Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th December 2009

MSPs to probe £2bn cost of new road bridge over Forth

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 October 2009
TWO Scottish Parliament committees are to investigate why the new Forth crossing will be one of the world's most expensive bridges.
Both the transport and finance committees are to look at how Transport Scotland have calculated the cost at around £2 billion

Transport committee convener Patrick Harvie said he is "immensely sceptical" about the price tag put on the project.

Edinburgh's transport leader Gordon Mackenzie today welcomed plans to scrutinise the cost further but said he has no "undue concern" about the current cost.

The former UK Conservative Government proposed a bridge across the Forth with similar traffic capacity in the mid 1990s that would have cost £300 million.

But Transport Scotland's cost estimates suggest that the project will now cost nearly eight times that amount – between £1.7bn and £2.3bn.

Mr Harvie, who is a Scottish Green Party MSP, said: "I am immensely sceptical about Transport Scotland's figures. I don't recall a single cost estimate they have made that has turned out to be correct."

He claimed that the system used by the agency for calculating the "optimism bias" – or insurance against its own failure to cost the project correctly – was "as accurate as sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing".

David Whitton, a Labour member of the finance committee, also said that ministers will be required to come before the committee and face "close questions" about the costs. He said: "We don't know why it costs as much when compared to similar structures, and there is no clear explanation so far as to why it should be two or three times more than other bridges."

The £1.7bn-£2.3bn bill for the project consists of £777m of construction costs, a £1.14bn "uplift" for the cost of capital used for the project and inflation over the course of the five-and-a-half year project. A £95m "risk allowance" is also added, alongside a £178m "optimism bias".

A recent study showed that the average cost of major road bridges around the world was less than £200,000 a metre. The new Forth Road Bridge is priced at around £750,000 a metre – one of the world's most expensive bridge projects.

The city council has previously said that plans for the new crossing should be put off until 2011, when it will be known whether dehumidification work on the existing bridge has successfully extended its lifespan.

Today, Councillor Mackenzie welcomed news of the two committee's plans to further scrutinise costs.

He said: "Obviously any major infrastructure project has to be well-governed and the costs scrutinised before you embark on the project. That happened with the tram project and I'm sure it will happen with the Forth Bridge. There is nothing wrong with that; it is good governance to do that.

"I'm sure the parliament will have a close look to ensure that it is best value for money and that all the costs that are included are known about."

He also shrugged off analysis that showed the new crossing could be one of the world's most expensive bridges, pointing out that the costs include infrastructure works around the bridge.

He added: "As time goes on and standards go up, costs do go up. I wouldn't read anything into that either. It bears further scrutiny but I don't think that (price] is something that gives me undue concern. If we have a second bridge, the important thing is that we get it right."

A spokesman for Transport Scotland said: "The requirements of the bridge mean it will feature large spans, significantly larger than other comparable structures, which have to be constructed in a marine environment across important shipping lanes.

"These and other important factors – such as inflation, land costs and the amount of new connecting roads – all contribute to the cost, making superficial comparisons with other bridges misleading."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 October 2009 1:05 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

,

12/10/2009 11:54:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Xena - Warrior Princess,

12/10/2009 11:57:20
We should have a TUNNEL - no more bridges closed due to high winds!
3

Daniel9633,

School 12/10/2009 12:07:53
£750,000 a metre what the hell are they building it out of ... gold ????
4

,

12/10/2009 12:08:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Foo,

12/10/2009 12:09:03
We should have a see through tunnel so every car journey is not only efficient, but educational too.
6

,

12/10/2009 12:09:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

It's Leith for me!,

12/10/2009 12:15:35
you know that stuning French bridge that was completed a wee while ago – the one in the ‘sky’ designed by Norman Foster – much longer, more complicated, and better looking – called the Millau Viaduct – cost 394 million euros (when there was still 1 & half euros to the pound)– so why does a pokey wee two lane concrete lump cost 2 billion quid when done in Scotland?

and while they're checking the costs why not compare the Edinburgh tram line cost with Paris's whole tram network - forget independance, lets just become part of France- save us a fortune!
8

JamboMowg,

12/10/2009 12:21:57
UK Goverment + new crossing requirement = corruption

Surely not

Start digging the tunnel, it makes sense
9

gggrumpy,

12/10/2009 12:24:34
Did we not build a Forth road bridge not long ago?

And its already knackered!

Why build another one which will be equally useless in fifty years?

Bridges need to be closed in bad weather and maintenance costs are horrific. A tunnel may be more expensive in the short term but in the long term its the only sensible option.

We can then leave future generations a worthwhile legacy instead of leaving them constant bills for our previous short term negligence.
10

Sarcasm,

12/10/2009 12:25:37
Why does it cost £2b.
Probably for similar reasons that it takes two Scottish Parliament committees look into it.
11

fresian,

12/10/2009 12:33:57
"Mackenzie welcomed news of the two committee's plans to further scrutinise costs."

Pity he wasn't so keen to have the tram costs scrutinised.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 12:37:16
How many Scottish Parliament Committees does it take to change a light bulb?

Any ideas?
13

Anonymoose,

12/10/2009 12:40:23
#2 You're right, we should have a tunnel. And it should be to the East of the city.
That would relieve pressure on the city bypass and it could be prefabricated and installed relatively cheaply.
14

Foo,

12/10/2009 12:40:45
#12

None, only third party fully trained light bulb replacement technicians can change a light bulb, at a cost of £200 per bulb.
15

digestive biscuits returns,

12/10/2009 12:42:34
At £2 billion, it would surely be cheaper to buy everyone James Bond type cars that will work on/under water as well as on land. You could even have ejector seats fitted. And other stuff.
16

Mince Pie Supper,

12/10/2009 12:48:54
4

It's Manillia!
17

Mince Pie Supper,

12/10/2009 12:49:06
Manilla
18

eric,

lothian 12/10/2009 12:49:27
Feel free to probe as much as you like.
19

PandaFlesh,

12/10/2009 12:50:04
bridges have their strong points and their weak spots ... I think the biggest weak spot is the current economic climate ... so the winds will blow cold on this one!!
20

Mince Pie Supper,

12/10/2009 12:53:02
Commission the guy who designed the Bridge on Michael Jackson's nose.

It may be cheaper.
21

jim_1_bob,

12/10/2009 12:53:11
#2 A tunnel would cost a lot more money and have greater environmental impacts.

7# Do you know the bridge you are talking about? I think not. The new Forth bridge will be longer than the Millau Viaduct with longer spans and more roads and junctions leading to it. The new bridge will also be over something called the Firth of Forth which is a big body of water and is more difficult to build in than building on land and will look almost identical, both are made of concrete and steel and both are cable stay bridges

#13 A tunnel to the East of the City? Are you joking? You think replacing a 2.5km bridge with a 10-15km tunnel would be cheaper? Get real
22

Pond Hall,

12/10/2009 12:55:32
12 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,Edinburgh 12/10/2009 12:37:16
How many Scottish Parliament Committees does it take to change a light bulb?

well the committee that decides how mnay committees is meeting as we speak...
23

,

12/10/2009 12:57:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Rugal,

12/10/2009 13:03:21
£2bn? You could build two Edinburgh tram lines for that.

What a pity these MSPs didn't scrutinise the half a tram line in Edinburgh before the forced it upon us.

25

Salvatori,

12/10/2009 13:16:38
14 - Plus a "turn up to work" bonus ;)
26

Crivvens,

12/10/2009 13:19:25
#21 in actual fact a tunnel would be cheaper to construct and have less ongoing maintenance costs including the costs of bridge being closed during high winds. See the Norwegian undersea tunnel built for a fraction of the costs per km
27

It's Leith for me!,

12/10/2009 13:19:49
#21 Hey Jim - are getting some of these Filipino envelopes - you seem very supportive of the £2billion bridge?
28

Porty Pirate,

The Beach 12/10/2009 13:24:10
East of city tunnel is a great idea - if it started at Ocean Terminal you could get a tram all the way to Fife!
29

Vic,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 13:43:09
Isn't sticking your finger in the air a rather good way of telling which way the wind is blowing?

As long as you wet it first, of course.
30

Daniel9633,

Lunch 12/10/2009 13:46:32
S-H-L-O-N-G
31

Edward,

12/10/2009 14:52:54
Let me think, considering al transport tendering is arranged by Transport Scotland
I think that its Transport Scotland i not really fit for purpose
Then it was set up by Labour during there term inoffice so it doesnt com as ny surprise
32

digestive biscuits returns,

12/10/2009 14:58:07
do what ?
33

FF,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 15:19:43
#21 The Norwegians do seem to be able to build tunnels vastly cheaper than anyone else. Not sure how they do it. Their tunnels have a nasty habit of collapsing, though.
34

FF,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 15:46:02
Noticed some figures for the Oresund link connecting Denmark and Sweden, which consists of both a bridge and a tunnel. The 4km tunnel cost DKK 4 billion and the 10km DKK 6 billion. So for that project at least the bridge was cheaper per km.
35

NorT,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 16:18:29
How come somebody like Patrick Harvie with his deep disgust of cars and his anti road policy was allowed to be chair of the Trasnport Committee. Somebody made a mistake here.
36

archie12,

12/10/2009 16:26:56
So Transport committees are having an investigation into the cost of the proposed bridge ....... but are happy for £500m (so far) of Scotland's money to be poured into the dreadful Edinburgh Tram project without barely a quetsion? Defies understanding.
37

Hornby should build the tramline,

Harburn Hobbies shop window 12/10/2009 16:41:25
Don't panic, once coal trains are diverted via Stirling and Alloa, another four passenger trains per hour can use the 119-year old (and still perfectly fine, given the odd coat of paint) rail bridge. If everyone used the train, which would cross the bridge 16 times per hour by my reckoning [both directions] then we would have no need for a new road bridge.

Also, do we really need a completely new bridge? did Jimi Hendrix buy a new guitar when his stopped working? No, he just bought new strings! Why can't the same be done for the Forth Road bridge..?
38

Hornby should build the tramline,

12/10/2009 16:47:11
when i say 16 times per hour, i mean 8 in each direction, in case some unfamiliar souls may have thought First Scotrail would ever send a train to Fortress Fife every 3 minutes 45 seconds!
39

Ben Thehoose,

12/10/2009 17:14:01
That Green MSP should shut up. As a sailor I can tell him that a wetted finger in the air is a very reliable way to tell the wind direction. The burgee is better, of course.

As to the so-and-so road bridge, some of us have been saying all along that a causeway is in every respect the best option and a billion cheaper.
40

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 17:48:10
#35 - Audit Scotland did not scrutinise the tram costs.
41

Lang Spoon,

Leithtenstein 12/10/2009 17:52:04
As I have remarked ad nauseum, the reason a bridge is proposed has nothing to do with economic realities or indeed common sense, it is simply politicians vanity.
They can point at it and go on about "world class, cutting edge, iconic" etc etc, something they can show off.
(In case it is not obvious, I'm a tunnel man!)
42

FF,

Edinburgh 12/10/2009 18:02:30
#39. That's the key point: no-one's asking if we actually need a second crossing. Supposedly it's as a replacement for the existing bridge that is possibly falling down. But we don't know if it is.

Also, it appears from this article -edinburghnews.scotsman.com/forthbridges/Just-2-bids-for-bridge.5689830.jp - that contractors aren't exactly champing at the bit to take on this supposedly inflated project. Perhaps they know something all these people referred to in today's article don't know.
43

Hornby should build the tramline,

12/10/2009 18:23:24
#45 - unless the entire concrete structure is predicted to fail,then a program to replace the cables to enhance the bridge's lifespan is certainly an option which the non-engineering-minded bigwigs have completely overlooked. And i doubt the above scenario, otherwise it would be closed NOW given that concrete as an engineering material is very brittle, and any signs of creep or fatigue is a terrific alarm bell in anything made of concrete!

Given the advances in materials science since 1964, I'm sure it would be possible to replace the cables which have so often caused problems, (and been used as a scaremongering tactic for a new bridge) therefore being a significantly cheaper alternative.

No need to redesign the bridge's approach road networks, which are already fairly bollocksed up at present.
44

James (1),

12/10/2009 22:42:42
#12 only one person from the committee ! Mind you if it is one of those big lighthouse bulbs then it might take two of the members as they a big and quite a handful.

I think we have come to the realistic price because the Scottish Parliament was a finger burner and the Tram line will also burn our fingers if it ever gets finished. So giving a realistic figure at the start shows the public what it will actually cost THEM. Mind you the tram line would never have got going if they had showed the real final cost.
45

AIasdair,

13/10/2009 08:13:05
#43, GraemeH - don't try and reason with that buffoon.

Look:
http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Council-leader-stokes-row-over.5709259.jp
As post #38 in this thread demonstrates, "shoogles" is not really from Leith... he is actually Joe Curry; local weirdo and pathological liar.
He variously posts as:
"Joe, Livingston",
"Joe, Relugas Road",
"Front Street, Relugas Road"
and now:
"Shoogles, Leith"
In that thread, maintaining his recent alias was too much for his addled cranium, and he accidentally posted as "shoogles, Relugas Road".

He's the one that's always on here posting about how EDI is the best airport in the world ever, how the SNP aren't to be trusted on anything ever, and how there's a "West Coast conspiricy" involved in everything bad ever... the guy is certifiable.
46

Climate change is real,

Edinburgh 13/10/2009 09:09:53
Yes poster 46, there have been advances in materials science since 1964.

At the moment the existing cables are being dried out to halt the corrosion. The Bridgemaster is highly confident that this will stop the corrosion. It has worked on 16 other bridges and the Firth of Forth doesn't seem to be so unique that it will not work here. If it works the existing bridge will be capable of lasting for the designed 120 years.

Even if this doesn't work new cables can be put up above, alongside or replacing the existing ones. Those are the three options which have been considered. This work can be done as quickly as building an extra bridge. With some of the options there would be no large scale road closures while the work was being done. The cost is estimated as £91 to £122 million.

Politicians were bounced into a hasty decision to approve an extra bridge before we knew whether there was a problem with the old one. The money for this campaign was largely the taxpayer's, spent by Fife Council and various "development" organisations on lobbying. The campaign told politicians that the existing bridge was about to fall down and Fife would be cut off, at least by lorry, in a few years. However, not one of the drawings of the "replacement" crossing has shown the gap where the current Forth Road Bridge once was before it was knocked down, as would be the case with a replacement bridge. It has always been an additional bridge, officials know that the existing one is not going to be allowed to fall down. Calling the proposed bridge a replacement is just one of the many lies put out by the politicians and officials.

There is chapter and verse at http://archive.transformscotland.org.uk/campaigns/FRA/docs/2008-12_FRA_briefing.pdf





47

carfree,

14/10/2009 13:13:22
A tunnel under the forth will cost much more and to replace the cables on the current bridge would mean effectively rebuilding the bridge.

Now 2bn is a ridiculous amount of money. But guaranteed with the anti public transport zeitgeist of this city we'll fool ourselves into thinking that it's money worth spent.

Here's some better ideas on how the money could be spent...

- A new off-road tram route to the south of edinburgh (via the old south suburban line, Very easy, cheap and non disruptive to do).

- Copenhagenize Edinburgh (The council seems to like to think we're Copenhagen's little sister, except Cyclists are treated like target practice.

- A decent transport link to Livingston (The only town with two stations that are nowhere near the shops. EVEN AN EXPRESS BUS WOULD DO!)

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Would you support the return of tolls to fund a new Forth Road Bridge?
No, it should be paid for in the same way as other roads.
Yes, it’s fairer for users to bear the brunt of the cost.
Yes, as long as it was only for a fixed amount of time.


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.