Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Official Report 552KB pdf

---

Forth Replacement Crossing

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I ask people to ensure that their mobile phones are turned to silent. We have apologies from Fulton MacGregor.

Agenda item 1 is the Forth replacement crossing. I welcome Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work; David Climie, the project director of the Scottish Government’s Forth replacement crossing team; Sally Cox, the chair of Forth crossing bridge constructors; and Michael Martin, the FCBC project director. We look forward to receiving an update. Cabinet secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement to bring us up to date from the report that we received from David Climie, which was dated 29 April?

Thank you for the opportunity to update the committee. I will provide a brief update, and then I will welcome questions for me, David Climie, Michael Martin or Sally Cox.

On 29 March I advised the committee that the Queensferry crossing is now forecast to open to traffic between mid-July and the end of August, depending on weather conditions. That followed FCBC advising us that a May 2017 opening date was no longer achievable due to the effects of the weather, particularly wind, beyond those that it foresaw in June 2016. At that time, all members agreed that the safety and quality of the construction work should be the guiding principles in determining the programme to completion.

Both Transport Scotland and I continue to stress to FCBC that the continued focus on maintaining health and safety is our top priority, and I know that it is at the forefront of everything that it does.

I am pleased to update you on the significant progress that has continued on the north approach roads and the Queensferry crossing since my previous appearance at the committee, on 29 March, and since the last written update, which you mentioned, on 29 April. I went to the site on 19 May to see for myself the progress that was being made in the favourable weather conditions on that day—in fact, there was not a breath of wind at the top of the towers, which I am told is extremely unusual. I was hugely impressed by the progress that is being made on all the project’s key activities.

I am pleased to inform the committee—although you may already be aware of this—that all the tower frames have now been completely removed. The committee will recall that that activity was significantly affected from the start of the year, due to the lower than expected number of weather windows required to complete their removal. The removal of the under deck falsework has also been completed, as FCBC has taken advantage of the available weather windows in April and May. All the expansion joints have now been installed and the final deck concrete pours on the south approach viaduct have been completed.

The installation of wind barriers is nearing completion along the full length of the Queensferry crossing. They are an important design feature that will deliver a significant benefit to the travelling public. Members should think about the times when the existing Forth road bridge has to be closed to high-sided vehicles during high winds.

Waterproofing and road surfacing is continuing on the deck of the Queensferry crossing as planned. FCBC continues to progress the finishing works relating to the stay cables, such as guide pipes, dampers, deviators, and tension rings.

On the south side, the M90 approach road and the A90 public transport link are ready for tie-in and use when required. On the north side, the construction of the Ferrytoll junction is nearing completion and the Ferrytoll park and ride construction is complete, with the bus circulatory area now open.

As I confirmed to the committee on 29 March, the overall project cost to the taxpayer remains in the range of £1.325 billion to £1.35 billion, securing £0.25 billion of savings released since the construction started.

Community relations and public engagement continue to be hugely positive, and the project continues to attract a great deal of interest from a variety of stakeholders, including the general public, schools, colleges, universities, industry, international visitors and the media. The successful schools programme has attracted well over 20,000 school pupils from throughout Scotland in just four academic years, and the project exhibition at the dedicated contact and education centre has attracted well over 20,000 visitors. The project team continues to regularly provide presentations, which have been attended by more than 30,000 people, all of whom have been interested in hearing more about the project and the latest in the construction of the crossing.

The overall outreach and education programme has now attracted well over 70,000 individuals across all activities. Those activities will continue into the future and ensure that there is a lasting educational legacy from the project that, we hope, will ensure that future generations are inspired by the innovations of this world-class project and learn more about the science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics that relate to it.

As members can imagine, public interest has also increased as construction has progressed. The public are now increasingly interested in how they can be part of celebrations to commemorate the completion and opening of this iconic structure. The project team has been considering the full range of options available to ensure that the public have the appropriate opportunity to celebrate the completion and opening of this world-class bridge. In the coming weeks, FCBC will provide Transport Scotland with an update on its programme to open the Queensferry crossing to traffic. Following that, announcements will be made regarding the opening celebrations that are planned for the crossing.

The Queensferry crossing remains on schedule to open to traffic between mid-July and the end of August 2017. As I have said before, the FCBC consortium continues to strive for the earliest possible date for opening to traffic. I also assure the committee that everyone who is involved in the project remains fully focused on completing it to the high quality that has been achieved so far and—just as important—as safely as possible. As Michael Martin mentioned to me recently, health and safety have no finishing line.

I am happy to try to answer any questions that the committee might have for me, David Climie, Michael Martin or Sally Cox.

Thank you very much for your update. We are talking about the opening being between six weeks and 12 weeks from now, roughly. Can you be any more specific on that?

No. As I said the last time I was at the committee, there is a reason for that range being given rather than a specific date. We have learned that that is the best way to present to the public the expected opening time for the bridge. We have the window of the six weeks between mid-July and the end of August. We will try to open the crossing as early as possible, but there are still several variables, particularly the weather. For example, yesterday was a very good day for most of us, but the rain that fell during the day meant that the waterproofing that had been done could not be overlaid with blacktop.

There are still too many variables for us to be specific about the opening date. We expect to be, and will have to be, specific about it in the next few weeks. However, until we have confidence about the opening date, we do not want to go public with it.

Have there been other weather issues over the past few weeks since the previous update?

I get regular updates from the team. According to the reports that I have, there are still issues. The last time I came to the committee, the cranes were the big issue. Once they had been taken down below a certain level, it was possible to work in higher-wind conditions than it was at the top. On the plus side, the lengthening days have allowed more of a window for work to be done but, even on some days that appear to be quite benign, there have continued to be issues with wind—especially later on in the day—and, sometimes, with rain. All of that is pretty standard for such a project, although this one is taking place in the middle of the Forth estuary, which adds to the issues.

There are continuing problems with the weather conditions, but they are probably nothing beyond what we would expect.

You said that you get regular updates. How does that work? Does the contractor tell the management team what is happening every week or so, and do the management team then update you every week?

David Climie visits the project all the time and talks with Michael Martin regularly. I get a weekly update from David. He provides updates to the committee as well, as you know. I talk to him or Michelle Rennie from Transport Scotland, who is also with us, sometimes two or three times a week and sometimes less than that. We certainly get regular updates regardless of how often I talk to them.

As you can imagine, the pace is quickening towards the end of the project. Public interest is increasing substantially, so I am asked more and more questions about it. They are nice questions, just like the ones that the committee asks. With that level of interest, even if I did not want to be kept up to date, I would have to refer to David Climie and Michelle Rennie regularly. There is a regular dialogue.

So, if all goes well, we do not expect any weather to be disruptive in the next six weeks or so.

To be honest, we do expect weather to be disruptive, but not beyond what we would have expected. If we had a prolonged period of high winds, that would give us issues. Similarly, now that we are into the surface processes, a very wet period would give us issues. I do not pretend to know them all, but there are a number of different elements to the surface that have to be taken into account, and they are weather dependent. That was all pretty much anticipated, but the weather can still present us with challenges—there is no doubt about that.

I will add a little to that. Particularly in April and May, we have been fortunate in the weather being very dry, which has been commented on in the press. That has helped us with the waterproofing and the surfacing. About 20 per cent of the average rainfall has fallen in Edinburgh over that period. There is always the risk that we will get back to the average. There is a relatively short period to go—between six and 13 weeks, as you said—so, if the weather should swing back to where it should be in the long term, that could have an impact on the waterproofing and the surfacing. We have allowed for that, which is why we are still sticking to the window.

My question is about maximising opportunities. Given that we are now operating in much longer daylight hours, has there been any change to working patterns? For example, as we know, winds often pick up in the afternoon, so people could start earlier—at 6 am, say—to take advantage of the daylight hours.

Yes. I will let David Climie come back in on that, but that is the case. In fact, the activities on the tension rings—which are done at great height, as you can imagine—continue not only in daylight hours but right through the night. Full advantage has been taken of the longer daylight hours. Perhaps David Climie would like to come back in on that.

That is exactly right. FCBC has been very proactive in looking at when is the right time of day to work. The removal of the cranes took away one significant area of big exclusion zones where only one activity could happen and opened up more areas that could be worked on simultaneously.

Typically, the Forth is absolutely flat and calm in the morning, but the wind picks up in the afternoon. It is almost as if a door is opened at about 11 o’clock in the morning. The wind blows quite hard at about 30 to 35 miles an hour until around 9 o’clock in the evening, when it is as if that door is closed again. The key wind-dependent activities, such as fitting the tension rings and working on the tops of the cables, are put on the back shift and they start late in the evening. With the longer daylight hours, they can work effectively through that period. There is a lot of flexibility built into maximising the use of daylight hours and to fitting with the wind pattern through the day.

Good morning, folks. Is FCBC subject to any penalty for missing the contractual opening date, and if so, what is it?

Much of that is commercially confidential, but I will let David Climie answer.

To start with, I will not mention penalties, because we do not typically put penalties in a contract. There are liquidated damages in contracts—that is how they are usually described. If a project should overrun the agreed contractual date, there is a loss of benefit in not having the project delivered, so we assess what the liquidated damages would be and put them into the contract.

With any contract, there are also avenues for the contractor to apply for an extension of time if events occur for which they are not liable. It is a two-way street: there are potential liquidated damages if the contractual date is not met, but the contractor is entitled to apply for an extension of time if such events occur. The contract has mechanisms to allow for those two things.

Mr Brown has correctly said that it is a live contract, so there are discussions going on on that subject, and we are not yet at the point of passing the contractual date. We are close to it and there are mechanisms in place should it be necessary.

Is there also a mechanism for the contractor to recoup extra costs that might be involved in running past the date? There are hundreds of staff on site and, if the job had been done, their contracts would be finished and the contractor would not be paying them.

That is true. The way the contracts are set up is that some aspects of the project can have an extension of time and some can have an extension of time plus costs. It depends which activities are affected. As I have reassured the committee before, nothing has come up so far that would entitle the contractor to claim extra costs for an overrun, which is why we are still confident of maintaining the original budget. There might be an element of time, but we are confident that there will be no element of cost attached to that.

It is worth adding that the contractor will bear the additional costs that will be incurred, which will be to the tune of £1 million a day—I think that I am right about that figure. If we go past the contract completion date, which is what we expect, there will be every incentive for the contractor to finish as quickly as possible.

09:45  

Could I come back on the issue of liquidated damages? Proving a loss would be extremely difficult to do, because there is already a crossing that is open and operational. Do you accept that premise?

As a premise, yes, but, when you negotiate any contract, one of the elements of that negotiation is what the liquidated damages would be. When you enter into a contract, it is important that you have a level of liquidated damages that the parties sign on to. As part of the original competitive dialogue that we had when we were negotiating the contract, the level of liquidated damages was one of the factors agreed as part of the contract negotiations. Several things were negotiated similarly, including the level of bonding for the contract, the level of liquidated damages and the whole payment schedule, all of which were discussed in great detail and decided in advance of awarding the contract. Those discussions were had in advance of the contract, so they should not come into effect post-contract.

I totally accept that and I am sure that people understand that, in some ways, it is better to keep liquidated damages low, on the basis that you will get a better overall price for the contract. Have you given the contractor any extensions of time at this date?

There are discussions on that subject at the moment, but it is a live contract, so I would rather not comment on that.

Is it the case that there are discussions going on but no extensions of time have been given as of today’s date?

As I said, it is a live contract and discussions are on-going, so I cannot answer that question or comment on that.

I understand perfectly the issue of commercial confidentiality and the fact that it is a live contract. However, bearing in mind that we know the price of the contract, because it is published, when will we know whether there will be any money coming back to the taxpayer as a result of the contract? I do not want to know now, but when will we know?

Your question is whether there will be any further money coming back to the taxpayer, because a significant amount has already come back. We have a good dialogue going on and a good relationship between the client and the contractor. Those discussions are taking place, and we had a session yesterday to talk about that and to establish exactly what the timescale should be. Finishing the physical construction process is one thing, but finishing the commercial discussions is equally important, because it is important for the contractor to know exactly what it is going to pay out and, as you say, it is important for the taxpayer to be able to draw a line under the contract and not have it dragged out for months and months. My personal intention is that we will have that established very shortly after we open to traffic; the two will be closely linked.

So we will not have long to wait.

No, we do not expect it to drag out for months because, first, there is not a great deal to talk about and, secondly, there is a good commercial and contractual relationship between us.

I presume that we are not including in the remarks that have just been made the period of warranty. There is a period of a number of years—I cannot remember what the period is—during which the contractor retains liability, so the closedown of the final accounting can be done only after the warranty period.

That is true. There is a five-year defects liability period attached to the project, but the final accounts settlement will allow for an element of potential expenditure over that five-year period. The budget that we have always established has been for the full project, from the day it first started with the land acquisition right through to the end of the five-year defects liability period, so any commercial settlement that we reach will include allowances for anything that may have to happen in that five-year period, and we also have a retention bond with the contractor that is in place throughout that period.

It is fair to say, though, that both parties could find themselves having to commit to payments under the terms of the warranty.

To a small degree, yes.

Depending on where the liability lies for whatever the defect is.

That is possible.

We have heard that there is a high level of community engagement with local businesses and residents. Have any local concerns been raised since we last spoke to you?

No issues have been raised with me. An issue with taxis was raised with the contractor at community level through the public engagement processes that we have established. Nothing has been raised with me, but perhaps David Climie could say whether he was aware of any others.

The committee will remember that we combined two community forums last autumn, because there had been relatively little to talk about. A forum is due to take place tonight and the community groups involved have not presented us with any issues for consideration in advance of that, which is very positive.

At the last community forum back in February, the focus was switching to an appreciation of how the interaction had worked throughout the construction period and thinking about how that could continue in the area once we have gone, as it were. We have been right there with the community forums all the time. They have known who to contact and we have a hotline and a contact and education centre. The question is whether that will continue and how it will transition once the bridge is handed over to the operating company.

The current issues are not so much immediate concerns but how we move forward and maintain the high bar that we have set.

Have there been any discussions about, and are there any plans for, how that engagement might continue? Will the forum remain in place, or will you approach it in another way?

In parallel, we have established a Forth bridges forum, which deals with the railway bridge and the road bridge. That will be led by the Forth bridges operating company. It has been coming to our community forums as well in order to start the transition to the Forth bridges forum. The guardianship of that will move from the project team to the Forth bridges operating company, just as the operation and maintenance of the bridge will. That is the right place for the contact. There has been good engagement and there will be a good transfer of knowledge and information to that group.

The contact and education centre will remain, in anticipation of a continuing high level of interest, given that we will have three different bridges from three different centuries, each of which is unique in its own right, with world heritage status. In addition to the general public interest, which can be fed through the contact and education centre, we also have the “Engaging with Communities” booklet, which sets out the different forms of communication that we expect to have after the opening, including contacts, details, messaging and website details so that bridge users, local communities and the general public have the appropriate information channels.

The question is well put because we expect to have heightened interest initially. The public is very interested in the project.

Have there been discussions with VisitScotland about promotion as a tourist destination?

The likely level of public interest was part of the discussions that we had in the build-up to the application for world heritage status. The unique and world-renowned nature of the railway bridge, as well as the bridge that we are building—it will be the biggest of its type in the world—was taken into consideration. World heritage status is a huge tourist draw, as people go to where they know there is a world heritage site. Tourism was part of the discussion at that time and will continue to be part of the discussion.

Before we leave that topic, I have a question for David Climie. Will you remind the committee of what will happen to the old admiralty building that is being used as offices by some contractors?

You refer to Admiral’s house, which is close to the north abutment of the crossing. It is owned by the Scottish Government and was taken into Government ownership in the mid-1990s, when the previous project was being thought about. In the intervening period, it was leased to a company.

As you said, the building is being used as a site office but, once the construction work is finished, the intention is that we will clean it and renovate it to put it back on the market. We have not yet decided whether we will put it on the market to sell it or to establish a lease. Given the building’s proximity to the crossing, we might want to lease it, rather than sell it, in order to keep control of it and the area around it.

Is it a listed building?

Yes.

When the committee visited the area, we saw that the building was what I would describe as tired—there were trees growing from the gutters. That is perhaps not the best advertisement for what is a world heritage site, as the cabinet secretary mentioned.

Because of where the building is, people are unlikely to see it from the bridges. Your interest in the property is noted, convener.

I said to Transport Scotland at the start that ministers would want to be involved in the decision about the property, which is pretty unique, although it is now impacted by the proximity of the road. It was previously used for corporate hospitality by somebody in central Scotland.

We will look at the situation when we are ready to make a decision. The contractors are probably right not to concentrate on cleaning the gutters while they get on with the crossing, but we are aware of the issue. Inchgarvie house, which is on the other side of the river, is another important building. We have those buildings very much in mind.

It would be sad to see a historic building ignored.

When do you expect the public transport strategy to be complete and how will public transport differ from what is available at the moment?

As you know, the existing bridge will be reserved for use by public transport. We are still looking at the practicalities, but it is likely that all traffic will have to use the new crossing for an initial period under traffic management measures and that public transport will revert after that. The new bridge will be part of the motorway network, with a speed limit of 70mph, but the speed limit will initially be constrained to allow people to get used to the bridge. After that, the situation will revert to what was established in passing the legislation, which is that the existing bridge will be used as a public transport corridor.

Throughout the project, we have engaged with bus operators through the public transport working group. A dedicated bus driver training session was held in February, which was attended by 18 representatives from local and national bus companies, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the regional transport partnerships. All bus-related features will be explained in detail, including the various operating regimes that can be adopted, such as those for high-wind events. I mentioned that, as we all know, high winds can affect high-sided vehicles, including double-decker buses, on the existing bridge. Those who attended the training session were given presentation materials to pass on to bus drivers.

After the new crossing has opened, bus services will be able to take advantage of the dedicated public transport corridor that goes from Ferrytoll park and ride across the Forth road bridge and via associated public transport links south of the Forth. We are making improvements to the park and ride at Ferrytoll, and hard-shoulder bus lanes on the M90 and the M9 will enable buses to bypass general traffic, should congestion occur. As I said, use of the Queensferry crossing’s hard shoulders when high winds affect the Forth road bridge will give us additional capacity. We will also have bus lanes around the Ferrytoll junction.

Cross-Forth bus services will be the responsibility of bus operating companies, which will determine their routes and timetables according to their business. We expect a significant improvement in journey-time reliability for public transport after the crossing opens.

I might have misheard you, but you appeared to say that all traffic would initially use the new crossing, including bus traffic. When will the old bridge be used for bus transport? Will it be just for traffic from Ferrytoll? It is a huge bridge for what seems very little traffic.

I think that the new bridge will be used by public transport for a matter of weeks, but I will ask David Climie to come back in on that. Arrangements are still under discussion but, for three or four weeks, all traffic will use the new bridge, and public transport—buses, taxis and so on—will use the existing bridge after that.

In future years, we will make repairs to the existing bridge that have not yet been carried out, on things such as the expansion joints. They are not critical for safety, but the committee will know the slap, slap, slap noise that occurs when vehicles go across the existing bridge. We will work on that over the coming years, as doing that now would cause massive disruption.

Does David Climie want to give more detail on how long we expect the initial period to last?

When we initially move traffic on to the Queensferry crossing, the last little tie-in of the ramps from Ferrytoll up on to the Forth road bridge will need to be completed; we cannot do that until the traffic is out of the way. A period of three or four weeks is all that we are talking about.

For that period, we will put all traffic on to the Queensferry crossing. That has two benefits. I am sure that, when people drive over the crossing for the first time, they will want to have a good look at what they are driving across and what they can see from it. In conjunction with our traffic management working group and the police, it was suggested that, when we open the crossing, we should keep it under a temporary traffic management regime with a speed limit of 50mph rather than 70mph, because people will want to look at what is going on.

To avoid any confusion about who goes where, everything will go on to the Queensferry crossing, on which the speed limit will be 50mph, for three to four weeks. At that time, the last tie-in on the north side will be finished. The Forth road bridge will then act as the full public transport link, as has been described, and the Queensferry crossing will become a motorway—the road order will become live to enable that to happen.

10:00  

When that happens, will there be more buses and the like from Ferrytoll? What difference in public transport will people notice?

The feedback from bus operators is that the modifications that we have made at Ferrytoll have been beneficial. With the larger turning circle and the area for buses to park, the new layout is working well.

In general, the bus companies have said that they will want to see how the operation of the new crossing affects journey times and whether the queues are shorter at peak times. They will review their strategy on the basis of what they see and what the public demand is. They will see how the new arrangements operate before they commit to any additional services. Ultimately, that is their choice to make.

Richard Lyle has a few questions about public transport.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You said that, when the new bridge opens, everything will go over it. You also said that double-deckers and single-deckers will eventually go over the old bridge. What will happen when there are high winds?

That relates to the point that I made about the hard shoulders on the new crossing. I am happy to be corrected if I have not got this right. Traditionally, in high winds, high-sided vehicles such as double-deckers and large trucks have not been able to cross the existing bridge. In such circumstances, the new crossing will be able to take high-sided vehicles such as double-decker buses on its hard shoulders; it will already be taking heavy goods vehicles and so on. That will give us extra resilience. Once the initial three to four-week period has passed, the norm will be that double-decker and single-decker buses will use the existing bridge.

To go back to the previous point, when it comes to journey times and reliability, we need only think about what buses that come out of Ferrytoll park and ride sometimes have to contend with at peak hours. When the new crossing opens, they will be able to get straight across the Forth road bridge, because only public transport vehicles will be using it.

I remember what happened when the Forth road bridge was opened—I was a teenager at the time. A lot of people walked across it and a lot of people drove slowly across it. Yesterday in Parliament, you faced criticism about signage. What will you do to ensure that the signage is up to standard, so that people know what to do? Mr Climie said that people will be driving at 50mph rather than 70mph on the new crossing. Over the next couple of weeks, will you ensure that the signage is up to standard so that, when the new crossing opens, people know where they are going?

Nothing will change for pedestrians. The only way in which they can cross is by using the Forth road bridge, and that will not change—people will not be able to cross the new crossing by foot.

As for signage, we have a substantial integrated traffic management system. The gantries on both sides of the crossing will display journey time information and all sorts of other information. The discussion that we had in Parliament yesterday was not similar. A great deal of information will be provided to drivers.

Those who want to walk across the existing bridge will not have to change what they do. With regard to driving slowly, the lower speed limit applies on the existing bridge. On the Queensferry crossing, people will be able to travel at 70mph after the initial period. You are right to say that we must tell people when they first use the new crossing that the 50mph limit—which will apply for the reasons that you and David Climie mentioned—is temporary and that, in due course, they will be able to travel at the same speed as elsewhere on the motorway network, which is 70mph.

John Finnie has a particular question.

Good morning, panel. People commute across the Forth by bicycle, and a number of them have raised concerns about changes to the cycle routes that serve the current Forth bridge, particularly at the Ferrytoll end. The issues are about poor signage and road surfaces and the fact that the route is indirect. I appreciate that there will be temporary arrangements, but what assurances will you give about improved cycle provision?

I travelled the route by bike about three or four years ago. Since then, there have been massive improvements in the cycle route, especially when coming on to the south side. Perhaps David Climie will want to speak about signage and what we are doing to work with others on that through the public transport strategy.

I do.

Before you do so, I raise a question that follows logically, which is about the transition period of four weeks or so in which you have indicated that things will be going on. The committee would be interested to hear about what the position for cyclists will be at that time.

For clarity, I will deal with that point first. Pedestrians and cyclists will still have full access to the Forth road bridge throughout, so there will be no interruption to their access for the temporary period—only road traffic vehicles will be affected.

We are reaching the final stage of work on the Ferrytoll roundabout. In the past month, the points that Mr Finnie raised have been particularly accurate, because we have been putting a lot of the last surfacing into position and there has been a lot of temporary rerouting for pedestrians and cyclists. I have walked through that area once a week for the past four weeks, and the route has changed every time. To be fair to FCBC, I have to say that the signage that has been there—of which there has been a lot—has been clear. Perhaps sometimes there has been too much signage and it has been overcomplicated. However, there has always been a route through, although sometimes it has been circuitous.

This coming weekend, we will have closures on the Ferrytoll gyratory, which we have publicised on our website, as we always do. That will be for the final areas of road surfacing to be put in place around the new Ferrytoll roundabout, as well as the finalising of the pedestrian and cyclist routes. During June, we expect to finish the work in that area, so the permanent solution will be there, including all the new pedestrian crossings, cycle tracks, signage and so on.

The community suggested the good idea that we should issue a road user’s guide—the committee will be aware that we have issued it—that tells drivers which bridge they can use and when. In parallel with that, we will produce a guide for cyclists and pedestrians that includes a map that shows exactly where the routes are, where they can go and, if they want to get from A to B or from C to D, which route to take. We will publish that in advance of the opening to traffic.

That is reassuring.

Mike Rumbles has a question.

Yes—I will go to the last question on our list. I know that we do not yet have a date for the opening of the new crossing, but when can we expect to hear your plans for marking the opening? I want just to know when we will hear what they are, rather than to have a specific opening date.

We should announce those plans when we have certainty on the opening date. As Mr Rumbles’s question implies, a great deal of discussion has gone on, and a lot of people have been getting in touch with Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government with suggestions and ideas for the opening. There is huge interest. The plans will be best announced when we know the opening date, so that the two things happen at the same time.

I give the final question to John Mason.

I go back to buses. Will it be compulsory for buses to go over the old bridge or will they be able to choose to go over the new crossing if it is faster for them than the old bridge?

I am not sure that the new crossing will be faster. Even if a bus can go at 70mph on the new crossing, if the existing bridge has a dedicated public transport route through which the bus can go without joining general traffic, it will be a moot point as to which route is faster.

Nothing in the regulations prevents a bus from going over either bridge. It can go over the Queensferry crossing if the driver wishes, but operators that are running a bus service tend to publish what the route is. Where the stops are at either end will depend on which bridge the bus crosses.

However, there is nothing in the regulations that says that buses must use the Forth road bridge. They can use the Queensferry crossing if they wish to. If they can go on motorways, they can go over the crossing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I note that there will be no bus stops on the new crossing.

I got that.

Richard Lyle has a very brief question, which really will be the final one.

We built a new bridge because we had problems with the old one. As I have asked the cabinet secretary before, is there any intention to renew the structure of the old bridge—the cable ties and so on—as and when necessary?

Richard Lyle is right to say that what initiated the Scottish Government’s decision to go ahead with the new crossing was condensation in the cables. At the time, we were told—although it has transpired not to be true—that, by 2017, heavy goods vehicles would not be able to use the existing bridge. That has not happened, because the works that have been carried out on the cables have helped to achieve some dehumidification, which has increased the existing bridge’s lifespan. The decision was also about the fact that the existing bridge was carrying far more traffic than it was designed to do, and there were questions of capacity.

The existing bridge had a full and thorough health check when we had a problem last year—a huge amount of work was done then. As for what we intend to do, we know that there is further work to do. I mentioned the expansion joints, and there are other things that it would be disruptive to traffic to do, if we closed the bridge to work on them. We will soon be able to work on the existing bridge with much less disruption, but there is nothing substantial that raises questions about the safety or even the longevity of the bridge, as it had a thorough health check recently. We know that there is more work to do and, as ever, there will be maintenance work to do, but nothing more substantial than that.

Thank you. I hope that this has been our last evidence session on the new crossing. When I last said that, early in March, it proved to be incorrect—[Interruption.] The clerk tells me that the cabinet secretary will appear on 28 June, after the election, which will no doubt be to give us an exact opening date at the back end of August. We look forward to hearing the exact date and what all the plans for the opening are.

I am sorry that Sally Cox and Michael Martin did not have questions put to them, although they might be delighted about that. I thank the panel very much for the evidence that it gave us.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a change of witnesses.

10:11 Meeting suspended.  

10:14 On resuming—