Forth Replacement Crossing

[C83]

The decision to not have free flow connections to the existing FRB does seem short sighted and I suspect that in a few years time there will be an expensive project to build these, possibly at the same time as the M90 is widened to 3 lanes as far as the A92 split. The M8 being 2 lanes is equally silly but there doesn't seem to be any rush to improve this and most of the next 10 years worth of spending is already tied up.

[HandShandy]

You obviously haven't been paying attention then because Transport for Scotland have published a significant amount information relating to the M80 upgrade over recent years and they are quite clear in what they say - namely the reason upgrade WAS scaled back was so there would be no to increase overall capacity of the M80 corridor.

You also haven't been paying attention because I said "I'm not a proclaimed expert on the M80...". So I'm sorry if I don't live up to your expected standards of wisdom. "Transport for Scotland" I'm sure you mean Transport Scotland, and "significant amount of information" you are talking about in regards to the M80 upgrade was actually provided by the Scottish Executive (A previous administration) and not Transport Scotland in this post by Wrinkly:

Back in about 2002 or thereabouts I saw Scottish government documents online saying that the reason for reducing the proposed standards for the M80 was to avoid encouraging long-distance car commuting. I've no idea whether they're still online - probably not, after so long.

Edit: try this.

Unless of course you have more recent documents, in which case I would love to see them. I will admit I have been called out on this one as I've never seen that document before. So thanks to Wrinkly for providing that, it made for some good reading. Case solved for me!

[Nwallace]

The decision to not have free flow connections to the existing FRB does seem short sighted and I suspect that in a few years time there will be an expensive project to build these, possibly at the same time as the M90 is widened to 3 lanes as far as the A92 split. The M8 being 2 lanes is equally silly but there doesn't seem to be any rush to improve this and most of the next 10 years worth of spending is already tied up.

But if the FRB is to be for PT, Pedestrians, Cycles, Learners and trams only then traffic levels on it will be pretty low, and none of them really need the free flow...

Also if the road is being designed with a capacity limit on the concept that it will (hopefully) prevent traffic growth then any widening is unlikely to happen unless either of the 2 political parties likely to run Scotland in the next 1000000 years have a change of transport policy.

[griffmaster]

The decision to not have free flow connections to the existing FRB does seem short sighted and I suspect that in a few years time there will be an expensive project to build these, possibly at the same time as the M90 is widened to 3 lanes as far as the A92 split. The M8 being 2 lanes is equally silly but there doesn't seem to be any rush to improve this and most of the next 10 years worth of spending is already tied up.

Spot on regarding the M8 and M90, 2 lanes are just laughable. On my travels the M8 is either a car park or else its the 50mph club any time between 7am and 7pm. Once the FRC is finished I suspect more gridlock at the already busy junctions such as A90/A902, A8/A720 and M8/M9 merge etc and as you say there is no money left.

[Halmyre]

The decision to not have free flow connections to the existing FRB does seem short sighted and I suspect that in a few years time there will be an expensive project to build these, possibly at the same time as the M90 is widened to 3 lanes as far as the A92 split. The M8 being 2 lanes is equally silly but there doesn't seem to be any rush to improve this and most of the next 10 years worth of spending is already tied up.

Sorry to bang on about this again but - I'd happily settle for a crawler lane northbound on the M90 between Masterton and Kelty. Where's the sense in having a dedicated bus lane when it's lying empty 99.9% of the time?

[Gav]

They should run the road with hard shoulder running for HGV's on that section. Get the road capacity up and you improve the experience for those using this section of road on a regular basis.

Id like to see the bridge properly utilised I believe its to be D2M with hardshoulders why not turn it into an AP D3 style and then ensure that the road either side of the bridge is geared to D3 - south to the M90 A90 split and north to the M90 A92 split ?

Remember buses will be using the old bridge so no need for bus lanes on the new bridge !
They should have free flowed the old bridge approach on the south side and then looked at letting all buses taxis and other vehicles with permits to utilise the old bridge. Also with any incidents on the new bridge traffic could be diverted to the old bridge until the issue was cleared. No interruption to traffic flows at peak times unless you were unfortunate enough to have two incidents at the same time.

If we have the infrastructure available then use it and ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the investment

[hoagy_ytfc]

Where's the sense in having a dedicated bus lane when it's lying empty 99.9% of the time?

Isn't that kinda the point of a bus lane? That it's normally empty, so when a bus comes along it can sail through?

[michael769]

Isn't that kinda the point of a bus lane? That it's normally empty, so when a bus comes along it can sail through?

Indeed.unfortunately sailing through is not what buses do. Certainly in Edinburgh what seems to happen is that half a dozen buses arrive at once and then proceed to get in each other's way so much that the traffic in the other lanes still makes better progress even during congested peak hours, so much so that you often see bus drivers preferring to take their chances in the main traffic than use the lanes.

[stuartf]

Isn't that kinda the point of a bus lane? That it's normally empty, so when a bus comes along it can sail through?

Most of the buses using the Forth Road Bridge stop at Ferry Toll or Dunfermline, and therefore are off the A90/M90 almost immediately north of the bridge, so having a dedicated bus lane up to Junction 3 seems totally pointless to me. If a bus lane is empty because there are no buses, that is not a triumph of bus lane provision, it's a total waste of money.

[tractorman]

Remember buses will be using the old bridge so no need for bus lanes on the new bridge !

That might be the plan, but because the routes for buses to access the existing bridge, particularly in the northbound direction, are so convoluted and time consuming, it will be quicker for those buses which do not serve the stops at either end of the existing bridge, to use the new crossing.

This is just typical of the incompetence of Transport Scotland.

The organisation is populated by Yes men who do not have the balls to stand up to their political masters. As a result, the proposed road layout at either end of the new bridge is a complete shambles. A five year old could have designed a better layout.

With regards to progress on the construction of the new bridge, it looks painfully slow. There is an awful lot of plant and equipment sitting around doing nothing for long periods of time. I think it is highly unlikely that the new bridge will open in 2016 as advertised.

[Gav]

The problem I believe is the complications of the south approaches and the possibility of increased weaving. To try and deal with the A90 merge to the end of the M90 and then the approach to the new bridge along with the B800 overbridge it all makes for a very busy section of road....

Id look at providing an exit from the M90 before the A90 interchange - bring this up and have an off slip from the A90 merge with this new slip and bring it up to the B800. Have a proper roundabout and then north of the A90 bridge have another roundabout. Merge the old bridge approach to this roundabout and remove the old B800 roundabout interchange south of the existing bridge.

[tractorman]

The problem I believe is the complications of the south approaches and the possibility of increased weaving. To try and deal with the A90 merge to the end of the M90 and then the approach to the new bridge along with the B800 overbridge it all makes for a very busy section of road....

Id look at providing an exit from the M90 before the A90 interchange - bring this up and have an off slip from the A90 merge with this new slip and bring it up to the B800. Have a proper roundabout and then north of the A90 bridge have another roundabout. Merge the old bridge approach to this roundabout and remove the old B800 roundabout interchange south of the existing bridge.

The problem is that the job is being done on the cheap. It is a complete farce that the proposed layout does not allow free flow of traffic to both new and old bridges.

The policy of restricting the existing bridge to public transport only is flawed. As soon as the travelling public starts to experience delays on the new bridge there will be calls to reopen the existing bridge to other traffic. Of course, if you believe Transport Scotland there will be no delays as it is a managed motorway - what a joke!!!!!!

The problem that we have now is that Transport Scotland have gone too far down the wrong path and won't admit the error of their ways.

[hoagy_ytfc]

...I think it is highly unlikely that the new bridge will open in 2016 as advertised.

Where were they scheduled to be at this point in time?

ISTM that building the caissons then foundations are a time-consuming task without a lot of visible progress, by definition.

[cb a1]

This is just typical of the incompetence of Transport Scotland.

The organisation is populated by Yes men who do not have the balls to stand up to their political masters.

We live in a democracy. You may wish it were a technocracy or meritocracy, but it ain't.

Every public sector organisation must adhere to the decisions made by those who we elect as those we elect are the ACCOUNTABLE people.

If our politicians say "replace the Forth Road Bridge with an S2 bridge", then that is what gets built. It is then for us to make our voices heard by the politicians, be it through petitions, demonstrations or the ballot box. There's no point whining at the bureaucrats that we don't want an S2 bridge - they rightly do as they're told (and if they don't, they'll be shuffled off to another job and replaced with someone who will do what they're told - just like in any private sector company).

[Gav]

The southern approach ? How will it be left ? They said that they want to be able to use the bridge as an alternative if so then how do you properly align the road with the new layout.

The southern approach is very complicated - you have the B900 sitting ontop of the A90 and to the east you have the A90 M90 interchange and to the east you have the old bridge approach. I find it hard to believe that they are leaving it the way that they are when it really wouldnt take much to sort it out. Id make the new bridge three lanes and Id have active traffic management on it - if there is an incident its captured on cctv and they clear it there and then. No waiting for post crash incident analysis. keep the bridge free flowing.

We have the infrastructure there between the new bridge and the old bridge so why now make best use of it. The north approaches have the old bridge properly connected in a manner that supports ease of traffic flow. So sort out the south. 1 bridge it all it would take and provide a way to get off of the A90 and on to the old bridge approach. Provide a slip from the northbound M90 to remove weaving and keep the flows organised.

Just now south off the old bridge you have to exit at the roundabout and turn right and then back onto the A90 at the new bridge interchange if you are going for the M90 to the M9.

What about even removing the old roundabout and have a surface junction then realign the road and merge it in to the new A90 alignment.

Really it cant be left as it is can it ?

[tractorman]

The north approaches have the old bridge properly connected in a manner that supports ease of traffic flow.

I'm afraid not. When the new bridge is completed you can only access the old bridge southbound from the M90 by coming off the motorway to the Ferrytoll Roundabout and then back up the sliproad to access the old bridge. Of course you won't actually be able to do this unless you are a bus, taxi, motorcycle under 50cc, etc.

[Nwallace]

Of course you won't actually be able to do this unless you are a bus, taxi, motorcycle under 50cc, etc.

No should you, that bridge is no longer for you if you're not in the classes permitted on the bridge...

[michael769]

Of course you won't actually be able to do this unless you are a bus, taxi, motorcycle under 50cc, etc.

No should you, that bridge is no longer for you if you're not in the classes permitted on the bridge...

You will, though if the new bridge is closed for any reason which does not close the existing bridge.

[Phil]

The problem is that the job is being done on the cheap. It is a complete farce that the proposed layout does not allow free flow of traffic to both new and old bridges.

The policy of restricting the existing bridge to public transport only is flawed. As soon as the travelling public starts to experience delays on the new bridge there will be calls to reopen the existing bridge to other traffic. Of course, if you believe Transport Scotland there will be no delays as it is a managed motorway - what a joke!!!!!!

The problem that we have now is that Transport Scotland have gone too far down the wrong path and won't admit the error of their ways.

If the public experiences delays on the 'new' bridge then they will be told exactly the same as now, i.e. "It's your own fault you should be using the park & ride / train option"

What you and quite a few others seem to be forgetting is the whole reason for building the new bridge was the impending structural failure of the old NOT a desire to increase capacity of the crossing. The second Severn Crossing on the other hand WAS explicitly designed to provided extra capacity (although it helped that the original road bridge was developing structural issues too).

Also its no good moaning about Transport Scotland - they will do what their Political masters tell them and said Political masters have all agreed to no extra capacity across the Forth. Unless we see a change of political direction then it doesn't matter how many motorists are stuck in traffic on the approch the original bridge will remain strictly for public transport.

Basically its quite clear, if you want a change in policy regarding the original bridge now or in the future you need to change your MSPs - If Alex Salmond (and his transport team) made the political decision that the original bridge would remain open for ordinary traffic, then Transport Scotland could easily be made to comply with his wishes... But he won't so Transport Scotland won't - or to be more accurate can't (even if privately the wanted to). Deal with it.

Having said all that though, I do actually agree that building the new bridge to D2M / removing the old bridge as an option for private transport is a retrograde step, but then I am also of the opnion that the Datrford Tolls should have been consigned to history at least a decade ago and the chepo MM scheme on the M25 is a real step backwards for motorway safety. The world however is not as we would like it to be sometimes and no amount of complaining on forums like this will change, what are, in the end Political decisions, not ones made by Transport experts who usually are the ones who end up on the receiving end of the publics anger when implementing the demands of their Political masters.

[tractorman]

If the public experiences delays on the 'new' bridge then they will be told exactly the same as now, i.e. "It's your own fault you should be using the park & ride / train option"

What you and quite a few others seem to be forgetting is the whole reason for building the new bridge was the impending structural failure of the old NOT a desire to increase capacity of the crossing. The second Severn Crossing on the other hand WAS explicitly designed to provided extra capacity (although it helped that the original road bridge was developing structural issues too).

Also its no good moaning about Transport Scotland - they will do what their Political masters tell them and said Political masters have all agreed to no extra capacity across the Forth. Unless we see a change of political direction then it doesn't matter how many motorists are stuck in traffic on the approch the original bridge will remain strictly for public transport.

.

The new bridge is not being built pureply as a result of the problems on the existing brigde, as a new crossing was proposed in the early 1990's. The structural problems on the existing bridge have certainly influenced decisions. Let's not forget that the existig Bridge is carrying more than double the amount of traffic it was designed to take. Additional capacity across the Forth has been needed for a number of years.

The problem that we have now is that when it is decided that normal traffic, hopefully excluding HGV's, is allowed to use the existing Bridge again (and this is inevitable) we have a road layout at either side of the Forth which is not designed to allow free flow of traffic due the short sighted view taken by Transport Scotland.

As usual, Transport Scotland have gone for the cheap and cheerful optiion instead of investing in a quailty product. While this might save money in the short term, the long term costs and disruption to the travelling public will be far higher.