For some years now I’ve been making the case that the proposed additional Forth Road Bridge would be unaffordable, unsustainable, unnecessary and unpopular. The existing bridge has been undergoing a dehumidification programme, and today the signs are they’ll find that’s working.
As the Scotsman puts it, this would “call into question the need for a new bridge costing as much as £1.6 billion“. Bear in mind that even if the final dehumidification results show serious deterioration, the bridge could still be recabled for a maximum of £122m (I believe that’s at 2008 prices but I could be wrong). Simple prudence.
Every party at Holyrood apart from the Greens lined up to give Fifers what they think Fifers want: yet another shiny new bridge. No-one at Holyrood apart from the Greens was prepared to say let’s wait and see, let’s not sign contracts for a bridge which has been variously estimated by Ministers to cost £1.6bn to £4.2bn until we know if it’s really necessary.
Despite the clear warnings from transport experts, the four-party consensus refused to listen, and now contracts have been signed to squander vast sums just as the public finances are being squeezed by Tory and SNP cuts (as per the Sun’s endorsement of the SNP because they were “tackling the economic crisis head-on by cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK“).
Even now, just as it looks as though we’re about to see confirmation that even recabling won’t be necessary for the existing bridge, the other parties are still not ready to see sense. Some are still gung-ho: certainly the Nats and one would imagine the Tories too. The Lib Dems are wringing their hands – see Gordon Mackenzie quoted in today’s Scotsman – but won’t say no. Malcolm Chisholm admitted on Twitter that “We almost certainly made the wrong decision on new Forth Bridge but it is too late now unfortunately“, adding “Woudl we could  spend the billion plus new Forth Bridge money on new socially rented homes” (sic). Amongst non-Green MSPs and former MSPs, only Lord Foulkes also comes out with any credit, having told the Public Audit Committee last year it would prove a waste of money, although abstaining on the final vote was hardly a courageous stand.
Again, quoting the Scotsman’s editorial, “The cost of the misplaced rush to give priority for the bridge has been substantial.” Yes, true. The cost of cancellation would now be large, but nowhere near as large as the cost of proceeding to build this monument to political short-termism and idiocy. On a guess that cancellation would cost £200m – it should cost nothing but the work done if the contracts had been sensibly written, but that seems implausible – we’d still save upwards of £1.4bn: a massive slice of Scottish capital budgets.
If no sense is seen, it’s simply going to be extra road capacity which, as we know, generates extra traffic. And the years and years of disruption it’ll cause to traffic has already begun as I found out when driving over the existing bridge last week, for the first time in a very long time. Ironically, the congestion costs around repair were always accounted for very generously while the congestion cost of a new bridge was apparently never calculated. Ministers are about to find out that not calculating it isn’t equal to not experiencing it.
In December 2008 my view was that this utterly preposterous vanity project was the most likely way for the SNP to be ejected from office. Now, of course, losing a referendum is top of that list. But this bridge still isn’t far behind, and it’s closing, too. They may even interact with each other. In two years’ time we’ll be mired in a construction phase that’s unlikely to be going smoothly, just as Ministers are asking people to trust their judgement in a referendum. If even one other opposition party found a spine they’d be calling for a public inquiry into what Ministers knew when, and what advice they were given. Tragically, on this issue, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are exactly as inept as the SNP. And so Scotland may well be stuck with the most expensive white elephant since the Darien Project.
#1 by Robert Blake on February 25, 2012 - 5:37 pm
Hello James
I think you are wrong on this, because although dehumidifying is showing some benefits, they are not all assured, and the new bridge has benefits of its own
Though I understand why, from a Green, low consumption stance, any such project is undesirable
On another topic, Aidan dedicated time here explaining why a Council Tax freeze was a bad idea. I have mixed notions on the subject myself for as long as the top and bottom band are fixed together, you can raise the higher bands without hurting the poor not all of whom get relief of any sort.
http://www.betternation.org/2011/11/council-tax-freeze-a-bung-to-westminster-and-to-the-rich/
But I understand it cuts money available for services, as long as that money is spent well, of course
What’s Aidan’s opinion on this
#2 by Robert Blake on February 25, 2012 - 5:40 pm
(oops, slight bloop there)
What’s Aidan’s opinion on this cut in Stirling then, with Labour supporting a Tory 1% cut just after the SNP adopted Labour’s own amendments to the Budget
Good thing, bad thing?
#3 by Sandy Brownlee (oldchap) on February 25, 2012 - 5:40 pm
I see this as an opportunity to reconfigure the new bridge to provide some extra rail capacity, to relieve the pressure on the original forth bridge. sadly I don’t see that happening.
#4 by Nikostratos on February 25, 2012 - 6:05 pm
‘the SNP’s biggest mistake’
Err! no that would be going on and on and on about Devo-max thus undermining their own Independence vote but heigh ho!
And as for the rest of your post it seems sensible economics to me shame the snp only do ‘Imaginary’ Economics
#5 by Craig Gallagher on February 25, 2012 - 7:11 pm
As a historian of early modern Scotland, I reject your description of the Darién project as a white elephant. There was some serious thought and capital put into that venture, about as much as could be expected from a 17th century monopoly company operating out of northern Europe, and its failure owed as much to English and Spanish political and military aggression as it did to its (admittedly) inept leadership.
On the substantive points you raise, it seems to me the long-term approach is to build another bridge with a view to reducing capacity on the already old existing bridge, as opposed to the “short-termism” that you have labelled it. I seems much more short-term to put off necessary (in the long term) capital investment just to plug the economic difficulties we face today. They are not inconsequential, of course, but as you admit, there is traffic congestion on the Forth crossing already. Rather than using your questionable logic of more roads = more congestion (as the new M74 flyover in Glasgow demonstrates is not the case), I would actually describe this as a admirably foresighted move from the Scottish Parliament, because it will avoid a crisis of traffic numbers hitting just at the point where we have an older bridge buckling under the strain and no alternative available.
The last thing you say that I would rubbish is the idea that the Forth Road crossing is the SNP’s cross to bear. They have undoubtedly been the most ardent champions of it, but if four out of five of the Scottish Parliament’s parties supported it, I find it hard to see how it would threaten to bring them down politically. Who would replace them, considering all of their rival parties were signed up to it? I know you’re a passionate Green James, but the idea that they will be able to capitalise on emerging as the voice of wisdom over the Forth Road crossing and sweep to power is, I’m sure you’ll concede, fanciful.
#6 by James on February 25, 2012 - 8:07 pm
Craig, that’s fascinating. You really do diverge from the general view of Darien. Wanna do a guest post on why it didn’t happen the way people think it did?
Let’s assume the long term view is we need a new bridge (and in fifty years or so, depending on the state of the art, we probably will). Do you really think this is the right time to spend this much money when other budgets are being squeezed so hard? Also, it’s simply too early to tell what the effect of the M74 extension will be, although the 135,000 extra tonnes of CO2 a year the reporter predicted seem quite likely. And are you really challenging the research on road capacity leading to extra usage (which is the claim rather than congestion, although I expect both)? And the congestion on the current bridge is largely (right now) the work to the Ferrytoll roundabout, which FOI information showed ages ago would be seriously bad news over a long period.
Finally, though, a point of agreement. People probably won’t vote on the bridge as a main topic unless and until it goes completely tits up. It’s a shame, though, because by 57% to 34% the people of Scotland agree with the Greens, not the other four. I don’t expect us to sweep to power soon. But then people never thought Labour would be a government any day soon in 1900, or that the Nats would be soon in the 1970s.
#7 by Craig Gallagher on February 25, 2012 - 8:41 pm
As a lifelong Nationalist, I am very sympathetic to anyone who says you never know what the future might hold. One of my sincerest hopes for an independent Scotland is that the Green Party will become a much more regular and forceful fixture in the country’s political arithmetic, perhaps replacing the moribund Lib Dems as one of the four major parties representing the Scottish people.
I may have misread your post when I challenged the road capacity research, I thought you were opining on increasec congestion rather than usage. I recognise that congestion is paradoxically one of the things that will put people off driving to the city, and that the M74 flyover has reduced this worry for people travelling to Glasgow. In general, I’m in favour of long-term capital spending projects, because they guarantee economic vigour to the local sectors and because they are a torch from which light is shed upon other aspects of our spending commitments. Let me put it another way: in the sum of things I think we’re wasting money on, this isn’t high on my last.
As to Darién, the project is a particular historical problem for me. The traditional view is very much that it was a disaster and it drove us into the arms of the Union. I would rather enjoy doing a post on the misconceptions caused by this view. Shoot me an email and let me know what you’d be looking for.
#8 by Angus McLellan on February 25, 2012 - 8:47 pm
The M74 extension means that I – and many others – can spend a lot less time sitting at traffic lights going nowhere. Isn’t that a good thing? It certainly is for me.
Anyway, for good or ill the argument over the new bridge is long since over. Now you’ll just need to wait to find out whether the bridge will be delivered on time and on budget. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be. It’s hardly comparable to the trams in terms of unknowns, whether known or unknown.
#9 by Craig Gallagher on February 25, 2012 - 10:59 pm
And I think we can all agree there’s no possibility of them eventually truncating the intended length of the bridge to save money…
#10 by Stuart Winton on February 26, 2012 - 3:18 am
Indeed, James, I can’t really see it as being much of a vote winner for anyone, but if it goes belly up big style it could be a disaster for the SNP electorally and/or regarding the referendum.
Imagine, for example, if it was even anything like the Parliament building fiasco or the Edinburgh trams debacle. That would be awful for the SNP’s reputation for competent government.
And although the other mainstream parties support the bridge (the point made by Craig) since they’re not the ones actually managing the project then they’ll easily make political capital out of it if things go badly awry.
Of course, if things do go askew with the bridge how this impacts in terms of votes will depend to a large extent when the problems manifest themselves, most obviously vis-a-vis the referendum, which the new Scottish Sun on Sunday has revealed will take place on Saturday 18 October 2014!!
#11 by Allan on February 25, 2012 - 7:20 pm
The funny thing is that exactly the same mistakes are being made here that were avoided with the scrappimg of GARL – another expensive transport project that showed the potential to become a white elephant. That both projects were proposed as fully formed projects – with no investigation into alternatives – shows the arrogance of some people.
#12 by andrewgraemesmith on February 25, 2012 - 7:47 pm
I’ve always disagreed with the scrapping of bridge tolls (aside from the obscene ones in Skye) and I disagree with this new project. It seems every time the Scottish Government do anything bridge related in disagree :s
#13 by Robert Knight on February 26, 2012 - 3:31 am
“Let’s assume the long term view is we need a new bridge”
Is that your view? What are the perfect bridge-building conditions a green party activist looks for? How many new road building projects in the UK have the Green party supported? I’m just curious.
“And are you really challenging the research on road capacity leading to extra usage”
Please read: “Are you really challenging my dogma?”
More importantly what is the point of building a road if people don’t want to use it?
#14 by James on February 26, 2012 - 11:06 am
Robert, your tone has that leery end-of-the-night outside a pub feel about it, but no matter.
We backed a bypass in Ayrshire because the case was strong in terms of congestion and carbon reductions. And if the FRB genuinely couldn’t be repaired we’d back a multimodal bridge including road. And I don’t understand what your more important point is supposed to tell us.
#15 by Barbarian on February 26, 2012 - 10:57 am
The bridge is going to be a political disaster for the SNP. Fifers get a bridge and Edinburgh gets a shiny new train set.
Glasgow doesn’t get GARL.
Now, before everyone fires off, I supported the cancellation of GARL. However, with the Commonwealth Games, you will have a lot of people buggering about trying to get from Glasgow Airport to the City, fun and games at the best of times. The M8 is not exactly known for being a quiet road.
The short version is that a few billion are being spent on the East Coast, while it seems nothing happens elsewhere.
And the additional bridge will not solve the problem of high winds diverting HGV’s elsewhere. Nor do I trust the figures for construction. Most of the parties may be in favour. However, the SNP are the Government and they will carry the can when the costs overrun.
But the bridge will not be the SNP’s biggest mistake. Their cosying up to News International is.
#16 by Craig Gallagher on February 26, 2012 - 4:31 pm
Glasgow did get the M74, and is getting huge investment into its East End as part of the Commonwealth Games package. Furthermore, the progression of building projects right across the city centre is night and day to what it was just five years ago. The former vastly vacant lot between High Street and Dennistoun has begun to fill with new buildings, while the eyesore lot at the top of Buchanan St is being overhauled to put something there.
The SNP aren’t leaving Glasgow behind. In fact, considering they opposed the Edinburgh trams, I’d say they’re massively favouring Glasgow, and rightly so, it’s a city that needs far more capital investment that Edinburgh does.
#17 by Barbarian on February 26, 2012 - 7:17 pm
What I am trying to point out is the perception.
As to the trams, they had the opportunity to kill that project stone dead. Yes, there would have been a substantial cost, but in 30 years times more money will have to be spent on the world’s most useless train set.
But as with anything, once a project is complete and in place, people soon lose interest.
But as I pointed out, I’d be far more worried about the new media relationship than anything else.
#18 by Allan on February 27, 2012 - 6:55 pm
Ah but the problem with the trams wasn’t the trams. It was more the management of the project and our friend “management fees” – for example the thousands of pounds paid to managers in golden goodbye’s…
Bridge or no bridge, the Frankie Boyle gag about setting your watches back 25 years when you get to Scotland applies to our attitude to transport infastructure as much as anything else.
#19 by Doug Daniel on February 26, 2012 - 12:04 pm
“it’s simply going to be extra road capacity which, as we know, generates extra traffic”
I don’t mean to sound like a climate change denier by trying to say that scientific research must be wrong just because I say so, but I just can’t get my head around this idea that Greens promote that extra road capacity = extra road usage.
For it to be a causal relationship, we would surely have to be saying that building extra roads somehow causes more people to buy cars, and for car owners to make more journeys. But that would be a ridiculous claim to make, so it’s blatantly untrue. So what is it then? Is it simply that people are put off driving because of congestion, and therefore easing this congestion leads more people to use their car? If this is true, then surely to argue against new roads and bridges is to argue in favour of keeping our roads congested?
I think the real reason behind increased road usage is simply that as time goes on, more people buy cars, putting more people on the roads, and out-of-town business parks, shopping centres etc lead to more and longer car journeys.
I’m looking out my bedroom window just now, and when I think about the number of cars I used to see parked out in the street when I was wee, there was merely a handful. Now, it’s like a car park, as just about every house seems to have at least two cars (which partly explains why none of the kids play football in the street now). Have these people bought these cars because there are extra roads on which to drive? Or is it simply because the (perceived) needs of modern life have led to the continued rise in car ownership?
But if there is a reason why extra road capacity is the defining factor in extra road usage – rather than just the general upwards trend in car ownership and the increasing distances people are having to go for their jobs and shopping – then I’m open to being convinced.
#20 by James on February 26, 2012 - 5:39 pm
For it to be a causal relationship, we would surely have to be saying that building extra roads somehow causes more people to buy cars, and for car owners to make more journeys. But that would be a ridiculous claim to make, so it’s blatantly untrue.
Doug, that’s exactly what happens. And the research on it is solid. Even the UK transport establishment accepted it in 1998 when they ended “Predict and Provide” road planning. Neither common sense and scientific research appear to have percolated north of the border since.
#21 by Doug Daniel on February 27, 2012 - 8:03 pm
But it doesn’t make sense!!! I don’t like things that don’t make sense! Who are these morons who buy extra cars and make extra car journeys just because there are more roads to drive on? Can’t we just ban them from owning cars?
#22 by James on February 28, 2012 - 12:32 pm
It’s a collective effect. It’s not someone consciously saying “oh, I see there’s 14 miles of new road, just enough to justify ditching the bike”. That’s not how society-wide and generalised local effects work!
#23 by Ross Day on February 26, 2012 - 4:02 pm
I think a new bridge will be needed, but i think the timing is slightly off. The money being spent could have been used on dueling the A9, this will be a huge vote winner and life saver, should be a priority for any scottish government imo
#24 by Jeff on February 26, 2012 - 4:09 pm
I just want to echo the points that James is making and say how depressing it is that noone saw this coming and acted accordingly.
Furthermore, it’s once mentioning again that Norway built the world’s longest road tunnel under a waterway for a mere £120m and here we are building a bridge for £1.6bn.
#25 by James on February 26, 2012 - 5:33 pm
Thanks Jeff. No-one in this administration or its predecessors, perhaps. Plenty outside spotted it but weren’t in a position to act.
#26 by Duncan on February 26, 2012 - 9:03 pm
.
http://www.glasgowsnp.org/SNP_Delivering_for_Glasgow/
Glasgow does very well out of the pocket money Westminster gives us!
#27 by Duncan on February 26, 2012 - 9:06 pm
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tunnels_of_the_Faroe_Islands
This could be Orkney and Shetland with the proper political will, with a tunnel from Scrabster linked to the A9 dual carriageway.
#28 by Shave on February 27, 2012 - 8:08 pm
“the years and years of disruption it’ll cause to traffic has already begun… …Ironically, the congestion costs around repair were always accounted for very generously while the congestion cost of a new bridge was apparently never calculated.”
This is happening now. And it’s happened before.
When will we ever learn.
Photos of politicians in hard hats cutting ribbons are really f’in expensive.
#29 by Chris on February 28, 2012 - 4:52 pm
Perhaps we could mate the additional Forth Bridge with the Edinburgh Trams and make lots of baby white elephants?