http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Commercial attraction plan for Forth Road Bridge en Tue, 14 Jul 2026 09:02:40 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512&page=2#post-101577 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:47:15 +0000 minus six 101577@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>FRB commute regulars will be familiar with the large thorned scrub bush that protrudes right across the cycle path at the end of the downhill stretch to Ferrytoll.</p> <p>Well I took a folding saw to it all this afternoon, and that's an end to the matter.</p> <p>I'll send the bill to Bear SE. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512&page=2#post-101122 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:39:12 +0000 chdot 101122@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.360pix.co.uk/tours/networkrail/forthrailbridge" rel="nofollow">http://www.360pix.co.uk/tours/networkrail/forthrailbridge</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512&page=2#post-100973 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:18:51 +0000 minus six 100973@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>main carriageway open for cyclists</em></p> <p>No chance of that ever being considered.</p> <p>The only thing that the new bridge will relieve for cyclists is the hassle of the HGV lay by, as they'll be using the other bridge.</p> <p>The pavement is already slim enough without lorries parked right up on it so that the drivers can have their sleeping heads at an incline. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512&page=2#post-100945 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:15:04 +0000 Focus 100945@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>o_0, "FRB is already a fun park, and always has been.</p> <p>...</p> <p>To them, the entire bridge length is already a legitimate fun park. "</p> <p>Couldn't have put it better myself. For every cyclist I can fault for wilfully being selfish on the Bridge, I see dozens of pedestrians being at least as bad. And some of the abuse I've received for politely pointing out their error... Some of the worst has come from the charity types who seem to think that allows them sole use of the entire carriageway. I'm prepared to guess that most of them do fewer active things for charity than I do (and I only do a few each year), but I never feels the need to ignore the rules (and risk injuring others) in doing so.</p> <p>I think there's a good case to have pedestrians and cyclists use separate sides of the bridge (when one isn't closed for maintenance!). Yes, mixed groups (e.g. parents walking, children on bikes) would need to be an exception, but they'd cut down on areas of conflict if they were restricted to the pedestrian side.</p> <p>Much as I'd like to see the main carriageway open for cyclists, I wouldn't really fancy it unless either a) a 20mph limit was imposed for the buses and taxis or, better, b) each side of the bridge was contra-flow, switching sides to even wear. Whether the necessary infrastructure would be feasible cost-wise is another story... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100888 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:19:28 +0000 kaputnik 100888@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That big dog-leg around the Dundas estate makes it look like it was designed by a cycling infrastructure planner! I think my point still stands that the A8000 replacement was a short-sighted waste of money - they must have been thinking about the new bridge at the time and now the route to it is really indirect.</p> <p>Shall we start a sweepstake to see how long it will be before a direct motorway link is required from points 4 to 11 on that map as all the traffic has destroyed the A904?</p> <p>It should have been obvious to Keith Broon all along that what he really needed to do was to knock down the Forth (rail) bridge and stick an 8-lane motorway down that most direct and straight routes into town. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100885 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:10:25 +0000 cb 100885@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"drivering forum in-joke"</p> <p>A drivering forum wish list I think; a bit like when we fantasise about cycling through the Scotland St tunnel. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100877 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:57:48 +0000 LaidBack 100877@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No - I did try and find an accurate plan but this is what kept coming up...</p> <p>This is what it should be. Thanks PS.</p> <p>Image © Transport Scotland</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66067108@N08/8484846317/"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8484846317_f6cd6a2060.jpg"></a><br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66067108@N08/8484846317/">Current road plan for new Forth Road Bridge</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/66067108@N08/">LaidBackBikes</a>, on Flickr </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100870 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:47:57 +0000 kaputnik 100870@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Ah, so Laidback's map is a drivering forum in-joke? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100862 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:57:44 +0000 PS 100862@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nah, the road from the new bridge will join up with the A90 - take a look at the "key plan" here:<br /> <a href="http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/projects/forth-replacement-crossing/information-centre/maps-plans-and-sections">Plans and stuff</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100854 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:41:10 +0000 kaputnik 100854@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So it looks like the A90 is pretty much redundant for much of its length on the south of the Forth now, after they just spent a couple of hundred millions upgrading the M9 spur / A8000 route!</p> <p>Now there's no excuse not to upgrade and have a properly sized, segregated and grade separated cycle route directly to the "old" bridge from Edinburgh.</p> <p>I assume the fact that traffic from Fife will now be arriving into Edinburgh on either M8 or A8 has been taken into account, as that ultimately feeds onto St Johns / Glasgow Road or the Calder Road. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100853 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:36:11 +0000 minus six 100853@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>FRB is already a fun park, and always has been.</p> <p>Anyone who regularly cycles over FRB, particularly at weekends, will be familiar with this fact.</p> <p>Families allowing their dogs to roam around without leads, kids and toddlers running about unsupervised, gaggles of tourists behind cameras, and lets not forget the charity fun runners.</p> <p>None of these groups pay any attention to the cycle lane. To them, the entire bridge length is already a legitimate fun park. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100844 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:53:09 +0000 LaidBack 100844@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Ok - I made that up....!<br /> </em><br /> I do see the whole Forth corridor becoming a bit of a test case for the one car, two votes approach to transport that seems to happen here. </p> <p>The increased traffic will no doubt result in more park and rides - possibly another one on the entrance to the old bridge? Stagecoach will benefit greatly if their buses can get a good run into town. </p> <p>The re-organisation of roads is massive when you look here. I think there's no reason that bikes + green vehicles (of various types) couldn't be allocated part of the old A90? Segregated but alongside?</p> <p>I'd also like to see more rail based commuting using electric trains - there is some signs that this may happen albeit in much longer timescale.</p> <p>I take it this map is correct as it's from a few years ago? Has anyone found a better ref?</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66067108@N08/8485679764/"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8382/8485679764_95a144d583.jpg"></a><br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66067108@N08/8485679764/">New Forth Bridge Road Layouts</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/66067108@N08/">LaidBackBikes</a>, on Flickr</p> <p>© SABRE The Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100843 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:51:36 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 100843@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>I said similar, not the same. Similar: Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical</em>"</p> <p>Which gives a lot of leeway to be made depressed! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100841 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:43:15 +0000 Morningsider 100841@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>WC - it's too early on a Monday for such larks. Syndey had far better weather.</p> <p>My understanding is that the current FRB is being maintained for cyclists, pedestrians, buses and taxis as doing so allowed the Scottish Government to remove bus lanes and cycle/walkways from the design of the new bridge. This reduced the initial cost of the new bridge by over £1bn.</p> <p>The Scottish Government couldn't afford the cost of the full-spec new bridge (doing away with tolls not such a good idea after all) so decided to go for a cut price version (really). They came up with the wheeze of keeping the old bridge open to non-car traffic to add a "green" spin to the project and leave open the option of re-opening the bridge to cars at some point in the future.</p> <p>The saving is a short-sighted one. The cost of maintaining the FRB will mount up over the years and may even reach the saving on the new bridge eventually. However, that's a problem for a different generation of politicians to deal with.</p> <p>Scotland alway seems to end up with sub-standard infrastructure due to some short-term, low political machinations. </p> <p>Worth pointing out that the second Severn Crossing was built at precisely no cost to the taxpayer - with all costs being footed by bridge users paying tolls.</p> <p>Raising a few quid from tourists seems a reasonable idea to me - but it won't come close to covering the costs of running the FRB. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100835 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:22:50 +0000 chdot 100835@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"The green energy lift to the viewing platform will only work on days when it's too windy to open the platform"</p> <p>Classic! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100833 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:21:13 +0000 LaidBack 100833@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I would definitely be in the queue to go to a viewing platform at the top of the bridge.</em></p> <p>... The green energy lift to the viewing platform will only work on days when it's too windy to open the platform </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100828 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:13:00 +0000 crowriver 100828@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I assume that in the name of "resilience" they will maintain the structure as a backup for the new bridge if/when it breaks too</em></p> <p>Or indeed if/when the new bridge is completely clogged with traffic. Rush hour congestion alleviation, anyone? Also one can envisage a scheme whereby say, multiple occupancy cars, electric vehicles, City Car club cars, min buses etc. are allowed to use the bridge as a matter of course, in order to justify its upkeep. No doubt this will require a multi-million pound intelligent traffic management scheme (based on license plate recognition, like the London congestion charge) or somesuch.</p> <p>Gotta keep that traffic flowing after all. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100826 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:00:27 +0000 kaputnik 100826@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The bridge is a fantastic piece of engineering and people should be able to behold it and marvel at it up close, in all its glory. </p> <p>I assume that in the name of "resilience" they will maintain the structure as a backup for the new bridge if/when it breaks too, so we can't have any schemes that might infringe on the existing carriageways. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100824 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:55:05 +0000 crowriver 100824@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I said similar, not the same. Similar: Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100822 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:46:45 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 100822@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>The fact that several posters here take a similar view is, frankly, depressing.</em>"</p> <p>That would be fine if the 'several posters' here were looking at it from the point of view of "<em>We can't justify spending money on a bridge that's just for buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians. Quick! Think of something else we can do with it!</em>" whereas it might be the case that they're actually thinking that, with less heavy traffic on the bridge, they <em>can</em> do something else with it... I fail to see the problem, honestly.</p> <p>The new bridge is daft, too much money, and with proper investment in alternatives just not necessary. But it <em>is</em> being built, and the current bridge <em>will</em> have lighter traffic, which <em>does</em> open up other opportunities. I don't really see them doing this as a sop to motorists (though I may be wrong), but rather a useful tourism revenue creating option for something that will still cost a lot of money to maintain.</p> <p>Fortunately the world isn't so black and white that if you like an option it <em>has</em> to be because you're in the pocket of the motoring lobby - shades of grey allow other considerations. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100818 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:40:00 +0000 kaputnik 100818@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It will be a fantastic monument to the failure of Scottish transport policy.</p> <p>"<em>Come see this bridge we build 40 years ago as the bridge to end all bridges. You get fantastic views of the new bridge we've just spent £1.3 billion on because we keep building things to encourage more and more reliance on driving as the only way to move people around the place</em>".</p> <p>In another 30 or 40 years time they can do the same when we have to close the Fifth Bridge to traffic and there will be marvellous views of the Sixth Bridge from both the Forth and Fifth bridges. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100817 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:39:38 +0000 steveo 100817@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Frankly I don't see how we can justify a bridge for buses, there will be, what, a dozen or so an hour? How many active travel users does the bridge see an hour? That's not to say the old bridge should be closed or to say that it should continue to convey all traffic just that the replacement is madness. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100815 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:37:06 +0000 crowriver 100815@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>For me, the whole thing just smacks of "We can't justify spending money on a bridge that's <em>just</em> for buses, taxis, <em>cyclists</em> and pedestrians. Quick! Think of something else we can do with it!" It is indicative of exactly what is wrong with transport strategy in Scotland. I mean fine, yeah, have some tours, refurb the lifts. But why the big song and dance? Answer: <em>don't upset the drivers!</em></p> <p>The fact that several posters here take a similar view is, frankly, depressing. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100808 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:02:28 +0000 steveo 100808@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Less likely to fall down if you take 65,000 vehicles a day off it, so why not use it for something else alongside buses and bike traffic?</em></p> <p>Besides if it has its own revenue stream its much less likely they'll just close it after the new bridge is up and running and it is realised having a bridge for buses is madness. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100807 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 100807@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Is this like an episode of QI and everyone will say 'Sydney' then a klaxon will go off? ;)</p> <p>I would <em>definitely</em> be in the queue to go to a viewing platform at the top of the bridge. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100806 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:47:19 +0000 Morningsider 100806@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've been up both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Forth Bridge (rail). Both spectacular structures - just the weather was a little better at one. Can you guess which it was? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100805 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:28:22 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 100805@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Less likely to fall down if you take 65,000 vehicles a day off it, so why not use it for something else alongside buses and bike traffic? Genuinely confused as to why there'd be any opposition here to something like this (especially as a 'retasking' would surely make it more difficult for it to revert to 'general traffic' duties). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100803 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:10:18 +0000 chdot 100803@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'd quite fancy a cafe in the middle"</p> <p>Forth Free State - neither Edinburgh nor Fife? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100802 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:06:38 +0000 amir 100802@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Also Iain Banks: The Bridge.</p> <p>I'd quite fancy a cafe in the middle. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9512#post-100799 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:58:40 +0000 Uberuce 100799@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Someone call William Gibson. He's got a couple of books set around a similarly retasked Golden Gate. Well, it's not a tourist attraction so much as a favela, but it's not used as transport any more. </p>