Rawrrrrrrr Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Was there a particular reason (i.e damaged/end of life) that 5 million has just been spent replacing this? Or is it a case of its simply cosmetic I saw that they where replacing it and was quite surprised, harthill services are a ****hole and dreary and do not deserve 5 million of investment, surely there would have been a better use for the cash I cant see lorry drivers being bothered that they have a new bridge to stock up on their snacks over Why is it our government insist on wasting cash? No doubt big eck salmond will be along soon to open and christen it something appropiately scottish though and insist our oil money is going to good use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I believe the old one had been rotted by urine and Buckie. I would have replaced it with a good quality rope bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 I believe the old one had been rotted by urine and Buckie. I would have replaced it with a good quality rope bridge. A rope bridge would have bee more appropiate I mean even if the old bridge was fecked, you dont spend 5 million on a cosmetic bridge for a dinghy middle eastern lookalike service station, you buy a basic bridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 A rope bridge would have bee more appropiate I mean even if the old bridge was fecked, you dont spend 5 million on a cosmetic bridge for a dinghy middle eastern lookalike service station, you buy a basic bridge A rope bridge wouldn't comply with disability discrimination legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn artist Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 the bridge is essential for the city link bus service. you need to cross back over the bridge at night to get home if you park your car on the west bound services. the price does seem excessive tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 the bridge is essential for the city link bus service. you need to cross back over the bridge at night to get home if you park your car on the west bound services. the price does seem excessive tho. A zebra crossing would have been cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 How much does a Zebra cost these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.N.T.H. Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 It was due a renewal, alothough i agree that the ?5,000,000 spent on it is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 ?5M is a lot of money, but you can't on one hand say that the services are a hole and on the other criticise investment in renewing them. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I mean even if the old bridge was fecked, you dont spend 5 million on a cosmetic bridge for a dinghy middle eastern lookalike service station, you buy a basic bridge Why do you need a bridge on a small yacht? And could you explain what exactly middle eastern lookalike means? Similiar to something you would find in Dubai? Or a more stereotypically racist version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 The bridge did not meet modern requirements and was in poor condition. Do you have any comparisons on the cost of constructing bridges? ?5 million does sound excessive ...but I'm not expert on the cost of building them in the first place. Damm this Government for investing in the infrastructure of the nation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 The bridge did not meet modern requirements and was in poor condition. Do you have any comparisons on the cost of constructing bridges? ?5 million does sound excessive ...but I'm not expert on the cost of building them in the first place. Damm this Government for investing in the infrastructure of the nation! Its a bridge connecting 2 service stations in a craphole Its there to serve a very simple function How did it not meet modern requirements? what are modern requirements of a footbridge that differ from 20 years ago The only reason to replace it would be if it was dangerous, as far as I am aware given it was still in use it wasnt And the government should invest 5 million where its needed No doubt fat alec is planning to open it, he probably insisted on saltire flooring too:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn artist Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Its a bridge connecting 2 service stations in a craphole Its there to serve a very simple function How did it not meet modern requirements? what are modern requirements of a footbridge that differ from 20 years ago The only reason to replace it would be if it was dangerous, as far as I am aware given it was still in use it wasnt And the government should invest 5 million where its needed No doubt fat alec is planning to open it, he probably insisted on saltire flooring too:eek: there was no disabled access to the bridge and according to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 this would of been regarded as a barrier to access. that coupled with the fact that the bridge was a dump and that both sides of the services have both been recently re-newed the bridge therefore needed to be modernised to meet current demands and legislation. as someone who used to take the bus between edinburgh and glasgow almost 5 times a week a few years ago there are a large number of people who require the use of the bridge to get to and from work via the city link service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 there was no disabled access to the bridge and according to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 this would of been regarded as a barrier to access. that coupled with the fact that the bridge was a dump and that both sides of the services have both been recently re-newed the bridge therefore needed to be modernised to meet current demands and legislation. as someone who used to take the bus between edinburgh and glasgow almost 5 times a week a few years ago there are a large number of people who require the use of the bridge to get to and from work via the city link service. Correct me if I'm wrong but the DDA only requires reasonable adjustments be made and incorporated into planning, in no way does it actually force existing structures to be expensively refurbished for this reason alone And its a bridge connecting to service areas, its not a hotel or palace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 The old bridge which was concrete based was rotten and had to be replaced. Harthill may be a dump but the service station is a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Factor Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Talking of Harthill Services.... i noticed up until during the week there, they were showing the price for a litre of unleaded on the West bound side as 5p more than the east bound side.... Sorted now, but surely that wasn't right??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slashishere Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Proposals for the footbridge over the Tay in Perth mentioned 4 prices depending on design. Costs ranged from ?4m to ?8m. So although over road and not a water, I guess ?5m isnt too much out of the ordinary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cams Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 had the missfortune of getting of east bound at Harthill last weekend. The old bridge reeked of **** and weedge. Have you ever tried holding your breath and running 100m pulling a case?? Made it to the other side to be met by 2 neds " haw sur , weres the bus stoap for Glesgy" " See that bus stop on the other side of the motorway thats it" " aaaawww sound maaaan" Thick *****s they actually went and waited on the east bound side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Hez, that's ma laddie yooos arr tokkin aboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn artist Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong but the DDA only requires reasonable adjustments be made and incorporated into planning, in no way does it actually force existing structures to be expensively refurbished for this reason alone And its a bridge connecting to service areas, its not a hotel or palace reasonable adjustment in this case would be providing lift access or level access to the bridge. maybe the existing bridge design was not capable of sustaining this. also if this where built they would be in far better condition than the remaining bridge and therefore the powers that be decided it would be more cost effective and visually pleasing to create a new bridge than butcher and tart up the old one. just one view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Anyone who has used the existing bridge will be delighted to have a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishguy Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Was there a particular reason (i.e damaged/end of life) that 5 million has just been spent replacing this? Or is it a case of its simply cosmetic I saw that they where replacing it and was quite surprised, harthill services are a ****hole and dreary and do not deserve 5 million of investment, surely there would have been a better use for the cash I cant see lorry drivers being bothered that they have a new bridge to stock up on their snacks over Why is it our government insist on wasting cash? No doubt big eck salmond will be along soon to open and christen it something appropiately scottish though and insist our oil money is going to good use They are only spending ?5 million on the bridge as they new you'd come on here and have right bloody moan about it. They could always give the money to the banks so to help pay back everyones illegal bank charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cams Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 from whitburn myself but never talked like the unwashed, said goldmine,minted, haw sur, or tucked my tracky bottoms into my socks unless playing football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Chill dude, Just playing the stereotype card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cams Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 sorry mate just my sense of humor. But its true just walk by Don Curliewurlies at the cross and you could be thinking youve been transported to the land of Weedge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Very true, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.