I will be as brief as I can, convener. I thank you for the opportunity to come to the committee at short notice.
On 8 March, I provided the committee with a brief update, which was followed by a more detailed progress report from Transport Scotland. At that time we advised the committee that the contractor, FCBC, was targeting a May completion date. Notwithstanding the regular assurances about completion received from FCBC, I challenged FCBC to provide a guarantee on the opening-to-traffic date, which the committee asked about when I appeared before it on 8 March.
As a result of the challenge, and as described in detail by David Climie in his evidence to the committee, FCBC carried out a further programme review based on the progress made and the impact of weather. As part of that challenge, Transport Scotland and I stressed to FCBC the continued focus on maintaining health and safety as a top priority—I know that it is at the forefront of everything that it does. In order for the review to be as robust as possible, FCBC brought in planners and experts from around the world. The review took full account of the likely weather impacts going forward and the implications of complex interrelated operations being carried out simultaneously.
Transport Scotland and I received the results of the review from FCBC on Monday 27 March. Since then, Transport Scotland has considered FCBC’s plans carefully and has discussed the matter with the FCBC board, led by Sally Cox, who is here today. I received Transport Scotland’s assessment last night and I will now share it with the committee.
Only nine weeks remain before the end of May and the review concluded that, even with the best weather—and we can see that the weather today is not the best—a May opening-to-traffic date is not now safely achievable. At this stage in the project, a day lost to weather cannot be recovered and that has a direct impact on any follow-on activities.
Since the start of 2017, there have been fewer clear weather windows than expected, particularly because of the wind. That has delayed weather-dependent activities, causing them to bunch together at the end of the programme to a much greater degree than was anticipated last May.
The effect is very visible in the removal of the tower cranes. The cranes can be dismantled only in wind speeds of less than 25mph. While crane removal is under way, it is not possible to safely work within a 50m radius of the crane itself, so that site activity alone has the effect of sterilising the deck beneath and preventing any work to the adjacent stay cables. It also has an impact on all deck-level activity, such as waterproofing and surfacing.
As anyone who crosses the Forth can attest, although recent good weather has helped, it has not yet been possible to bring down the cranes. In fact, I believe that on Monday this week, which to all of us was a glorious day, the wind speed was again too high to carry out operations at that height.
FCBC also acknowledges that, given the uniqueness of the project, the onerous conditions that have been experienced in working at height over the Forth have created more challenges than it had anticipated. At this stage in the project, all remaining activities are vulnerable to weather conditions. That vulnerability differs depending on the activity. Whereas tower crane removal and work on cable stays is sensitive to wind, waterproofing of the deck is sensitive to rain, and surfacing is sensitive to rain and very low temperatures.
FCBC’s May 2016 programme acknowledged that complexity. However, at that time, in order to maximise deck availability, the activities were sequential and largely independent of each other. Due to slippage during recent months, the activities are now interdependent and often simultaneous. Consequently, they are reliant on complex planning and favourable weather conditions. When the weather conditions are unsuitable for one activity, that has a compounding effect on the subsequent activity and the concurrent activities, many of which are critical.
Taking all that into account, FCBC is now advising that the opening-to-traffic date is more likely to be between mid-July and the end of August. To put that in context, it is around a four to 10-week delay on a six-year construction programme. The precise opening date will depend on the amount of weather down time that occurs during the coming weeks, with the latest date being based on weather similar to that which we have seen in February and March continuing to occur.
That would mean up to 75 per cent down time on the critical path activities that are particularly sensitive to wind speeds of 25mph or more, such as tower crane and tower falsework removal, and finishing works on the towers and stay cables. Although that level of down time is not anticipated at this time of year, past experience has shown that it is possible, so it should be taken into account. With so much simultaneous activity already under way, there are no opportunities to mitigate the effects of weather delays at this point in the construction programme.
FCBC has assured me that it is fully supporting Michael Martin, the project director, in providing the resource that is required to complete the project at the earliest possible date. That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the site has never been busier, as a result of an additional 200 people being employed to help complete the bridge. More than 1,500 people are now working on the site, with operations continuing on a 24-hour basis, seven days per week, whenever the weather permits. Plant equipment and workers are being kept on standby, at considerable cost to the contractor, so that no weather window is missed.
It is very important to stress that the costs that are associated with the overrun will be fully covered by the contractor and so will not result in any increase to the overall cost to the taxpayer, which stands at £1.35 billion, as before. The £250 million of savings that have been released since the construction started are secure.
The potential overrun on the contractual completion date of between four and 10 weeks is a huge disappointment to me and to everybody who is involved with the project, but it should be kept in perspective in terms of infrastructure projects of this size and complexity. The Queensferry crossing will be completed in six years from the date that construction started and within 10 years of being first committed to by the Scottish Government in December 2007, at a considerable saving to the taxpayer.
Although we have not met our original ambitious targets for opening, which was to open six months ahead of the contractual completion date of mid-June, it should be noted that the project remains an outstanding achievement for everyone involved, and it will provide the people of Scotland with a resilient structure that is fit for the 21st century. It is already a world record breaker. It is being built in weather that saw two heavy goods vehicles being blown over on its sister structure in the past two months alone. It is also significantly under budget.
The crossing has a design life of 120 years. I hope that committee members will be able to exercise a degree of perspective when they hear of a four to 10-week overrun into the summer period, on a six-year project that already had a year of contingency factored into its planning.
The bridge is a project that Scotland can be proud of. As we complete it, we will not compromise the extraordinary quality of the construction or the safety of the workforce. The important thing at this stage is that none of us push the contractor to compromise the safety of the workers who we trust to work in all weathers to deliver this high quality and iconic structure for us.
As I have said before, I want to ensure that members remain fully apprised of progress on the project and all other major transport projects, so I commit to providing a further update to the committee at the end of May. Of course, the committee can ask for updates at any time, but I will provide an update at the end of May on the progress that has been made during the next two months and an update on the opening-to-traffic date.
The bridge is substantially complete. It will stand for a century or more. It is frustrating that it will not be finished earlier, but my overriding priority is to have the bridge finished safely and to the highest standards of construction. It is already a stunning bridge. It has developed significantly since the committee last visited the site, which I think was last autumn. The committee might want to see the progress that has been made since then, and I am happy to ensure that that happens.