Meeting of Forth Estuary Transport Authority

26 October 2012

Capital Plan and Reserves Update

Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide Members with an update on the funding of the Authoritys Capital
Programme of works until 2015.

Background

2.1 The Capital Plan is kept under continual review in order to monitor changes to
the budget and the level of reserves.
2.2 As reported to Members at the September 2012 meeting, there are a number of
committed capital projects currently being carried out on the bridge. In addition,
the Authority is liable for the legacy costs of the M9 Spur Extension/A8000
Upgrading Scheme. As Members are aware, the Scottish Governments
September 2011 Spending Review resulted in a 58% reduction in the Authoritys
capital funding and, as a result, a number of capital projects have had to be
deferred to beyond 2015. As reported, a further utilisation of the Authoritys
reserves and a further rescheduling of less urgent capital works have had to be
carried out in order to provide funding for the replacement of all the cable band
bolt assemblies.
2.3 In addition, as reported to Members at the September 2012 meeting, there are
likely to be further additional costs in carrying out the anchorage investigation
contract mainly due to the location of the ducts and the rockhead level. These
additional costs have been estimated to be around 2.1 million.
2.4 As reported previously, the additional costs of the anchorage investigation
contract would result in a significant deficit in the Authoritys reserves in 2013/14
and 2014/15 if the current estimated funding of the committed and noncommitted schemes remained as indicated on the Capital Plan.

2.5 Given the above, Members approved the recommendation that an approach be
made to Transport Scotland to determine whether or not additional capital
funding could be made available and if the Authoritys liability for the legacy
costs of the M9 Spur Extension/A8000 Upgrading Scheme could be removed
from the Authoritys budget.

Main Report

3.1 A meeting has been held with Transport Scotland officials to discuss these
issues and the outcome of these discussions is as follows:

No additional funding is available for the Authority.

The Authority will have to continue to meet the legacy costs of the M9
Spur Extension/A8000 Upgrading Scheme from the existing grant
funding.

3.2 Given the outcome of these discussions, and given the Authority has no other
significant income stream, the only option available is to defer further noncommitted capital schemes.
3.3 There is always a residual risk when maintenance works are deferred. The first
tranche of deferred projects following the 2011 Spending Review were selected
for deferral following an analysis of all the non-committed schemes on the
Capital Plan. This analysis prioritised and ranked schemes on the basis of risk
and took account of key factors such as the safety of users; the structural
integrity of the bridge and the core purpose of the Authority. The projects with
the lowest risk score were selected for deferral.
3.4 The projects that now have to be deferred have a higher risk score than those
previously selected. One of these projects considered for deferral is the
removal of the Dropped Object Canopy (DOC).
3.5 The DOC is the temporary steel structure erected above the carriageway and
footway/cycletrack at the main towers to provide secondary protection to bridge
users during the painting works. These painting works were scheduled for
completion by FETA staff in October 2012 and have been completed on time.
The removal of the DOC was programmed to be carried out as soon as the
painting works were finished and the painting platform removed to storage.
Tenders were issued for the removal of the DOC and were returned on 17
August 2012. The preferred bidder is Raynesway Construction, who were
selected following a quality and cost evaluation and their tender of 330,507.13
is significantly below the estimated cost of the work. Deferral of this project
would mean leaving a temporary structure, which has components with a limited
design life, in place above the carriageways and footpaths until some unknown
date after 2015. Given the risks involved in leaving the DOC in place, I consider
that this project should not be deferred and the tender for the removal of the
DOC be awarded.

3.6 Following a request by Members at the September 2012 meeting, enquiries

have been made to the constituent authorities to determine if secure and
effective storage could be made available to house the DOC. Unfortunately, the
response to date has not been encouraging. The commercial cost of storing the
DOC over a 15 year period would be around 750,000 and the cost of
transportation and inspection and maintenance would have to be added to that
cost as would the cost of future design checks and re-erection. In addition, the
low cost submitted by Raynesway includes for the removal to scrap. If the DOC
were to be removed to storage this would increase the cost of dismantling the
canopy.

3.7 The main reason for not storing the canopy for future use is that it is unlikely to
be used again on FRB. The next major painting of the towers, in 15 to 20 years
time, may require the existing paint to be stripped back to bare steel. This
would require full containment of the towers rendering the DOC redundant.
Even if overcoating of the existing system could be achieved, the future use of
the bridge as a public transport corridor is likely to make the re- use of the DOC
unlikely. The purpose of the DOC is to protect users of the bridge during the
painting of the towers above carriageway level. It is likely that future painting
works would be programmed to be carried out off peak and at weekends or
when closures for other maintenance works on the carriageways are in use.
Public transport could be routed over the new FRC during these periods, thus
removing the need for a canopy over the carriageways. A simpler scaffold
protection could be provided above the footpaths/cycletracks. This option would
also have the great benefit of enabling works to be carried out without live
vehicular traffic running below. Given all of the above, I consider it unlikely that
the storage and re-use option would be of future benefit and propose not to
pursue it further.
3.8 However, there has been some interest from a third party in using the DOC for a
sporting event and discussions with Raynesway and officers of the Authority to
determine the feasibility of such an option are scheduled to take place in
October.
3.9 Of the remaining non-committed schemes, the four projects detailed below have
the highest estimated cost and therefore have to be considered in part or full for
deferral in order to significantly reduce the predicted deficit. These are:

The Upgrading of the Main Cable Acoustic Monitoring Project

Improvements to the Suspended Span Underdeck Gantries
Truss End Linkages Strengthening Work
Improvements to the Suspended Span Underdeck Access System

3.10 The purpose of the Upgrading of the Main Cable Acoustic Monitoring Project is
to increase the probability of detecting wire breaks in the main cables. Given
the history and work carried out on the main cables and the estimated reduction
in strength that has been established it is important to maintain confidence in
wire break detection and for that reason I recommend that this project remains
in the programme and is not deferred. The Strengthening of the Truss End
Links is vital to maintain the operational capacity of the bridge to carry heavy

abnormal loads and for that reason I recommend that this work is also retained
within the programme.
3.11 The Improvements to the Suspended Span Underdeck Gantries and the
Improvements to the Suspended Span Underdeck Access System are two
separate schemes and the purpose of each project is to improve access to the
underdeck of the suspended span to allow more effective inspection of these
areas to be carried out and to improve the working conditions and environment
of the staff. Given the limited choices available, it is with some reluctance that I
recommend that the main works on both projects are deferred to post 2015. It is
possible to carry out some limited works over the next two years on both
schemes and these will be carried out.
3.12 It should be noted that deferral of part or all of these projects does increase the
risk to the long term structural integrity of the bridge and is likely to increase the
actual cost of the works when they are eventually carried out.

4 Finance
4.1 As a result of deferring these projects, and if there are no further changes to the
expenditure on the committed schemes, then the closing reserve figure at the
end of financial year 2014/15 is estimated to be in surplus by 288,000. Details
of spend profiles and reserves are included within a separate report by the
Treasurer being presented to Members at this meeting.
4.2 Given the significant drop in reserves and with no additional funding
forthcoming, a continuing check on the balance of reserves against risk from
committed schemes (and the risk to the structure from any the further deferral of
schemes) will be carried out prior to committing any significant funding to noncommitted schemes. This will be done by the Chief Engineer and Bridgemaster
in consultation with the Treasurer.
4.3 An update on the capital plan and reserves will be included within the February
2013 budget report.

Recommendation

5.1 It is recommended that Members note the contents of this report and, with
regard to the non-committed capital schemes, approve the recommendations for
the retention of certain schemes within the capital programme of works and the
deferral of others as detailed.
Barry R Colford
Chief Engineer and Bridgemaster
_________________________________________________________________
Appendices
Contact/Tel:
Background
Papers:

Barry Colford (0131 319 3092)