If a new floating bridge is to replace the troubled Floating Bridge No.6 then it could be in the water within 3 years of commissioning – this is the estimate of Councillor Phil Jordan, the Isle of Wight Council’s cabinet member for infrastructure and transport, running contrary to officers’ estimate of 4 to 6 years.
Cllr Jordan has however emphasised that no decision has been made on the future of the troubled ferry, which is currently out of service after its latest motor drive problems.
The transport lead has also confirmed legal mediation has not yet started with the builders and designers of the vessel. Cllr Jordan last week told a cabinet meeting he had asked for it to be completed by the end of November.
Before the meeting, Cllr Jordan said a new vessel would only take 3 years from start to finish to put into place and branded the 4 to 6 year estimate previously reported as ‘wide off the mark’.
A report, due to go before cabinet in October, will set out the next steps of FB6, which has been plagued with problems since it went into the water in 2017. The report will seek approval from the cabinet to carry out essential redesign and reconfiguration work, but also says it would take 4 to 6 years to get a new vessel if that is the direction councillors decide to go in.
An Isle of Wight Council spokesperson said the previous vessel, Floating Bridge 5, took around 3 years to install and the timeframe given for a new vessel was based on outline timescales for public procurement and the delivery of a unique multi-million piece or Island infrastructure. They did say, however, some of the individual elements could be shortened or done in parallel to reduce the overall time frame.
The council is also in the process of commissioning a technical report, which would assist the authority with the mediation process, to understand and explain the ‘substantial losses’ the council has faced over the course of FB6’s lifetime.
Cllr Jordan said:
“Until we do the mediation, and until we get the report in at the end of the year, no decision about the potential future of the bridge will be made by this administration but when it is, we will be making a serious decision and delivering on our commitment of the Floating Bridge.”
Next May, the Floating Bridge 6 will undergo its statutory 5-year inspection by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency when it will be out of the water for 4 weeks.
It will be very interesting to final get a figure on the “substantial losses” this Floating Bridge has incurred. My guess on a craft costing £3.2 Million in 2017, the total costs will be heading towards £10 Million.
Now the previous Council claims over many months from 2020 that they could not respond to questions on the Floating Bridge was due to potentially causing issues to “ongoing Legal issues” now being found to be completely false, hopefully the new Council will be more open with information. Mediation is the first stage to attempt to reach an agreement before any need for litigation in a Court, which is “Legal Action”.
Apologies – I meant the statements from the previous Council to read “ongoing Legal Action”.
Let’s hope someone condems it at it’s 5 yr service. Here’s a thought… build a replica FB5. It worked. End of.
I do note that this story started with that all important word ‘If’.
My view is that, if the minimum period we will be without any reliable river crossing is 3 years, then for goodness sake councillors, get us out of this mess and scrap the whole idea!
In the 21st century we need a foot crossing at the mouth of the river, a launch will do, AND a vehicle bridge further up river! so, please get on with delivering that, rather than a quaint, outdated chain ferry.
Whichever way you cut the cake, we the people will be paying yet more money for substandard work. Maybe the councillors would like to contribute out of their pension pot??
Certainly those councillors/ex-councillors who approved the design and construction of No 6.
those who approved and signed off are in the council under a new banner
The role of Councillor is not pensionable.
Sadly it is the faceless public sector bureaucrats in the background who played the major part in this and have remained anonymous and unchallenged throughout the whole debacle – they are also, unlike elected councillors, the ones with the platinum plated pension fund
If they are going to build a new bridge, for heavens sake just copy the old one which, though it was worn out, actually worked.
Commissioning is when something is ready to go into service, not when you order it.
Just so. Perhaps a deliberate nuance by Cllr Jordan: there will yet be years of legal argument over FB6 and then they will have to find the money for the next one, since its price will of course be much higher than was paid for FB6 all these years ago.
From “go” to “in service” – 6 years has to be optimistic!
Why don’t they make the chain longer.
Then give it to Dover.
This might help with the refugee crisis.
Win win for everyone.
A new floating bridge….? Not before millions of pounds have been wasted, constantly trying to fix the current heap of rubbish. Get rid of floating bridge 6? Yes, great idea! A floating bridge no 7? No!! The money would be better spent building a road bridge across the Medina, don’t know why the council can’t see sense and do this?! If they can do this in Southampton with the Itchen Bridge in 1977, why can’t they do it here, over 40 years later!
Same as the redesign of St. Georges. Now you still have an empty Ryde lane, just longer, should be Cowes and Ryde as the traffic would separate easily at the lights and the left lane for town traffic only, or even better, send town traffic round as per the diversion, that worked well, then you’d have a dedicated lane for Cowes and Ryde which would ease waiting in the queue for Cowes. Do away with the crossing step out point by the football club and you can have two straight lanes to start the filtering at the Asda roundabout and one coming from Newport, just add a few seconds for people to cross safely on a wider road, or would that not work?
As has been said already here, why not just a foot passenger crossing where the chain ferry is now? Maybe a car park at either side so you could leave your car if you just wanted to go shopping in either town.
Then, if a suitable place could be found, a bridge further down the Medina for vehicles (and perhaps with a walkway too which would link up with the footpaths/cycleways).
The idea of a chain ferry is quaint but this one has just proved too unreliable. A ‘normal’ boat would suffice and would be quick and easy to replace if it needed attention.
There should have been legal action after the first year!!!! If I bought a car that was a lemon……. Still why should the council worry, we pay for the cr@p.
Calling themselves “Cabinet” members does not mean the decisions they make will be any better.
Nothing bigger than Bladerunner will ever be able to get up to Newport (whatever IW Council says), so a bridge from Medina Wharf to Kingston would be realistic. It could even be a causeway with a lock for vessels – much cheaper, although Bladerunner with a 100m blade would be a challenge. Furthermore a causeway could incorporate tidal generators to offset costs. Foot passengers and cyclists could be accommodated by a dedicated floating ferry, just like other river/estuary crossings all over the world. But we persist with the chain ferry fixation …
Why waste more tax payers money! Just build a bridge across the River Medina and charge a toll. I cannot believe that with the growing population of the island and the strain on Coppins Bridge, why a bridge across the Medina hasn’t been done by now! The amount of money that’s been wasted on FB6 is ludicrous.
Just build a damn bridge..simples!
just build a swing bridge and bin the ferry.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Put a real bridge in and make the yacht owners wait for when it’s open. A wealthy minority affecting the majority.
It works at Yarmouth.
Instead of wasting tax payers money on on the ryde esplande development that no one wants.Get the privately owned bus company to improve thier own bus station and make a case for using goverment funds to build a bridge