not my point at all - its that the new bridge is the wrong answer to the wrong question. Repair the existing one. Or build a different fixed link. We don't even know if the dehumidifying work is reducing breakage. Its a gentle decrease in load carrying ability anyway. It should be possible to repair the bridge anyway
A new bridge alongside the old one is no answer. all it will do is increase congestion south and north of it.
Newsnight scotland on the box tonight re. the trams. The first time I have ever shouted at a television. Party politics still getting in the way of project management I see....
The old road bridge is literally falling to bits - gaps in places where you can see to the water.
Once the new one is complete, the old one will be getting fixed.
Also, the old bridge will be used for public transport / taxis / bikes (eventually).
Konabunny, that's a cracking wee site.
The Glasgow ring road eh? Bonkers!
But Prob not as bonkers as a £1bn trainset!!
To be fair, that amount of money could prob have done a lot more than just dual ing the a9!!!
Who actually came up with this idea of bringing the trams back?, at some point someone in the council/government must have stuck their hand up and said "hang on a minute, I've got a great idea............."
Does this person still have a job?
Thing is the current bridge is falling down so needs to be replaced. You aren't going to replace it with a shittier bridge are you?
Kind of. It'll run £300 million over budget, then Labour will vote to have it terminate half way across the Forth.
I think you'll find the barb was aimed at TJ
I think it's a bit "off" when people make jabs at people based on who they are and not what they say.
Looks like we might be back to St Andrew Square again after all.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Dramatic-Uturn-by-SNP-will.6828345.jp
The whole thing is, in the words of Malcolm Tucker, an omnishambles. I won't believe we are getting a tram until I am sitting on a real moving one.
Althepal, the bridge to nowhere in Glasgow is the one that crosses above the M8 at the Charing Cross underpass.It now has a brown office block built on it.
Apparently it was never meant to be a road bridge but was intended to be the base for an office development. It sat unused for over 20 years.
There is a footbridge, level with the Hilton, that is also known as the bridge to nowhere. Wiki says that Sustrans hope to finish the bridge as part of an easier access route to the west end of the city centre. Danny MacAskill jumped off it in the S1 jobs.com advert.
Stucol, aye, I remember the bridge before it was an office- always thought it was supposed to be a flyover tho?
The Bridge to Nowhere is the Anderston Footbridge is it not? You know, the bridge that ends up in the sky as seen here http://www.computescotland.com/glasgows-bridge-to-somewhere-541.php
Nah - that at least as one end firmly on terra firma. The Bridge to Nowhere is the one which now has the office block on it.
I'm sure that's an urban myth.
What is?
That the bridge to nowhere is the one that has the office blocks built on it.
Seriously... the bridge supports and deck were there looooong before anyone got round to putting offices on it.
St Andrews Square it is.
One assumes they'll use the square for the (unplanned/uncosted) turning circle, in which case it'll be handy for the bus station and not too far from Waverley either.
Does it need a turning circle? I thought it could drive both ways
Why would the need a turning circle? Would it not be cheaper to fit the trams with a reverse gear? Wonder how much the trams will eventually cost...
One of the issues with the Haymarket proposal was that there was no turning circle. I'm guessing that it's also an issue of having multiple trams running up and down the line - they need to pass each other pass each other at some point. So, you either need a circle or an extension past the terminus with a set of points so the tram can switch lines?
As for the eventual cost......
I understand for their next trick Edinburgh Cooncil will be attempting to organise an alocohol free trip to a brewery.
i'm an idiot.
Small mercies an all that.
Such a shambles and it could have been great if not for an awful lot of what ifs over the last 6/7 years.
I really hope they succeed and eventually get expanded to the original full vision (preferably with better controlled costs). I know there are alternatives that would have been prefered but it's too late for that now, so lets embrace what we (will, hopefully, eventually) have.
Fingers crossed the replacement bridge will get a re-think and made into something fit for purpose before it gets too far down the line and too late to change...
Fingers crossed the replacement bridge will get a re-think and made into something fit for purpose before it gets too far down teh line and too late to change
Are you able to explain why you consider FRC is not fit for purpose?
It won't get a rethink, contracts have been signed for Main Crossing, Junction 1A and Fife ITS.
Hopefully the new bridge will be cancelled. Its too expensive, it will cause great congestion north and south and its not needed. repair the old bridge instead.
it will cause great congestion
How'd you figure that? Why should it be any more congestion than current setup?
EDIT - agree with you on the expensive bit BTW.
Because there will be two bridges not one - but the same bottlenecks further north and south.
Its shown time and time again that this sort of project increases congestion - it does not relieve it
They are already building the new bridge.
Move house.
Its too expensive, it will cause great congestion north and south and its not needed. repair the old bridge instead.
It's not too expensive. It's capital funded with ring fenced infrastructure cash and came in considerably under budget.
It is needed because the existing bridge is coming to the end of its useable life and will be dispoportionately expensive to maintain beyond that point.
Any "additional" congestion will be relieved by J1A project.
Of course its too expensive. "Came in under budget" - its not been built yet. Its not needed anyway so its wasted money.
We will not even know for a while yet if the dehumidifying of the old bridge will work - and even if it does not then the old bridge could be repaired for far less than the cost of the new bridge. There is no proposal to remove the old bridge anyway
As for congestion - when we have two bridges where is the extra traffic generated going to go? All the roads south of it are full already.
Its a huge white elephant
It is needed because the existing bridge is coming to the end of its useable life and will be dispoportionately expensive to maintain beyond that point
Isnt the party line, that they do not actually know the lifespan/condition of the existing bridge and if they wait until they do know then it will take too long to build the new crossing?
To think that there will be 4 traffic bridges crossing the Forth seems a bit crazy.
Hey dont worry about all of the extra congestion when the complete the tram network all of the commuters will just use the bridge to get to the new tram stop..... 😆 🙄 😆
Jackrabbit - I did, I used to live in Rosyth 😀
Peterfile - I'm of the opinion that replacing the current bridge with one with exactly the same capacity is short sighted. I think one with additional carriageways and possibly the second rail deck would be a wiser solution. Although I am aware of the arguments about increasing capacity increasing congestion so i'm not really sure what the solution should be.
I actually liked the guy from South Q'ferry's idea of a sunken tube (fabricated in the shipyard in Rosyth) tunnel, but realise that it wasn't really a viable option.
To be fair since moving back into Ed and no longer having to commute across the bridge I haven't kept up with progress. I hope that some sort of wind protection is included in the plans as having to divert via Kincardine, albeit not very often, was a total 'mare and the number of high sided vehicles which choose to ignore the high wind warnings is shocking and a disaster waiting to happen.
I think they should call in the Fifth Bridge - well it makes me smile at least and is less of a mouthful than Forth Replacement Crossing 😀
extra traffic generated
How do you know there will be extra traffic generated? Or are you just assuming?
Of course its too expensive. "Came in under budget" - its not been built yet. Its not needed anyway so its wasted money.
Is this based on your vast experience of working on similar bridge projects around the world, or something you read in the Scottish media?
We will not even know for a while yet if the dehumidifying of the old bridge will work - and even if it does not then the old bridge could be repaired for far less than the cost of the new bridge. There is no proposal to remove the old bridge anyway
It's not as simple as repairing the existing bridge. The design of it means that it would have to be closed or traffic greatly reduced in order to carry out the required works. This has significant cost implications beyond the direct repair costs.
The exsiting bridge will be used as a public transport route.
As for congestion - when we have two bridges where is the extra traffic generated going to go? All the roads south of it are full already.
Have you seen the traffic modelling for the new bridge? I don't remember spotting any issues with all the "extra traffic generated" having nowhere to go?
Its a huge white elephant
Same could be said about every major infrastructure project in the UK. We are generally very negative about anything that doesn't appear to give a benefit that is instantly obvious.
Totally different mentality in other EU states, and UAE. In fact even in Africa, where the public deals are generally considered completely and utterly corrupt, there is less distain.
Dazzzliongboy - its what always happens with new roads.
Totally different mentality in other EU states
+1 - why is everything new like this "a bad thing".
Back to horses and carts all round?
its what always happens with new roads.
But is the new bridge generating the extra traffic or some other factor?
Could be, among other things, crap public transport links; rising cost of public transport; lower house prices in Fife - you name it.
I'm not sure the argument of "it always happens" is much of an argument tbh. Maybe the traffic will rise, but could be due to a hundred reasons.
Peterfile - are you claiming that the new bridge will be cheaper than repairing the old one?
Of course it would cause issues to repair the existing one - but that is the sensible way to go. Plan for it, get a increaed park and ride over the rail bridge, improve the route to kincardine etc etc
As for increased congestion - where do you think the extra traffic wil go? All new road projects increase traffic. there is nowhere for this increased traffic to go at rush hour - the roads into Edinburgh are full, the Edinburgh bypass is full, the M8 is full.
I think the reason public building projects are treated with such disdain in this country is to do with the total arse that seems to be made in realising them. The trams and parliment are just two examples and they're both in Edinburgh.
Whereas that bridge in France I can never remember the name of came in early and under budget.
Is it just other countries set budgets and time scales at more realistic levels that allow for some contingency or do contractors in this country under quote in order to get contracts or are contracts better written elsewhere? - that's a genuine question as I don't understand how we seem to be consistently poor at seeing through large capital projects.
where do you think the extra traffic wil go
sorry I'm still not with you here - what extra traffic?
lower house prices in Fife - you name it.
This has to be a factor, I know quite a few people (obviously not a statistically relevant survey) that either have or are planning to move to Fife because you get a hell of a lot more for your money.
Look at the size of Duloch Pk now comparedto a couple of years ago!
Peterfile - are you claiming that the new bridge will be cheaper than repairing the old one?
Again it's not as simple as that. There is no way to predict the remaining life cycle repairs and additional repairs required to the existing bridge.
Even if it was quantifiable in a basic cost of repair v new bridge construction basis, you have to look at the political issues. Scottish Ministers have an obligation to ensure continued provision of infrastructure, they have dedicated budget.
If FRC had never been proposed, all we would have is people from Edinburgh whinging about how the repair works to the existing bridge were causing them to be 30 mins late for work every day and it was a stupid idea to repair such an old bridge with an unknow lifespan.
Of course it would cause issues to repair the existing one - but that is the sensible way to go. Plan for it, get a increaed park and ride over the rail bridge, improve the route to kincardine etc etc
You wouldn't believe the amount of work that was carried out and various models mooted, every conceivable option was considered, it took years. Of course there are other options, but a decision had to be made, and on the basis of the criteria SM were working to (i.e. cost and continued provision of road access etc), FRC was the one that came out top.
As for increased congestion - where do you think the extra traffic wil go? All new road projects increase traffic. there is nowhere for this increased traffic to go at rush hour - the roads into Edinburgh are full, the Edinburgh bypass is full, the M8 is full.
Again, it's all be modelled and remodelled and then remodelled again. Whilst generated journey predictions are never 100% accurate, bridge projects are hardly unique, so the maths behind it is pretty sound. It will be fine, trust me 😉
dazzlingboy - the extra traffic that will be generated - this happens with road infrastructure projects such as this. Allways.
The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible.
http://stopthepave.org/why-building-roads-doesnt-ease-congestion
Peterfile =- waht alternative universe do you live in?
Its a vanity project pure and simple.
It will cause massive congestion south of the bridge and probably north as well.
Every infrastructure project of this sort always ends up in increased congestion
Is it just other countries set budgets and time scales at more realistic levels that allow for some contingency or do contractors in this country under quote in order to get contracts or are contracts better written elsewhere? - that's a genuine question as I don't understand how we seem to be consistently poor at seeing through large capital projects.
This is a VERY interesting question and one which is actually being discussed at the moment across the EU.
IMO, the political issues faced on major PPP projects in this country and high costs associated with tenderering result in poor value for money.
A rework of the way contracts are negotiated and awarded (e.g the procurement process)is required.
Most competitions are run under the competitive dialogue process at the moment, which is, quite frankly, utterly inefficient and expensive.
Some form of lighter weight negotiated procedure would be FAR more useful and cost effective, leading to lower bid costs and a contract which is generally more fit for purpose.
Induced demand. You can't build your way out of congestion.
PS STW synchronicity:
Peterfile =- waht alternative universe do you live in?
This is a VERY interesting question and one which is actually being discussed at the moment across the EU.
😉
its what always happens with new roads.
tj, i doff my cap - the quality of your shite just gets better and better
Bigbutslimmer bloke - but it does. New roads = increased congestion almost allways - see M25 for the best example but all other new road projects I know of increased congestion.
but it does.
yes, and i never thought it possible. it is with baited breath that i await your next verbal bowel dump. if it was the real thing, i'm sure there would be a call to the coastguard to alert shipping
You can ignore facts if you want. Even the UK government acknowledges this
But the trams are going to cross the new bridge arn't they...?
no no no, there will be a bus interchange where you get a bus to the bridge, then you will climb the towers to use the huge zip line which will transport goods and services in relative safety to the other side.
because we don't need a bridge to cross the forth.
apparently.
says tj who must be agreed with
unless you're in hr then expect a grovelling apology
actually that sounds pretty good, i might be all for that 😀
I see it was trialled on the Clyde
[img] 
[/img]
BigButSlimmerBloke
do you ever bother to read what people write of just make snidey little attacks?
I want the existing bridge repaired at a cost of 100 million not a new bridge for 20 times that sum