Footbridge costs rocket

12:44pm Sunday 24th June 2012 in News

Shoreham's footbridge will cost nearly double the amount originally estimated.

West Sussex County Council has announced work will begin in August after a series of setbacks. But the new £9.8 million price tag is nearly double the original £5 million estimate.

A council spokesman said: “The initial budget for the project was put in place three years ago, before the feasibility and design process was completed. As such, it could only be considered an initial estimate.

“As is often the case with complex engineering projects, the true cost only becomes apparent once suppliers take account of the true complexity of the job.”

Funding for the bridge has come from the county council as well as from the sustainable transport charity, Sustrans, which received a £50 million lottery grant to extend the National Cycle Network. Building is expected to take 45 weeks with the bridge due to open next summer.

Comments(19)

john5001 says...
1:25pm Sun 24 Jun 12

some one will make a lot of money out of it

Report this post »

Popped vanity implant says...
1:43pm Sun 24 Jun 12

Argus, the doubling of an original estimate involving any council and any construction company is probably something that a Llama could actually predict.

By the way, I've got a used brillo pad under my sink that predicts it will take more than 45 weeks to complete.

I'm happy to consult with the brillo pad on any other matters. Suggestions welcome.

Report this post »

Nathan_Adler says...
1:48pm Sun 24 Jun 12

Put a 20p turnstile each side. That'll pay for it.

(£9million divided by 20p = 45,000,000 pedestrians)

Report this post »

ray ellerton says...
1:56pm Sun 24 Jun 12

L.A. tenders for competitive contracts usually involve some collusion between contractors so as to artificially inflate the contract costs....it's well know in the industry, and in some cases involves brown envelopes.

Report this post »

ICantThinkOfAName says...
2:19pm Sun 24 Jun 12

Nathan_Adler wrote:
Put a 20p turnstile each side. That'll pay for it.

(£9million divided by 20p = 45,000,000 pedestrians)
The present bridge at one time charged a toll although when I used it in the 50s and 60s it was free. There was at that time a little disused "toll house" at the town side of the bridge which has since been demolished.

Report this post »

Hove Actually says...
2:47pm Sun 24 Jun 12

As this only serves those who wish to live on the beach, maybe we can slap an extra tax on them to pay for it

Report this post »

southwicker2 says...
3:39pm Sun 24 Jun 12

If i was ' holding the purse strings ' I would say " Forget it "...almost £10m for a bridge that size is a shocking sum of money. Whoever is in charge of this project should be looking at alternative designs at a lesser cost, from what I have seen, the new bridge is nothing special to look at either..but hey ho, easy to spend others money isn't it...and as somebody else pointed out, I'm sure there are people involved who this will be making a serious amount of money out of the construction of the bridge.

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
4:24pm Sun 24 Jun 12

“As is often the case with complex engineering projects, the true cost only becomes apparent once suppliers take account of the true complexity of the job.” - what?! What is so "complex" about building a little bridge? We have been building bridges in this country for about a thousand years at least. And what part of the "true complexity of the job" did they not understand before they started? The length of the bridge? That there was water underneath it? That it sometimes rains? That it need to be strong enough not to collapse? eh...?

More importantly, why is the Argus not capable of asking questions such as these? Why do you just cut-and-paste these press releases unquestioningly when a child could see the obvious flaws in the reasoning?!

Report this post »

ray ellerton says...
6:26pm Sun 24 Jun 12

Ligand Fields wrote:
“As is often the case with complex engineering projects, the true cost only becomes apparent once suppliers take account of the true complexity of the job.” - what?! What is so "complex" about building a little bridge? We have been building bridges in this country for about a thousand years at least. And what part of the "true complexity of the job" did they not understand before they started? The length of the bridge? That there was water underneath it? That it sometimes rains? That it need to be strong enough not to collapse? eh...?

More importantly, why is the Argus not capable of asking questions such as these? Why do you just cut-and-paste these press releases unquestioningly when a child could see the obvious flaws in the reasoning?!
That would require proper journalism, which this paper is incapable of....

Report this post »

wheresworthingwally says...
6:43pm Sun 24 Jun 12

Can we please see a complete breakdown of these alleged £9.8M costs????? I bet we can't.

Report this post »

Nathan_Adler says...
7:18pm Sun 24 Jun 12

ICantThinkOfAName wrote:
Nathan_Adler wrote:
Put a 20p turnstile each side. That'll pay for it.

(£9million divided by 20p = 45,000,000 pedestrians)
The present bridge at one time charged a toll although when I used it in the 50s and 60s it was free. There was at that time a little disused "toll house" at the town side of the bridge which has since been demolished.
I didn't know that. Thanks for the history.

Report this post »

Hove Ex-Pat says...
7:20pm Sun 24 Jun 12

wheresworthingwally wrote:
Can we please see a complete breakdown of these alleged £9.8M costs????? I bet we can't.
A breakdown is something the council should be good at.
But I think this will prove "A Bridge Too Far".

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
7:27pm Sun 24 Jun 12

The real story here, of course, is this ROCKET that Shoreham is no longer going to be able to afford. I have it on good authority that the rocket was part of Shoreham Airport's scheme to run regular shuttle flights to the Moon, but now this is all to be scrapped to simply allow people to ride bicyles across Shoreham harbour. Really, can this be called progress???

Report this post »

thewhitehawker says...
7:30pm Sun 24 Jun 12

let the army do it , they make it super quick as well

Report this post »

Hove Ex-Pat says...
7:50pm Sun 24 Jun 12

thewhitehawker wrote:
let the army do it , they make it super quick as well
Good idea. Walton-on-Thames, in Surrey is only just replacing an army built bridge after more than 60yrs. It was ugly, but it worked safely for many years.

Report this post »

worthingite says...
10:36pm Sun 24 Jun 12

How can there be price increase ,somebody must put a tender in with a set fee and there must be time penalties to make sure the work is done on time.How can the company increase the fee at all let alone double it?

If a builder was doing work for me and half way through the job said I did not price for that or take into consideration a increase in fuel and materials I must pass that onto you, I think we all know what answer that company would get , foxtrot oscar.

Who the hell is in the council is not getting the legal team to start having a hissy fit with this company who obviously taking the mickey out of us the local taxpayers.

Report this post »

mnairb says...
1:02pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Has the council not heard of fixed price contracts? This merely goes to confirm my suspicion that our best brains and abilities do not go into local government!

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
1:05pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Ah mnarib - obviously we're just not paying our Chief Execs enough! Poor Barradale was only getting £170k, for instance. You can't expect to get the best people with an annual pittance like that.

Report this post »

fatlad says...
7:52am Tue 26 Jun 12

£5 million to build. £5 million consultancy fees. Simples!

Please form an orderly queue to be consulted.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree