floating bridge getting chained
Image: © With kind permission of Allan Marsh

Scrutiny committee urges procurement of new floating bridge for Cowes crossing

Bringing the Floating Bridge 5 (FB5) back would not solve the current issues seen on the crossing over the River Medina, experts have said.

The Isle of Wight council has reviewed the Cowes to East Cowes crossing which has been plagued with issues since the new Floating Bridge 6 (FB6) was brought into service in 2017.

Computer modelling
Computer modelling has been used by consultants 3S to create the environment of the River Medina and predict the outcome of design modifications, without the time and expenses of putting the fixes into place.

As reported last week, the review has ultimately found the FB6 cannot operate without the use of a push boat in strong tides — but neither could the former FB5.

Failing to meet the targets
Speaking at a meeting of the council’s corporate scrutiny committee yesterday (Tuesday), 3S said FB6 was working, but it was failing to meet the targets set out in the business case like the average number of crossings required.

The average time it took FB6 to cross the river was 3 minutes and 30 seconds, a “snail’s pace” compared to FB5’s two-minute journeys, 3S said.

Chain depth issues
However, the answer is not to bring back FB5 as is commonly said, 3S revealed, as it would not comply with the chain depth required by the Cowes Harbour Master.

The chain depth requirement was introduced after FB5 was taken out of service.

They said any replacement vessel would have to be radically redesigned, with a new hull and superstructure, or a push boat may be necessary even into the future.

Bridge or tunnel?
Councillor Clare Mosdell questioned whether other options, like a permanent road bridge, would be a better river crossing.

3S said work had been done in the past to see if there was a viable alternative including a tunnel, but it would have to start in Wootton and finish the other side of West Cowes.

They also said a bridge had been considered, but it would be a serious impediment to tall river traffic.

A floating bridge crossing the most logical solution
The consultants said a floating bridge crossing was the most logical solution, however there was no fix for FB6 that would be worth spending money on.

3S also highlighted issues in the original contract specifications for FB6 which stipulated it should be made of steel and how long it should be, with the contractors facing financial penalties if it was not the specified length.

‘Get on with’ procuring a new FB
The scrutiny committee agreed the only feasible option was to now get a new floating bridge and to ‘get on with’ the process of procuring one.

Alternatives and next steps are being considered next month by the scrutiny committee and cabinet.

You can see the presentation document used by the consultants below, or watch the presentation and Q&A by members of the Scrutiny Committee via YouTube.


This article is from the BBC’s LDRS (Local Democracy Reporter Service) scheme, which News OnTheWight is taking part in. Some alterations and additions may have been made by OnTheWight. Ed

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
10 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John
5, October 2016 6:20 pm

‘save in the region of £4m per year’

Looks to me that they plan continued spending of that money, instead on not spending it, and by delaying loan repayment, increase costs by a few more percent of that… and continue higher spending (reduced saving) year on year.

Am I missing something, other than a new definition of a balanced budget?

steve stubbings
5, October 2016 6:27 pm

Yes, John. You’re missing something.
Read the Medium Term Financial Strategy for full details.

jack black
Reply to  steve stubbings
5, October 2016 6:40 pm

thats a cop out just give us a precis .

Lazy
Reply to  jack black
5, October 2016 7:26 pm

So, you cant be bothered to read the published strategy – instead you want Steve to waste his time by telling you about it again?

Its not a cop out – go read the report and stop being lazy.

Mat
Reply to  steve stubbings
5, October 2016 8:47 pm

Why then send a letter to Government for more money?Will IW Council get any money now, they have released this?Steve Stubbings.

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Mat
5, October 2016 9:38 pm

No, they won’t and never would from this Tory Government and our useless Conservative MP

Mat
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
6, October 2016 5:29 am

Why send letter when IW Council is planning to do this?

John
Reply to  steve stubbings
5, October 2016 9:53 pm

Steve – I have now read. Have You? The £4m ‘saving’ claimed in the above press release (‘spin’?) is actually presented as £2m in the report I believe. Report para.38: “It reduces the annual amount required to be set aside over the medium term commencing with a £2.0m saving in 2016/17 and reducing to zero by 2032/33 and then subsequently increasing by circa £150,000 per annum but… Read more »

okayanyway
5, October 2016 6:29 pm

Electioneering and nothing else. They will be saying they came up with this idea, as if.

Lazy
Reply to  okayanyway
5, October 2016 7:31 pm

So who did come up with it?? This is the Independents idea. To be fair, the Tory government gave them absolutely no choice, and the Island shambles that calls itself Tory have done nothing to help apart from heckle from the sidelines, and they havnt even managed to do that properly… I suppose given that the Independents would never have had to come up with this plan… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Lazy
5, October 2016 9:37 pm

To be accurate, I suggested a debt repayment holiday (of which this is a watered down version) some months ago at a cross-party Budget liaison meeting – one of many suggestions I have made over the last 3 years through positive engagement with this Council. The CX was nearly apoplectic at the suggestion. It is the new Finance Officer from Portsmouth who is Mr Yes to original… Read more »

Mat
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
6, October 2016 7:00 am

Cllr Lumley, are you implying the CX and the previous Finance Officer could have done more?

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Mat
6, October 2016 9:04 am

Yes

Mat
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
6, October 2016 9:19 am

Should IWC share Portsmouth’s CX then?Saving?

CB500
5, October 2016 7:03 pm

‘ but instead of the originally proposed figure of £12.5m the target can now be reduced to £8.5m. ‘ That £8.5m is about what we stump up to Island Roads each year isn’t it? How about pulling the plug, accepting the short term penalties and spending, say, a million a year on the roads ourselves? That would go a long way toward stopping further cuts. Or is… Read more »

Lazy
Reply to  CB500
5, October 2016 7:35 pm

£1million a year on the roads would get us nothing. The PFI must run its course. There have been disasters, incompetence, and even the dumping of cats eyes in hedges, but most of the roads they have done so far are a thousand times better than the dirt tracks we had before. Having said that, once the “core investment period” is finished (7 years?), we should definitely… Read more »

CB500
Reply to  Lazy
5, October 2016 8:32 pm

£1m was a starter for debate. Island roads have been given a lot of money for little return so far. Undercliff, shoddy street lighting, cheap skim overs with slidy tarmac. Boniface road in Ventnor is already sinking again a year and a half after completion.
Just trying to be creative here.

Lazy
Reply to  CB500
5, October 2016 9:01 pm

Undercliff failed. Bouldner road in Yarmouth was successful. Street lighting provides less light – causing less light pollution and saving power. “cheap skim overs” are what Pughs tories did. IR have planed off the road surface and replaced it. If a road is sinking – report it. They are then obliged to do something about it – if they can. No-one can control geological activity. There are… Read more »

profoundlife
Reply to  Lazy
5, October 2016 11:53 pm

Dammit, Lazy. I hate reasoned opinion looking at both sides of the argument. I want polemics I can shout!

CB500
Reply to  Lazy
6, October 2016 7:41 am

It’s amazing how the simple act of giving an arm of a multinational corporation a cosy local name ‘ Island Roads ‘ pulls the wool over some people’s eyes.

VentnorLad
Reply to  Lazy
6, October 2016 8:09 am

Agreed, CB500.

This is worth a look…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinci_SA#Criticism

Tarmac
Reply to  CB500
5, October 2016 8:11 pm

Spend £1m pa on the roads? Are you mad? That’s how they ended up in such a bad state. Also the IWC doesn’t have a proper highways dept anymore so they’d have to recruit a load of staff that moved over to Island Roads.

CB500
Reply to  Tarmac
5, October 2016 8:34 pm

I think a good look would find that the majority of the staff who moved were soon out on their ears.

tyke
5, October 2016 10:52 pm

If the council is so concerned at it’s debt levels, why did it recently decide to borrow an additional £70m to finance Amey’s profits under the waste contract?

Caconym
6, October 2016 8:11 am

#Begin Sarcasm_Mode Perhaps things will be better for the Isle of Wight under the touchy-feely, caring-sharing Theresa May? #End Sarcasm_Mode Frankly, I’m going to view May’s final address with a HUGE pinch of salt. She will have to do something really substantial to prove that the Tories are no longer the “nasty party”. She could start by sacking Jeremy Hunt. That man epitomises all that is wrong… Read more »

Jonathan
6, October 2016 8:48 am

I’d just like to say that our councillors (probably all of them) have had a horrible time dealing with austerity and the Conservative dogma that led to local Conservatives chewing their own mouths off to support their own stranglers. Shame on our MP and Conservative councillors for not caring about home while pandering to their party grandees. Thank goodness we have some people of conscience trying to… Read more »

Tim
6, October 2016 9:55 am

Still ignoring the “Elephant in the Room” then IWC?

Rod Manley
6, October 2016 12:54 pm

Is this tackling Austerity or is it really dealing with the consequences of it?

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined