Bridge too far after the financial crash

I WAS most interested to read the comments of your correspondents on the proposed Forth Road bridge last week (Debate, July 4).

This project has always been of doubtful value and of even more doubtful fiscal probity. A project costing an estimated 2.3 billion, which represents 20% of the total Scottish capital budget, in the present financial climate has the potential to bankrupt the nation if it follows the same pattern as the Holyrood building and the Edinburgh tram fiasco. In my opinion it should not proceed for the following reasons.

1) It is not necessary. The existing bridge could be repaired for a fraction of the cost. I understand that it would be possible to replace the existing cables (assuming the ongoing remedial work fails) for around 100 million. The argument against this is that it would not be possible to spin new cables and continue to operate the bridge. This is probably true. But have we forgotten that we now have a new bridge at Kincardine, a few miles upstream and now have a double bridge crossing well able to take more traffic for a short time? The Forth road bridge could be closed at 10pm until 6am and traffic during the hours of darkness could be diverted west while the new cables are spun.

2) We can't afford it. As a small nation we must cut our cloth to suit our financial strength, which at the moment is not good. Would it not be wiser to proceed on a course that we can afford rather than one that is uncertain and fraught with difficulties?

3 The cost to the environment in the Queensferry area would be enormous. Do we need more motorways and slip roads? Do we need more green fields turned over to tarmac? Is it really necessary to turn half of West Lothian into a sort of downtown Los Angeles? I, and obviously a lot of other people think not.

In order to keep this letter to a reasonable length, the only other question I would ask is: |Is this a vanity project, and if so whose vanity?

Jack Paterson, via email