Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 02 Feb 2010

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Official Report 231KB pdf

---

Forth Crossing Bill

For item 2, we are joined by the same panel of witnesses, so I will not run through their names and job titles a second time. Item 2 is an evidence session on the Forth Crossing Bill. I emphasise that the committee's remit is not the same as that of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee—the hybrid bill committee is the lead committee and will scrutinise the bill and report to Parliament. We hope that we will inform and add to the process, but our remit is limited to the proposal for a public transport corridor over the Forth. We are keen to hear from members of the public in written evidence and from witnesses at the committee, but we are specifically considering the public transport aspect.

Today, we are hearing from officials, not the minister. Questions that are geared towards policy can perhaps be put to the minister later, or we can invite the lead committee to put them to the minister. Do the witnesses have any brief opening remarks, as the matter is rather separate from the issue that we discussed under the previous agenda item?

Frazer Henderson would like to say a few words to start off the session.

As this is the first evidence session on the bill, it might be appropriate to give a quick overview of our policy objective and the context and then to move swiftly on to the public transport elements. As members know, the policy objective of the bill is to provide, in the light of the uncertainties about the existing Forth road bridge that we spoke about earlier, a continuing and reliable primary road link across the Forth, to safeguard the economy, particularly that of the east of Scotland.

Principally, the bill seeks authorisation for three powers. The first is the power to construct the bridge, create new roads and upgrade existing roads and junctions. The second is the power to change the designation of and responsibility for existing roads to facilitate the implementation of intelligent transport systems, which I am sure we will discuss later. The third is the power to acquire compulsorily, or where appropriate occupy, land that is necessary to give effect to the scheme.

I move swiftly on to the public transport elements. The bill covers particular works that are directed to delivering infrastructure for public transport use. I can give the committee an overview in the form of a bus journey, if you will, from Fife through to Edinburgh. I hope that, en route, we will pick up the works elements of the bill that have a direct bearing on public transport.

We start on the M90 in Fife, where we have just passed Admiralty junction, and are heading south towards Ferrytoll. We come off down the Ferrytoll slip, where there will be a dedicated bus slip to a new and improved Ferrytoll junction. The revised junction will have segregated bus lanes and sign controls to ensure expeditious bus movements around the junction. Works in the bill will improve the exit from and entrance to the existing Ferrytoll park and ride. The bus then leaves the Ferrytoll park and ride and heads further south towards the existing Forth road bridge. When the new bridge is built, the slip road bus lane that links to the existing bridge will continue and will run on the existing bridge, which will become a dedicated public transport corridor.

In the south, the bus continues from the bridge past Echline junction and on to a dedicated busway that will link with the existing A90 busway to Edinburgh. There will be works to provide for that. On the return journey, from the A90 travelling eastwards, we will provide a dedicated bus slip road that will link to the B800, with which members might be more familiar as the old A8000. There will be works where the busway joins the B800 to improve the road signage to give bus priority movements at the junction. The bus then continues north on the B800 past Scotstoun, where there will be works to provide a dedicated bus corridor from near Scotstoun Park up to Echline junction, again giving priority to bus movements through traffic management. The bus goes across the existing Echline roundabout and then down and across the Forth road bridge to the north side. It then exits the existing bridge on a dedicated bus slipway to the Ferrytoll roundabout, which as I have mentioned will be improved dramatically under the works in the bill to improve bus circulation.

That is a broad description of the public transport works that are contained in the bill. I ask Mike Glover whether I have missed anything.

No, I think that that is it.

Thank you.

Is the experience of bus users likely to change dramatically? Are we looking at reduced journey times? What impact will the new infrastructure have on the service that people experience?

It is safe to say that the reason why we are taking forward the infrastructure is that it should improve journey times and the bus experience for users, particularly during the rush hour.

The bus journey that Frazer Henderson described is what will happen on a good day. It is also worth saying that, because the existing bridge cannot be wind proofed, there will be provisions in the intelligent transport system such that, on windy days, traffic will be diverted on priority lanes up from Ferrytoll on to the hard shoulder of the new Forth crossing and then back down again into Queensferry so that it can pick up the links back on to the A90 and to other places. In other words, that priority traffic will still have a priority in windy conditions in preference to the hard shoulder being used for normal hard shoulder purposes. That means that anyone who takes a bus or who appears at the Ferrytoll park and ride will do so with the assurance that the bus will run—it will not suddenly stop working because of the wind.

What will happen during the construction period? What impact will the construction of the public transport infrastructure and the new bridge more generally have on the operation of public transport buses and the park and ride?

That is a matter on which we will have to work closely with the successful contractor. Clearly, a lot of work will be going on, and it is important that we do not compromise the existing facilities at Ferrytoll during the process. Clearly, though, there will be more pressure on the road during the construction period than there would be otherwise.

So the detail has yet to be explored.

That is right.

Is there scope to include further provisions on public transport in the bill, for example to require a public transport strategy or implementation plan to be produced?

No, it is an infrastructure bill.

The bill is an infrastructure bill—that is its purpose. It is not about a public transport strategy as such: that sits outside in the strategic transport projects review or other public transport policy. The bill is wholly and solely about providing infrastructure.

Is your position that it would not be possible to include public transport provisions in the bill?

It is certainly not our intention to provide such provision, because that would confound the bill's purposes, which relate to infrastructure. Whether it is a possibility is a matter for Parliament to determine.

I found Frazer Henderson's bus journey very interesting. Of course, many coaches will be going further north—the new infrastructure will help them, too.

When will the bus infrastructure be ready for use, and is there not a case for building it at as early a stage as possible to encourage modal shift and establish sustainable travel patterns before the new bridge opens?

The main feature of the infrastructure that we are providing is the bridge itself, so the infrastructure will not be free to be used as a public transport link until the new bridge is open.

The policy memorandum refers to the impact that could be achieved by increased modal shift and the encouragement that will be given to drivers to transfer to public transport. What specific plans do you have in Transport Scotland to work with other stakeholders to maximise modal shift opportunities on journeys between Fife and Edinburgh?

That is beyond our responsibility as the project team, but David Anderson, from the strategy and investment directorate of Transport Scotland, could perhaps answer the question.

The Forth replacement crossing is one of the STPR's 29 recommendations. A number of the STPR's other elements contribute towards improving public transport, as Frazer Henderson has mentioned. There are particular recommendations about park-and-ride sites, intelligent transport systems and light rapid transit connections to Fife. Under the STPR, we continue to work on the detail of those measures so as to introduce them as necessary.

An equally important part of our discussions with the three adjacent local authorities and the south east of Scotland transport partnership has been to identify the catchment and the market for bus journeys in particular. We can then work with colleagues across the Scottish Government and representatives of the bus industry as we seek to develop bus routes over time.

A great deal is going on as we seek to maximise the opportunity, which comes from a number of things, most notably the fact that land uses are changing north and south of the estuary. I refer in particular to the growing number of houses and to the need to maintain local market access to the economy of Edinburgh. Some of the commuting patterns that we anticipate over the years to 2022, say, will change, and as they do it will be a matter of providing the appropriate infrastructure, including bus service opportunities. It is not necessarily a matter of fixing all those things now; it is about ensuring that we have things in the right place at the right time.

I understand much of that, but the best public transport interventions tend to take a whole-corridor approach, and there are existing needs within the corridor. It would be sensible to do as much as possible with local authorities and partners up front. The process that you have identified means relying on other partners to deliver, so you cannot be sure that measures will be implemented at a particular time. Also, the approach relies on a different funding stream, which brings a whole lot of problems. Delivery might be patchy and piecemeal.

You correctly identify a number of risks. We are continuing to work with the delivery partners on these matters. Fife Council has a number of proposals for park-and-ride sites and so on, and work is continuing on the detail of how they can be progressed. We are also discussing with the City of Edinburgh Council its proposals for works around the west of Edinburgh. I agree that there are a number of challenges, but we will continue to discuss and progress matters.

I want to ask about how everything is linked. If the idea is for people to use park and ride—parking their cars and then getting the bus into Edinburgh—are the existing parking facilities adequate or are there plans to make improvements?

The existing park-and-ride facility at Ferrytoll, which has about 1,000 spaces, is well used and is something like 80 per cent full on a normal day. There are also considerable parking opportunities at a number of railway stations on the Fife circle line, which are also very well used. It is a matter of providing a mixture—not just strategic park and ride by bus, but improvements to park and ride by rail, too. I forgot to mention earlier the STPR recommendation on the east of Scotland rail improvements. It is a matter of providing a mixture of opportunities, by rail and bus. There are potential interventions in the form of park-and-ride sites at Halbeath and Pitreavie, and potentially at other locations.

Still concentrating on buses, I am thinking about your comment that the existing park-and-ride facility is already 80 per cent full. It will not be a good advert for that facility if someone drives there and cannot park because it is full and they cannot therefore use the bus service. I am concerned about how the various parts link.

That is a fair point. The majority of people who use the park and ride will be regular commuters, and part of the opportunity is to address their commuting patterns. As things change over time, could longer-distance services—as Alison McInnes mentioned—catch people closer to the origin of their journey? Work can be done with the bus industry to catch people earlier, rather than having them always drive to Ferrytoll, say, or to some other park and ride. There are lots of ways to make such a change to people's commuting habits and patterns.

You have touched on discussions with bus operators. Have you started to explore with them the issues that we are discussing?

We have not spoken directly with operators, but we have been speaking with our colleagues in the bus section in the Scottish Government, some of whom have experience in the bus industry, so we have taken soundings from those who are knowledgeable.

Once the project is completed, what problems do you envisage might arise from the public transport element of the project being under a separate management regime from that of the other bridge?

Are you referring to the fact that FETA will operate one bridge and Transport Scotland another?

Yes. This is supposed to be an integrated project, and you are supposed to ensure that an effective public transport element operates across the bridge at all times.

There will be co-ordinated input from Traffic Scotland, which operates the gantries and the signing. It is currently working with FETA to produce co-ordinated signing.

The other aspect is that the new bridge will be a trunk bridge and part of the national road network. The present road bridge is operated by FETA, but who will maintain the new crossing has yet to be decided by ministers. In the policy memorandum, we recognise as one of the options that FETA is in a good position to undertake that work. However, ministers will not take a decision on that until 2013.

I will press the issue a bit further. Can you identify any problems that might arise from having two different management regimes? FETA will have to carry out significant maintenance on the current bridge, which will result in the public transport element having to use the new bridge. Do you anticipate any problems with that?

No. We expect to work closely with FETA. As I mentioned, the new bridge will be built with hard shoulders that are wider than normal so that they can be used by buses or other public transport. If there are any difficulties with the existing bridge—bearing in mind the level of flow and the fact that, initially at least, there will be little difficulty in running a contraflow on one carriageway for bus operation—we will, by having built the new bridge, have a degree of flexibility that does not currently exist in managing the existing bridge. The new bridge will also have such flexibility, and we expect to work those two elements together.

Before we move on, I want to clarify one or two points with David Anderson. Can you quantify the increase in capacity in park and ride, or in parking facilities at railway stations?

Proposals have been made, by Fife Council in particular, in relation to the size of the park-and-ride sites at Halbeath and Pitreavie. Our discussions suggest that there is potential for up to 1,000 spaces at the Halbeath site. We are working with Fife Council to understand the detail on that. It comes down to how big a field we want, which has a cost.

A number of the railway stations are well used. The opportunity at Pitreavie, for instance, would involve locating a park-and-choose site adjacent to the existing Rosyth station, so logically it would be more likely to serve rail commuters than bus commuters, although it could serve either.

We are being asked to consider a bill that refers to a Forth crossing strategy that includes multiple bridges, rather than just an extra Forth road bridge. However, that seems difficult to accept when you cannot quantify park-and-ride facilities, for example, which are clearly important in relation to modal shift, and you have not yet begun discussions with the bus operators.

The modelling projections anticipate that bus use will decrease during the period to 2022, and we have done some thinking on that. We suggest that putting in place a series of measures—including park-and-ride sites and the measures that Frazer Henderson outlined—to provide reliability and resilience for all modes of public transport would maintain the patronage percentage at existing levels. Halbeath park and ride, for example, could have 1,000 spaces. If every space were full, 1,000 fewer cars would be on the network every day. There is therefore some quantification, but whether it is fully realised will depend on the success of the park and ride and the services that service it.

It still seems to be a little bit speculative at this stage. Is that fair?

Although the arrangements still have to be put in place, the reality is that the proposals have to happen. We are not providing a step change in capacity for road transport over the existing bridge; we are providing for what we expect to be an increase in travel through the infrastructure that we are putting in for bus transfer. I will use the explanation again that although taking 1,000 cars off the bridge does not sound like a lot in the face of what will be 80,000 to 90,000 vehicles a day, the bridge operates effectively for most of the day, and we are looking at the impact during peak hours. In one direction during the peak hours, the flow is much less, at around 3,000 vehicles an hour, so you can see the impact that a park and ride would have on bringing the capacity and volume ratio back into balance. If the bridge is to work in future, we must move the growth in travel from private car to bus.

That is just about the bridge itself. We also need to look at the wider transport network in which it sits, especially the morning traffic going into Edinburgh through the Barnton junction. The bottom line is that the Barnton junction is pretty well configured at the moment, with some very efficient traffic lights, so we are not going to get more capacity through it. The only way that more people will be able to travel into Edinburgh is by bus. A bus priority system already takes people along the A90 faster than the queuing traffic.

If the number of private cars on the road increases further, and the queues get longer, with the proposals we will effectively lengthen the road on which buses have a priority route in to Edinburgh, from something that currently begins at the A90 bridge over the railway to something that goes right back to the Ferrytoll junction and Admiralty.

Arrangements still have to be made for the future, but the future has been planned on the basis that the measures will be taken. That acknowledges that we are building a balanced response to the problems at the Forth and the constraints that are imposed by the space provisions, which will inevitably be limited in the wider network.

If having 1,000 fewer cars on the network during the peak period can be achieved, that will be a benefit, because it will reduce congestion. The Scottish Government—the current one and previous ones—has told us for years that modal shift towards public transport is a strategic transport objective with the aim of reducing emissions, so it does not matter a jot if journeys are shifted from cars to public transport at 8.30 am or 2 in the afternoon.

That is probably right within conventional traffic modelling, but we really need to avoid emitting pollutants in peak-hour, stop-go situations as well as the pollutants from normally running cars. I am probably straying into areas where I should not go.

I would not worry; I do that quite a lot as well.

Some of my questions have been answered one way or another, but I want to pick up on strategy. I am interested in any discussions that you have had with FETA, SEStran, and Fife and Edinburgh councils about the possibility of a quality partnership with the bus companies across the Forth. What has happened so far? Have joined-up discussions taken place, or will that happen in future?

Discussions with others, especially bus operators, will take place in future to take forward opportunities for bus quality partnerships and so forth.

When in future?

Good question. I do not know. At some point after today.

I am sure that my colleagues around the table would like to know a bit more about the joined-up strategy. Whether it is a good idea to build a new crossing is not in our remit. We are considering transport, and we want to know that plans are in place, not somewhere down the line.

We have discussed with Fife Council and with Stagecoach, which manages Ferrytoll for Fife Council, the remodelling of Ferrytoll to get the maximum out of that facility. We are also talking to SEStran about its strategic plans for the operation of bus networks on the west side of Edinburgh, and we are considering further developments that might be possible once the new bridge is in position and the existing bridge is given up to public transport. That is at a fairly early stage. That brings into account things that we have not included in the bill, but that are opportunities that exist because of it, such as the opportunity for a park and ride at Echline, which is largely unrelated to the amount of traffic going over the river but might be important in relation to the amount of traffic going into Edinburgh.

I am not convinced by your answers. You talked about possible discussions about other roads. I am interested in what discussions have taken place with Edinburgh and Fife councils on bus infrastructure away from the immediate approaches to the Forth bridge. We have heard some indication of that, but it does not sound as though the discussions are joined up—we do not have clarity on those discussions.

The on-going discussions are about a series of possible schemes and measures to be introduced after the opening of the crossing. That longer-term view is where those issues sit in the STPR. The issue is to seek to ensure that a number of key objectives in the national transport strategy are met, such as improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of journeys; improving journey times and connections; and reducing emissions.

Looking at the objectives of the STPR, the opportunities—the interventions that I described earlier—are about seeking ways of achieving those objectives after the current programme, from 2012 onwards, as demands grow and as we see travel patterns changing. We need to ensure that we are planning for those futures. We are in discussions with the local authorities, which are seeking to bring forward the detail of those schemes. The issue is how we link those schemes in our discussions with bus operators. Ultimately, it is about encouraging people to make the shift to public transport by providing a mixture of the infrastructure that is included in the bill and that which is set out in the STPR. People will make the choice to move to public transport if there are reliable, consistent journey times and journey improvements.

You are hopeful, but I am convinced that discussions should happen in parallel, rather than waiting to see how things develop.

How are you engaging with communities on either side of the Forth to establish what improvements to cross-Forth bus services would best suit their needs?

Again, that would be taken forward through discussions with individual local authorities on those origins and destinations. We will continue to talk to authorities about that.

How can you possibly go forward with the plans without speaking to the people who use the bus services—public transport—across the bridge? It seems incredible that anyone would build a facility without speaking to the people who will use it.

We gain information on people's travel habits—where they come from and where they go to—

I am sorry to interrupt, but how do you gain that information?

Through survey information. That gives us an indication of the scope for travel change.

Our present difficulty is people's perception of buses. The bus industry, particularly in terms of its long-distance, inter-city routes, is going through something of a revolution in terms of the quality of service that it is providing.

You are talking to conviction engineers: two of the five of us use that type of bus service every day to get from one city to another. We do that in preference to using our cars, which are lying about in a garage or something like that. This is an iterative process; it is not simply a matter of asking someone, "Do you want to use the bus?" We have tried that. The answer is, "No. We don't. We'd rather keep on using our car." We need to work out the size of the market and allow the bus operators to build on that by way of the quality of services that they can provide.

And you are convinced that that will happen.

It happened for me.

My question is for Mr Anderson. Is it not the case that, apart from two projects—the Forth crossing and the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement project—there is no prioritisation of projects in the STPR? The other 27 projects are not prioritised and no funding is identified for them. Would it not be useful to prioritise the strand in the STPR that relates to additional public transport provision in and out of the Forth crossing corridor?

Ministers expressed a prioritisation for four projects: the Forth crossing; the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement project, the Highland mainline improvements, and the Aberdeen to Inverness rail improvements.

Transport Scotland is seeking to move where we can on all 29 recommendations. In fact, a number of improvements have been made. Transport Scotland has a fully committed programme of investment across a range of projects, both road and rail. It is about seeking to follow those on and bring projects forward as appropriate. For example, in our current discussions with Fife Council, we are trying to understand the actual status of projects—including the Halbeath park and ride—in terms of planning status, allocation of land and so forth. We are working out the best way of taking forward that work.

My question is on the route of the bus slipway to the south of the bridge. A number of compulsory purchase orders are being made for the Scotstoun Park area of South Queensferry. Having visited the area, I know that we are talking about being able to look into the kitchens of people's homes. The industrial estate on the other side of the road does not seem to be the subject of CPOs, however. Why was the decision made to take the route so close to residential properties and not through a more industrialised area where it may not cause as much upset to residents?

We engaged with the residents some time before Christmas, when we started to examine the problem that we will create for them. The situation is very difficult. The residents are separated from the existing road by a bank of trees. The road works that we proposed involved land acquisition for what we regarded as a necessary piece of temporary construction. We are considering carefully whether we have achieved the right balance between what we need for the temporary conditions and the long-term effect of taking down the trees. My present conclusion is that we have not got the balance right. We will work with residents on that.

The bus improvement will take place on the other side of the road, towards the commercial estate. We are working hard to adjust the land take for that, to prevent the clear detrimental effect that the present arrangements show.

Will that consultation with the community continue?

Yes. We have met the community, we understand the problem and we are now applying to create an engineering solution. When we have a viable engineering solution, we will go back to the community.

It is possible to create an engineering solution.

We believe that we can sort that out.

Will you provide an update on the development of STPR project 25—a light rapid transit connection between Edinburgh and Fife?

SEStran has completed a piece of work on LRT connections. We will continue to discuss that with the authorities. The project is at an early stage of thinking. The initial thinking is that the system would be bus based, with the possibility of conversion to a rail-based system in the future, should patronage allow that.

The scheme is in the strategic transport projects review document, so it is not purely regional, but you are leaving it to SEStran to work out.

I said that we would continue to discuss the project. We will certainly discuss the detail with SEStran.

Why have you chosen not to proceed with a park-and-ride site to the south of the Forth?

At Echline?

Yes.

It is perhaps too strong to say that we have decided not to proceed, but we decided not to include the site in the bill for a couple of reasons. First, the scheme requires no powers under the bill—it would be constructed on black top that is already there. Secondly, we have remitted the project to SEStran for examination and consideration of how it fits in with SEStran's strategic proposals. The site would not be available until 2016—until traffic had moved off the existing A90 and on to the new road—so it need not be included in the bill.

Will you provide figures to show how much is due to be spent on maintaining and improving the Forth road bridge in the years following the Forth crossing's opening? I appreciate that you might consider that primarily to be FETA's responsibility, but you might well have figures that show the balance of advantage to the public purse in the round.

The financial memorandum includes not the amount of money that we will continue to spend on FETA but a calculation of the new bridge's whole-life costs over 60 years, which takes into account the savings in maintenance of the existing bridge, because of the lower traffic loadings on it.

Many of us have assumed from the outset that building a replacement bridge and using the old bridge for public transport, cyclists and walkers was a good idea. Was a cost benefit analysis done to produce figures to prove that that is an advantage over incorporating provision for those modes in the replacement crossing's design?

We knew the capital cost of including such provision in the new bridge separately. We knew the cost of demolishing the existing bridge, because that is what would have had to be done to avoid all on-going costs. At that level, we recognised the approach to be good value for money, but the question whether it represents good value for money in respect of the provision of transport has not been independently assessed. The decision to have a bus priority corridor was taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. The modelling tools that are available for assessing whether the approach represents value for money are somewhat deficient because they cannot reflect improvements in the quality of buses and therefore their comparable attraction in future.

We all hope that the news about the existing Forth road bridge will continue to be good, but bad news could be just around the corner. There is a danger that the dehumidification may not be a success, or that serious problems might be discovered with the anchorages, for example. If that bridge becomes unusable, what contingency plans do you have for moving things on to the replacement crossing at relatively short notice, perhaps in the not-too-distant future?

We do not expect that the existing bridge will not be available. If the anchorages were found to be weakened, they could be repaired without an undue impact on the operation of the bridge, and if recabling work should be necessary, the majority of it could be accommodated with buses running in two directions on one carriageway. That should be adequate.

We have engineered the new bridge with a much wider than normal hard shoulder with a view to its carrying public transport. On a daily basis, for wind loading, buses would simply be diverted on to that and they would consume all that space. If something that we cannot contemplate at the moment happens to the existing bridge and we needed to run public transport across the new bridge, or if pedestrians have to use it in the longer term, the new bridge will have sufficient width for us to be able to reconfigure it to cope with a number of scenarios. Of course, doing that would be at the expense of the hard shoulder, which the width would normally be used for.

You mention the hard shoulder. In conditions such as those that you have just described, how would you cope with a flow of bus traffic and vehicle breakdowns?

If a vehicle broke down, the intelligent transport system would need to indicate that to the buses, and the buses would need to pull into the bridge's running lane to get past it.

Do you know anything about the number of breakdowns that occur? I listen to the traffic news with interest. How often might such things happen in a year?

Two events must happen together: it must be extremely windy and there must be the probability of a breakdown. The probability of those two things happening together is quite remote. John Howison is correct. The ITS would register a vehicle on the hard shoulder, and buses would pull out, go around it and then go back in.

I understand that perfectly well, but I just thought that that is the kind of thing—

The relevant information is in the "Forth Replacement Crossing: Sustainability Appraisal and Carbon Management Report". I am afraid that I do not have the figures to hand, and it would take me too long to thumb through the pages of that report, but we can provide you with information on the number of hours in which the existing bridge has problems if you want that.

It is worth saying that the existing bridge is built in what looks almost like an arch shape, which means that vehicles need to go uphill for an awful long period. One problem is that people run out of petrol because, although they think that they have enough in the tank, the tilt on the bridge means that the fuel does not get to the carburettor. Bizarrely enough, that seems to be a predominant problem in breakdowns. That will not happen to the same extent with the new bridge.

That is a very interesting piece of information, which I am sure will be noted by all who read our Official Report avidly.

Does that problem happen to people from Fife who think that fuel is cheaper in Edinburgh?

I understand that there will be no bus lanes on the immediate approaches to the new Forth crossing. How will buses be prevented from being delayed by general traffic on the bridge approaches when the Forth road bridge is closed for maintenance, or due to adverse weather conditions?

There will be bus priority lanes on the slip roads going on to the Forth replacement crossing.

Good.

The policy memorandum accompanying the bill includes some eight references to a cross-Forth tram scheme. Why does the memorandum continue to highlight the ability of the Forth road bridge to carry trams, which suggests that they are an established part of the scheme, when there are in fact no plans for the construction of a tram line between Edinburgh and Fife?

The life of a bridge is about 120 years. We expect that the Forth road bridge will carry on for about another 80 years, given that it has already lasted for 40 years. During that period, we obviously need to create the flexibility to accommodate traffic that does not exist at the moment. The original proposals for the Forth replacement crossing envisaged that the existing bridge would be able to take trams so, on a like-for-like basis, we also asked whether—given that there had been some doubt about this at the start of that debate—the Forth road bridge would be able to take those. We worked with FETA and with consultants to look at the loading on the existing bridge and the articulation of that bridge. That work was done to give us confidence that, if a commercial case was made for trams in the future, they could be accommodated on the existing bridge in a way that would not preclude the continued use of buses on that bridge.

So we are talking about a very long-term strategy.

We are just acknowledging that the bridges will be here for a very long time, yes.

I see that no one else wants to comment on that, so I will go on to my next question, which I ask in the context of the committee's inquiry into active travel. Aside from existing facilities on the Forth road bridge, what provision will be made for cyclists and pedestrians within the public transport corridor?

Cyclists and pedestrians will be able to use the side spans on the existing bridge that they use at the moment.

So there will be no change there.

There will be broadly no change, but there will be some detailed improvements to connectivity.

Can you expand on those?

Cycle route 1, which I know well, could do with a few bits of improvement through South Queensferry. Strategically, cycle route 1 works pretty well from north to south. Did you have something particular in mind?

No, I just wanted to know whether any additional provision was being made.

We reviewed where we could make some minor improvements, which are perhaps outwith the project. We identified one or two improvements, but they are very detailed. We have maintained the cycle route at Ferrytoll, where cycle routes 1 and 76 meet. We have put a lot of emphasis on maintaining those routes into the longer term and on ensuring that they are not prejudiced.

I will allow a final supplementary question from Shirley-Anne Somerville and then from Alison McInnes.

I want to get some more detail on what is happening not just on the bridge but on the approach roads. Yes, cyclists can use the current bridge and will continue to be able to do so, but I am interested in what is happening on both sides. Are we not only maintaining the route but doing everything that we can to improve it, so as to encourage that modal shift towards active travel?

Mike, do you want to talk about the improved connection between the slip road and North Queensferry?

Yes. I love cycle route 1. I have cycled from one end of this great nation to the other end of the nation to the south using cycle route 1 and I care about it a lot. However, one of the problems with it has always been coming across the Forth bridge using the cycle route that goes down to the Forth. One of the advantages of taking the traffic on to the new bridge instead of the old bridge is that cycling across the bridge will be much more liberated and the routes coming off the old FRB into Ferrytoll and northwards should be a degree easier, although not dramatically so. That is the sort of thing that we have considered to ensure that the cycle routes are at least maintained and, in some cases, improved.

I understand that concerns have been expressed by local residents in South Queensferry about localised severance of their access, not across the bridge but out into the countryside. At the moment that access is easy, but with some of your new approach roads it might become more difficult. Can you address that?

We have undertaken surveys to quantify the number of people who would be involved, and we are looking at the area as a quadrant surrounded by a bypass around South Queensferry. Traffic will continue to pass along Society Road, underneath the new bridge at the northern end. Moving round, specific provisions will be made at the A904 junction. Moving further round, the new bridge that will be built to carry the B800 will be a wider bridge with better facilities for cyclists, taking them through there.

I thank all the witnesses for the time that you have spent answering our questions. Under both the first agenda item, and in considering the public transport elements of the bill, we identified a couple of areas on which you have offered to provide further information in writing. Those members who expressed surprise at the limited progress that has been made on exploring some of the issues that we touched on under the second item might welcome any further information that you may wish to provide on those issues as we continue the inquiry. Thank you very much.

Meeting closed at 16:22.