I advise those following our procedures elsewhere that we will follow the same format as previously. We again have three panels of witnesses from whom we will take evidence. Some of our panel members are now season ticket-holders for our proceedings, so we welcome back some witnesses from last week. This morning, we will take oral evidence on the general principles of the Forth Crossing Bill and will concentrate on the proposed road infrastructure to support a new crossing; how the routes would impact on communities; what those impacts might be; and how such impacts might be managed.
Transport Scotland will be here later to give evidence, and that is one area that I intend we will discuss with it. Have you had any discussion or estimation, irrespective of the mileage involved, of the drive times of the two different connections?
You are correct on the first point. Particularly during the pm peak, there is queueing back from the A904 junction, occasionally to the end of the slip road. I have not yet observed queueing on the slip road itself, but we could assume that, if exactly the same arrangements were in place, there could be queueing up the slip road, which would obviously be a road safety issue for the motorway network.
Is it fair to say that you have simply acknowledged the other two options that were proposed but are in fact responding to concerns that arise from the option that Transport Scotland has favoured?
ITS will certainly help. However, we might have some difficulty convincing motorists on the M9 who know the route and have reached the junction at which they wish to exit that they should believe the ITS signs and continue down to junction 1A. Lots of people have local knowledge and many now have satellite navigation, and we need to strike a balance in that respect. For strategic trip movements, people are more likely to go with the signs that they see. There might be a benefit if, as with the signs on the journey into Glasgow now, the timings for reaching various destinations are shown. After all, it gives people confidence if they are told that their journey will take another five or 10 minutes.
If the information is reliable, people will probably be convinced to stay on the motorway network, because they will not know whether there could be a hold-up in Newton, for instance. It is therefore about getting a balance. However, we do not really know whether people will stay on the route.
Will the system be able to tie into people’s satellite navigation devices? Will that be developed?
It is particularly good for us to hear that discussions on those things are taking place.
Within the team that I lead in West Lothian Council, one of the values that we hold is that of speaking up for folk who would not otherwise have a voice. Removing from the local authority powers over construction noise will mean that the local authority has no ability to represent the interests of the community. The West Lothian community that will be affected, which is close to the bridge construction, is relatively sparse, but the people are used to a very low level of background noise so they are likely to notice any noise. From our experience of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway project, in which the local authorities still have the ultimate oversight or sanction, we believe that the existence of such powers actually makes the code of construction practice work better because contractors know that it is in their interests to ensure that problems do not arise.
What is the view from the other side of the Forth?
It is always encouraging to hear people from local authorities say that their role is to represent people who are affected by planning applications. I am sure that having that on record will present some interesting challenges the next time that the local authority considers a planning application.
We also accept that some night-time working will be needed. On the Airdrie to Bathgate project, which has given us quite a bit of experience of such issues, the general principle that has been adopted is that there should be no night-time working on the new section of the line. However, that does not mean that night-time working cannot take place there. Rather, the contractors are required to approach us to say what work they need to carry out and why they need to do it at night. We then look at their request, and we have agreed that quite a number of those requests are reasonable. As well as allowing account to be taken of the views of the local community, as represented by the local authority, that has ensured that a more measured approach is taken to night-time working. As currently drafted, the code of construction practice for the Forth crossing has a general assumption that there will be night-time working. I question whether that is necessary in all cases.
During the parliamentary process for the Airdrie to Bathgate scheme, we put forward a case to the bill committee for an independent planning monitoring officer, who has been very successful in playing in the middle ground. As Marshall Poulton explained, it can be difficult for the employer’s representative to be seen to be impartial, but that can also be a difficulty for the local authority. In the Airdrie to Bathgate project, we have occasionally tried to assist local residents on noise issues but have then been seen to be on the contractor’s side. In those cases, the planning monitoring officer has been able to come in as almost an arbiter who can work with the contractor, with the local authority and with the residents. Having that independent role has taken away some of the problems facing residents or communities that are dealing with the local authority or a big contractor, because it has provided another useful option in the process. Given the community concerns that are surfacing, perhaps the committee should consider introducing a similar role. It might be worth looking back over the evidence that was given on the Airdrie to Bathgate scheme to see the reasons why that bill committee decided that having such a role was a good thing.
We had discussions with Transport Scotland on the drafting of the document as it developed. At this stage in the process, we are further ahead in many ways than we were during consideration of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill and the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, as we have a document. When the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was considered, there was no code—it was an idea that was starting to be developed. During consideration of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, we were able to work on the back of that. Towards the end of the bill process, Network Rail started to work on a code with the communities concerned.
West Lothian Council’s involvement mirrors that of the City of Edinburgh Council. We provided initial input, but there was no further contact until we saw the draft code of construction practice with the bill.
I have a final question, before the convener tells me off. Does the code reflect any of the concerns that you expressed during the discussions, or was it a consultation process in name only?
The comments that I have made in response to questions this morning reflect concerns of ours that remain. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss further other, detailed points, such as the categorisation of residential properties.
The key point about the code of construction practice is that it is not just a document; it gives you some ground rules and examples. For communities, the most important thing is engagement. It is good that they can refer to the code of construction practice and say to contractors or the promoter that they are meant to be playing to those rules. The key thing is to ensure that there is engagement with communities.
What has been the City of Edinburgh Council’s experience of the code for the trams project?
People always get a bit twitchy when there is a legal issue.
Mr McLellan, bearing in mind the convener’s comments about time, do you have any quick comments?
The code is a bit like the highway code compared to road traffic legislation. It is a document that emphasises good practice. As Graeme Malcolm said, there should be a role for somebody who is independent and distant from the contractor and employer. That is a good way forward. If there are issues between a community and the employer, that approach should help them to come to a reasonable solution.
It was fascinating to watch heads nodding furiously in agreement or shaking furiously in disagreement during the first panel’s evidence. I can now see who was doing that. I welcome our second panel: Margaret Smith is the member of the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh West, Evelyn Woollen represents Newton community council and Martin Gallagher represents Queensferry and district community council. We extended an invitation to Kirkliston community council but, unfortunately, a representative could not attend today. However, I am hopeful that Margaret Smith will be able to incorporate an overview of the way in which Kirkliston might be affected by the crossing, and that Mr Gallagher might be able to do likewise.
A number of communities, such as those in Clufflat, Clufflat Brae and the Springfield and Echline areas, would have much preferred everything to shift westward, hence my point about that being the majority view—most people were in favour of a tunnel, and of moving things further away. However, we are where we are, and the people on the edges of Echline, Springfield, Clufflat and so on will experience quite a few adverse impacts, not just where the major roads join the bridge but from ancillary stuff such as access haul roads down from the A904 to Society Road, which will have a massive impact on the backs of many of my constituents’ homes.
I am grateful to the convener and committee members for allowing me to join them this morning. I agree absolutely with everything that has been said. The “Setting Forth” document was produced carefully, looked at all options and proposed a link to the M9. One could say that the document was produced more than 10 years ago, but the only thing that has really changed is that traffic flow has become worse. Despite the construction of the M9 spur, which was supposed to benefit everyone, we still see the impact of congestion on local roads both in South Queensferry and, for me, in Newton, along the A904. Things have become worse, rather than better. The new Forth crossing can only add to the pressures that already exist. The construction of a link to the M9 is critical to alleviate some of the problems. While accepting that a new crossing is necessary, people want the implications for them to be limited as far as possible.
In your submissions and comments, you have all identified deficiencies, as you see them, in the proposed road network, and you have said in various ways how you would like them to be addressed. Would you like to add to what you have said? In particular, I am interested in whether you have raised your concerns with Transport Scotland, what the process was, the reactions and comments that you received, and how you felt about what you subsequently heard.
Last week and during the site visit, we heard that the mitigation relating to the rat-run through Newton will be signage that directs people not to do it. How effective do you expect that proposal to be as a deterrent from using the rat-run? I ask you to be brief.
Ultimately, the most effective solution—although probably not a popular one—would be to close junction 2, which is there to facilitate movement from the M9 to the Forth road bridge. There is nothing else in the immediate vicinity—it is in a relatively rural setting. However, I am sure that that would have other impacts on Linlithgow and so on and it would probably not be that popular. If we were trying to ensure that drivers used the intended route via the new slip road at junction 1A, that would be the solution. However, I am sure that it would create other problems.
Panel members will be well aware that the bill contains provisions that allow for a code of construction practice. You might have heard our detailed questions for the first panel on that. What concerns do you have about the code? How could it be improved? I address those questions first to Margaret Smith, given that I prayed her in aid in my comments to the first panel.
Thank you for that, Mr Stewart. I was pleased that what the earlier panel said did not knock my comments completely out of the park.
I will not say much more about the safeguards that have been take away, although people in Queensferry are concerned about that issue. We are concerned about other parts of the code of construction practice that have not been mentioned so far. In particular, there appears to be no community representation on the traffic management working group that has been formed to oversee traffic management schemes during construction; community councils in areas where such schemes are implemented will not be members of the group. Queensferry has a history of severe traffic problems arising from the operation of the existing bridge, where there has been maintenance. We have concerns about road works not just in the immediate vicinity of South Queensferry, but on the north side of the Forth. The works on the Ferrytoll gyratory will result in traffic queuing back across the Forth road bridge, which will impact on Queensferry.
The mechanism has worked well for the Airdrie to Bathgate project and could be used again.
We are always happy to look at things that have worked effectively elsewhere, but I think that such measures should be taken over and above ensuring that local authorities retain their rights. At the end of the day, we need someone who actually has some influence over the process and will be able to impose some form of sanction. Local authorities will be able to do that, as long as their statutory rights are not taken away by the bill.
Transport Scotland has not spoken to me. I should add that the code of construction practice itself—never mind any of the management plans embedded within it—was not put out to general consultation. Some of us, including, I think, the councils, were asked our opinions on the draft, but the general population who will be affected by the bill were not.
Under the code of construction practice, the contractor has 48 hours to respond to both inquiries and complaints. Should that timeframe be shorter and should there be a separate timeframe for inquiries and complaints? Should the contractor be obliged automatically to provide information to the local authorities about complaints instead of waiting for the local authorities to have to ask for them? Finally, should those complaints be listed publicly on a website on an on-going basis?
The best solution would be for the local authority to retain all its statutory powers and for all the works to be done under the same legislation. I do not have a particular view about the specific timeframe, except to suggest that we should follow the experience of models that have worked, including those for the Airdrie to Bathgate rail project and the Edinburgh trams project.
The response time for complaints should be shorter than that for inquiries and there should be some granularity associated with the level of complaint and an understood process for dealing with it.
The witnesses have been so good at predicting our questions that I have only one question left, which is for the two community representatives. Mr Gallagher said that we should learn from the experiences of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway and the Edinburgh trams project. Have you had any contact with community groups in those areas and, if so, have you learned anything that you might be able to take into this project?
I am afraid that Queensferry and district community council has not had such contact, because we simply do not think that the trams will affect us at all.
I am afraid not.
On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone for their very detailed submissions. It is clear that a lot of work has gone into them. I assure you that we have digested the information and that our questions to other witnesses will be informed by certain matters that we have not been able to cover with you this morning. As well as thanking Margaret Smith and Mary Mulligan, I thank in particular the two community council representatives for their contributions to our proceedings.
That was a long and detailed answer, and we may need to come back to you for some clarification in writing. There are some things that we need to test in all of that, however.
That would depend on traffic conditions at the time, my frame of mind and the vehicle that I was driving. I accept the point that was made by one of the witnesses from West Lothian Council that, for a car, it would be a quicker and considerably shorter journey to use the existing A904, which is a principal road. That is probably the way that I would go.
I think that you are effectively accepting that, under this arrangement, the A904 is still a very attractive proposition.
I would not dispute their view on that.
Do you mean the direct link?
A combination of costs and environmental reasons have caused the direct link to be dropped.
No. You will recall that I said that one of the problems with that route is the leakage from the junction with the A904. Although it is true that option 2 would have reduced the amount of traffic running through Newton, it would also have resulted in four times as much traffic running directly past the community at the south of South Queensferry.
Does that mean that you have taken a view that the community at Newton is likely to be smaller and perhaps less challenging than the community at South Queensferry? Is that the basis on which you have taken that decision?
I would like to return Mr Howison to the vehicle that was coming across the bridge from Fife, which our convener so eloquently portrayed. Would signage that said, “Please do not go through Newton”—in whatever terminology you wished to use—deter its driver from doing so if they thought that that route might be a bit quicker because they knew the road, and if they were under time pressure because they were late for an appointment on a new project, for example? Where is the incentive for people who use that route regularly to take a more circuitous route beyond signage that says, in effect, “Gonnae no dae that”?
I have a final observation, which is simply to say that the prospect of traffic standing in the middle of Newton or any of the other communities on the A904 is almost as bad as traffic whistling through it. I will leave it at that for now.
Our analysis suggests that in the year of opening, we will be able to maintain traffic moving on the network, even during peak times. The ITS will use variable mandatory speed limits, so the speed at which traffic will move during peak times will not be 70mph; it might be down to 30mph. In other words, it will be moving, but not in stop-go conditions.
The code of construction practice says that the contractor is required to monitor compliance with the code, but I note that your letter mentions that an independent team will monitor the works. What interaction will there be between the contractor and that independent team?
That is good. How will the process of audit of the environmental management system work?
There is an advantage in the working hours that are proposed, which is that the key movements of people to and from the site will be outside peak hours. The other point to recognise is that heavy goods vehicle movements will take place during interpeak hours, not during peak congestion hours. That is a commonsense way of organising matters.
Local residents have suggested that the problem with the code of construction practice is that the contractor is judge and jury. If I may mix metaphors, who will guard the guards? What is the level of independence under the code, if local residents do not see it as working?
I am not sure whether the community council and elected representatives will not be a little astonished to learn of the magnificent communicative relationship that you understand them to have had with you. In so far as those people are—to use your phrase—the eyes of the public, how would you characterise your discussions with them? They feel a little bit deflated and abandoned.
It is worth pointing out that this contract is with the Scottish ministers, not with Network Rail or some other entity.
No, but I was suggesting that the Scottish ministers should be regarded as the most responsible body for taking this work forward.
We spend about 38 weeks of the year deciding whether, in fact, that is the case.
Leaving that point aside, I also point out that in this case the employer’s representative will be a direct employee of the Scottish ministers, not a consultant or contractor, so there will be a direct relationship in that respect.
Two documents determine that—the code of construction practice and the environmental statement—both of which are binding on the Scottish ministers. Perhaps Richard Greer will answer your questions.
Yes.
Chapter 19 of the environmental statement gives a detailed assessment of the noise that is predicted to arise from the construction works as seen at this time. That is based on a reasonably foreseeable worst case. It is to allow for the fact that the contractor, once on board, might need to do something different. We always start with the worst case and then continue to work with the contractors, local authorities and the public, through the code of construction practice, to ensure that we endeavour to minimise the effect once we get to ground and execute the works. That information is in chapter 19 of the environmental statement. It goes through the monitoring that was done in each of the communities, demonstrates how, against best practice, criteria have been identified to ensure that construction will not go above a reasonable increase over the ambient noise, and demonstrates how the works and mitigation that are proposed in the environmental statement will ensure that that is the outcome.
I notice from the documents that a commitments and undertakings register will be prepared, should the bill proceed through the Parliament. Briefly, what will it contain and what status will it have?
We will, indeed, produce a commitments and undertakings register. It will mean that any commitments that we have given throughout the passage of the bill will be documented and will be binding on us. The same goes for undertakings. Anything that appears in that register will be binding on us.
That brings us to the end of our questions for the witnesses.
From a Fife Council perspective, we are happy with the layout per se on the north side of the bridge, but we have an issue with the configuration of the transport that would use that layout. Without going into too much detail on evidence that we have already given, the issue comes down to how we get priority for public transport. As we said in evidence last week, although the existing bridge will become a public transport corridor, bus lanes all the way from Halbeath and additional park-and-ride facilities north of the bridge must be an integral and essential part of the project. We are happy with the layout itself.
Like Bob McLellan, we in the City of Edinburgh Council do not have any problem with the road configuration on the south side of the bridge. In fact, I think that the proposed configuration optimises all possible traffic movements both to and from the bridge.
The proposal for the southern approaches certainly meets the operational needs of the Forth replacement crossing. However, as the committee will recall, option testing was carried out on alternative routes, one of which included a direct link from the Forth replacement crossing down to the M9. During the option testing, I understand that that option was sifted out by Transport Scotland for various reasons, including environmental reasons and cost reasons.
I have done a quick calculation of the drive times, based on a couple of assumptions. If you take the A904 route from junction 2 to the Forth replacement crossing, the distance is nearly 4 miles, or 6km. The speed limit is currently 50mph, except where the road goes through the community, but if we assume an average speed of 50mph—
It is 30mph. It has a buffer of 40mph on the west side. As you come from the 50mph zone towards Woodend junction, the limit changes to 40mph and then to 30mph through the village.
That is helpful, thank you.
I use the A904 junction, and I have some questions about what will happen if the traffic flow to the new bridge continues to come off at junction 2.
You refer in your submission to the conclusions that were reached with regard to options 1 and 2, and you mention the environmental reasons behind the conclusion on option 2. What was your view on that matter?
Did you think that such concerns were insurmountable?
I have not been that heavily involved in the development of the option testing. Transport Scotland has employed environmental experts to carry out the work. If a decision is to be based on the positive or negative effects of a scheme all the options have to be compared and considered together.
Yes.
Obviously, the code of construction practice is a key document for the construction stage. We have had initial discussions with Transport Scotland on how we will deal with HGV construction traffic and so on. The details will have to be worked up, because it will very much depend on the contractor and how he plans to phase the works and so on. Obviously, the tendering process is only just commencing.
I hesitate to say that intelligent transport systems depend on intelligent drivers. Many of us know that drivers are good at shouting at their sat navs or doing something that is completely different from what their sat nav says. I hope that that has been factored into the planning and modelling around intelligent transport systems.
As we have laid out, we are concerned that the removal of those powers will remove the local authority’s role in discussing or challenging proposed works and questioning the need for works at certain times. We feel that the removal of those powers might remove the right of the public to have someone to whom they can complain and who can be expected to act, or to arbitrate, on their behalf. Obviously, we acknowledge that some night-time working will be required, but we are concerned about the fact that our role in arbitrating in relation to such work, or in taking part in discussions on planning for it, will be removed.
I do not have a noise expert with me today, although we obviously have such experts.
In our view, some of the criteria for deciding whether work may be done outside normal hours are rather vague. From our reading of the code of construction practice, provided that the noise levels are adhered to, it pretty much allows contractors carte blanche to work at any hour. Perhaps that needs to be looked at, especially if the bill is to go ahead in its current form with the role of the local authority being constricted. We would like much clearer criteria to apply to night-time working. Dealing with that issue is primarily the role that we would want to play.
This morning I have raised the issues of the presumption in favour of night-time working, the generous night-time noise limits and the lack of maximum noise limits for impact noise, all of which relate to the code of construction practice as it stands.
That is a good point. There is no point in the code being written by some bureaucrat in an ivory tower who has never spoken to the local people. We need to keep common sense to the fore and engage with communities.
Mr Stirling, do you want to add anything?
I do not have anything to add to that.
My final question is for West Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council in particular, but if Fife Council wants to comment, I would be grateful. What would you all do to publicise the code to ensure that it is taken seriously and that it is not just window dressing? Margaret Smith, who is giving evidence as part of a later panel, said in her objection that the code is
We are running a little short of time, so I ask the witnesses to ensure that anything that they say is additional information, rather than repetition.
It is fair to say—indeed, Transport Scotland says so in its environmental statement—that the proposed road layout will have an adverse impact on Queensferry. It is highly unfortunate for my constituents that the changes that were made in December 2008 mean that there will no longer be a direct link out to the M9, because that would have taken the traffic away from Queensferry much more quickly. The road layout that we will now have is likely to have more of an adverse impact as regards noise and air quality, and the visual impact around the A904 around the Echlines will probably be greater. There will be a wider impact not just because of the construction of the new roads—there will be issues to do with construction compounds at Echline and access roads. There will be a number of different adverse impacts.
I share Margaret Smith’s concerns. In Queensferry, we are in broad agreement about the direct link to the M9, which is the crucial issue. When we carried out our initial community consultations at the start of the project in 2007, the overwhelming majority of those questioned favoured the tunnel option, on the grounds that it would connect directly to the motorway network and keep traffic away from Queensferry. The solution that is now proposed is to link up to the existing A90, but the south east of Scotland transport partnership integrated transport corridor study shows that around 50 per cent of traffic that comes across the bridge goes down the M9 spur to the M9 and onwards, either to the west or to connect to the strategic motorway network and the M8.
Yes. We will deal with them next.
Part of the underlying bedrock is that Transport Scotland is not particularly well trusted in Queensferry. Many people have raised many issues with it over the past few years, and there is a general feeling that those issues have not been listened to and that we have been subjected to an information process, which has sometimes been a tick-box process, as opposed to having proper consultation.
We consider that South Queensferry has been comparatively extensively consulted in the period of more than two years since September 2007, when the location of the crossing was announced. Transport Scotland has met Newton community council twice, included us in two consultations and placed an unmanned exhibition in our district—full stop. Until it announced the changes to the location of the southerly gyratory in June 2009, we thought that the overall design would result in the advertised traffic reductions on the A904 simply because of the nature of the difficulties that it would create for traffic coming off the access route on to the A904. However, there was no discussion at all with us about the change that moved that to its current design location. Things were presented to us as a fait accompli in July on the second occasion that Transport Scotland came to see us, and the questions that we asked about its presentation and the impact on us have never been answered.
We expect it to have virtually no effect. Even having advertised journey times on an ITS, which is the best possible mitigation of the signage ilk, cuts both ways. If the advertised journey time is 30 minutes, the choice that will be made will be a no-brainer. We would expect the take-up of sat navs that are sufficiently intelligent to be able to reflect real-time information from an ITS to be low, at least for a significant number of years, and that signage would make no significant inroads into a combination of maps, sat navs and local experience. The only people who would do what the signage told them would be people who made the journey once in a very long while.
I want to follow up the same question. We hear clearly the view that the best solution would be to have that direct link. If that did not happen, could things be done to stop the A904 becoming a rat link? Should we be saying, “If you can’t do that, at least make sure that you are doing these things”?
Indeed. I think that we should move on then, if we may.
I had an interesting meeting with the City of Edinburgh Council chap who is liaising with the trams contractors on such issues. He was particularly exercised by that provision. He said that noise abatement zones have not been used because councils do not want to end up in a fight with the contractor. Most councils want to find a solution that gets things moving for the contractor while taking on board the concerns of local communities. You are right that noise abatement zones have not been used, but the fact that the promoter wants to take away the possibility of introducing such a zone is seriously worrying.
One issue that has not been mentioned much this morning with respect to the code of construction practice is the difference between industry best practice and best practicable means. Industry best practice is a quantifiable, understandable standard. It may have to be an aspiration—the practicalities are understood—but it is a real concern that discussion of best practicable means continually subsumes the question of deviation from industry best practice. We would much prefer industry best practice to be enshrined in the code of construction practice, with the clear understanding that best practicable means will always be the ultimate standard.
You have helpfully predicted my next question. I will allow Mr Gallagher to answer my original question.
When it comes to monitoring, publication of plans and general transparency, we are more concerned about the fact that baseline measurements and so on are woefully inadequate in the code and the scheme as a whole. If there are proper arrangements for baseline measurements and subsequent monitoring and measurement, for full transparency, as opposed to disclosure of information at the discretion of the employer representative, and for some kind of arbiter in the overall process, it is not necessarily a requirement that monitoring per se should be carried out independently.
I ask Hugh O’Donnell to make his supplementary brief, as we are about to run out of time. Joe FitzPatrick still has to ask a number of formal questions.
I welcome our third and final panel of witnesses, who are from Transport Scotland. We welcome back John Howison, who is the interim project director; Mike Glover, who is the commission project manager; and Frazer Henderson, who is the bill manager. This week, they are joined by Andy Mackay, who is the commission statutory process manager, and Richard Greer, who is the commission team leader with responsibility for noise and vibration. Today, we are considering the roads infrastructure that has been designed to support the new crossing, the impact that it and its construction will have on local communities, the associated issues that arise from the code of construction practice, and issues relating to noise and vibration.
It would be appreciated if you could make it an abbreviated long answer.
I will do my best.
Following the choice of the cable-stayed bridge, several options for road works were considered north and south of the bridge. Those are described in reports that are available on our website—the “Forth Replacement Crossing: Route Corridor Options Review” and the “Forth Replacement Crossing: DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report”. The process culminated in two options south of the Forth. Option 1 had a junction on to the A904 by way of a link road west of the A800, a complex series of connecting roads to the existing South Queensferry junction and a connection to the A90 and M9 spur. Once the adjustment for leakage on to the A904 that would have occurred with option 2 was taken into account, option 1 produced the best value for money and the best use of existing infrastructure.
Those times are quite possible.
Is it about cost? You said that you were not sure whether that many cars would be diverted from the A904 even if the second option, or a variation of it, had progressed. I am interested to know why you think that. In essence, I find it difficult to understand why the A904 would still be attractive even if there had been a more direct route to the M9. The environmental stuff has been cited; I am sure that colleagues will come in on that in a moment. Has cost caused it to be dropped?
Yes.
Would somebody like to pursue that?
I would. What environmental considerations and whose environment are you talking about?
The environmental considerations governing this are set out in the “DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report”.
We are talking about quite a substantial figure.
That is all interesting and detailed, but to return to my question, and to put you back into that vehicle, what deterrent would induce you, in the picture that I painted, not to go through Newton?
How confident are you that the intelligent transport system will ensure that the traffic keeps flowing, especially at peak times? Do you have evidence from other locations where an ITS has been developed?
The independent team is the Scottish ministers site team, which will be appointed by the Scottish ministers. However, it is the Transport Scotland team that will be responsible for administering the construction contract and ensuring that the contractor complies with the contract. As part of that role, it will have access to all the monitoring information that the contractor produces. On top of that, we will be able to undertake our own monitoring as verification, to ensure that the contractor is adhering to the requirements.
There will be a requirement for consultation. We will be in the community—engagement with the community and with local authorities is very important. The local authorities and other bodies have a variety of statutory obligations concerning regulation of environmental impacts. An important part will be explaining and demonstrating to them that we are complying with the environmental statement, the impacts that are in there and the measures to reduce impact.
The requirement to have an environmental management system is written into the code of construction practice and the contract document. The contractor must have an accredited system in place, as with a quality management system. To have an EMS that is in accordance with BS EN ISO 14001, it must be subject to independent accreditation and audit. The contractor must have that in place as a precursor to undertaking the works.
To receive the accreditation, an independent audit from outside the responsibilities of the Scottish ministers or the contractor is required. I will not give anyone free advertising, but it will be an independent company that will certify on behalf of the accrediting organisation.
Sorry to interrupt, Mr Glover, but surely you are not suggesting that, when work is carried out in the marine environment, there will be no noise that affects local residents.
No.
There may be a perception that the contractor is judge and jury, but that is not at all the case. For any activity to be accepted, the contractor must go through a rigorous process of putting proposals to the Scottish ministers’ site team. On noise and vibration—to which we can come—the contractor must go through a strict procedure to demonstrate best practicable means before, not after, he starts an activity. Everything that we set ourselves up to do is aimed at being proactive rather than reactive. For example, the contractor will have to show us what machinery he will use in which location. We will determine what the activities will be and, if they do not represent the best practicable means, they will not happen. We will also agree with local authorities and the contractor the position of monitoring locations that will record activities on the site.
I was interested to hear how confident Mike Glover is about how all this would be monitored. If you are so confident, why does the bill seek to remove from those living around the construction site, whether they be in Newton, North Queensferry, South Queensferry or any of the other affected communities, the statutory rights that protect them from the very things that will be incorporated in the code of construction practice? Why, if the bill proceeds, will such powers be removed from the local authorities?
I just wanted to be clear about that.
I notice that you did not say “legally binding”. Are we talking about legally binding commitments?
Once it is commenced, the bill and its documentation will be binding.
I started with Fife Council because I think that West Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council might have somewhat more to say about the other side of the crossing. Who wants to kick off?
Given Transport Scotland’s prediction of a 39 to 40 per cent increase in traffic volumes by 2017, we have to ensure that the system works. Last week, the committee heard evidence about how the system has operated on the M42 and other schemes, and Marshall Poulton himself is an expert on it.
Sorry, is the limit in the community bit 20mph or 30mph?
I can understand why, when the environmental statement work was carried out, it was felt that the route alignment through Dundas estate would have had a major environmental impact on the area. For example, there would have been visual intrusion into and severance of major areas of open and agricultural land.
What are the rest of the panel’s views on the intelligent transport system that Mr Poulton referred to? Will it, as Transport Scotland has suggested, keep the traffic flowing?
Or another 55.
Marshall Poulton probably has a bit more experience of that than I do.
The industry is going in the direction that Mr FitzPatrick indicated. The key is the ability to capture information through floating car data and transfer it directly through a control centre into people’s sat navs, so that they have an idea not only of the best route to use, but of the traffic congestion on that route. People will be able to plan their journey using both pre-trip and in-trip information.
That is helpful.
Obviously, we on the north side have significant concerns about when Ferrytoll requires to be reconfigured as part of the project, to which Graeme Malcolm referred. The main construction site is planned to be on the south side, and there will be construction traffic. Obviously, there will be more congestion and problems as a result of traffic during the construction phase. The crossing will be a major piece of work that will take a long period of time.
My colleagues have touched on all the major points that I wanted to make. I reinforce the points that Bob McLellan made. We touched on the public transport strategy last week. It is essential that a public transport strategy is in place before the opening of the bridge, not only for the day of opening, but to mitigate noise and air pollution during construction and the possible impacts of that pollution on local people and communities.
In addition to what my colleagues have said, I think that the code of construction practice as currently drafted could put the employer’s representative in an awkward or possibly untenable position, given the requirement to be impartial in balancing the need to get the work done to programme with the need to try to address local people’s concerns about noise pollution.
You have comprehensively killed off my final formal question. I am interested to know at what stage, if at all, you were party to the proposed code of construction practice that is before us. Did you have input into that? Did Transport Scotland give you sight of a draft? In light of what Mr Malcolm has just said, were steps taken to ensure that you were fully engaged before the document was presented?
Around the middle of 2009, we were asked to give our views and submitted some comments. However, we were not involved in detailed discussions or negotiations on the final version of the code of construction practice that is before the committee.
My first question is directed to West Lothian Council, my second question is directed to the City of Edinburgh Council and my final question is directed to both councils. However, if the representative from Fife Council would like to make some general comments, I would appreciate that.
I will speak principally to the noise elements of the code of construction practice for the Airdrie to Bathgate railway, with which my team has been involved. The code went through a long drafting process, which resulted in the end product being reasonably well refined. There was clear buy-in, both because of the wording of the bill and because the promoters were willing from the start to meet the terms of the code, which were built into contracts when work was tendered out.
Those seem like very good examples of best practice. I am sure that we can bear those in mind in future. Mr Malcolm, do you want to add anything?
Yes.
I agree with Graeme Malcolm that you can write a really good code with the best will in the world, but it comes down to stakeholder engagement. We have had the benefit of delivering the tram system, which is essentially a railway track on a road system. It has been very challenging to say the least not only to deliver it but to keep the community happy and address its concerns. It is not just about being reactive to local concerns; it is also about being proactive in trying to design something in the future that will mitigate noisy activity.
I think that it was the word “legal” that silenced everyone.
It is fair to say that the code as written leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation and leaves it to the contractors to determine how to interpret it. I emphasise Graeme Malcolm’s point that the code sets out the ground rules. There will be times when it will be appropriate to make a different decision on the basis of the least worst option for a particular bit of work. The code is a working document, rather than something to be mulled over greatly by lawyers.
Are there any comments from the City of Edinburgh Council?
I will let Tom Stirling comment on the possibility of legal challenge, but I highlight section 2.3 of the code, which is on community engagement. From Edinburgh’s experience of the trams project, we know that it is vital that there is a good website that is kept up to date and is as dynamic as possible. There should certainly be regular project briefings and site visits. We have done that constantly through neighbourhood partnerships and community councils and by getting out newsletters over and above the formal notification to residents. That is vital. As my colleague said, the code of construction practice comes down to the contractor’s interpretation.
I agree with all the points that have been made on community engagement. We have heard that West Lothian Council has played a role as an arbiter, but that role is to be removed under the bill. The code of construction practice will still be used in situations in which activity or noise that is in excess of that deemed acceptable in the code might need to take place. Any decisions in that situation will be based on the code. In that regard, it will be a definitive document and not a starting point for discussions or negotiations.
Thanks very much, gentlemen. We will have a short suspension while we recast the witnesses.
On our site visit, we visited some of the communities that will be affected in locations on the approach to the point at which the bridge will physically join the landscape. You went into that in some detail in your submission. Do you want to comment on what the impact will be on any of them?
Moving west a bit, to Newton, I ask Evelyn Woollen whether she would like to comment on the impact. We have heard a bit about that already this morning, but could we hear more from you?
Thank you, convener. We are the community that runs along the rat-run section of the A904 from the southern bridgehead to junction 2 of the M9. We feel strongly that the absence of a direct west-facing route from the bridgehead to the M9 condemns us to have the A904 bridge the trunk road gap between the bridge and the M9 for westerly and southerly traffic. That will be exacerbated when the Winchburgh core development area project goes forward and a junction is built at Duntarvie. I do not know whether the committee visited that location when it had a tour. As even Transport Scotland’s figures reflect, that will make the rat-run even shorter and even more attractive relative to the rat-run to junction 2—I assume that it will be junction 1B or something of that ilk—and will in due course put as many as 10,000 vehicles a day down the tiny road that goes by Woodend and down to Duntarvie.
That brings me neatly to Mr Gallagher.
Mary Mulligan touches on the issue in her submission. I invite her to comment.
I have raised many issues with Transport Scotland over the past few years. We will no doubt come on to issues that were touched on earlier, such as the construction issue.
We will ask questions about those matters. Does Mr Gallagher concur with what has been said? Do you want to add anything?
Yes. On our discussions with Transport Scotland to try to resolve local concerns, everything has been a bit of a compromise. When initial concerns were identified about the height of the embankment of the southern approach road—the A90 extension—the solution that was given was to move the South Queensferry junction further west, up to Echline corner. Doing so would allow the embankment’s height to be lowered, which would reduce the visual impact, but it would make the A904 rat-run via Newton even more attractive, as the access to the replacement crossing would be around a mile further west than it would have been.
Thank you. That is helpful. We can ask the Transport Scotland representatives about those matters when we meet them later.
I would like to add two brief points. First, it is clear that there was surprise about the change in design that meant that there would not be a link road. That was because there was not the discussion about that change that we would think there would be. The majority of people believe that that change is a cost-saving measure, but they also doubt whether it really will save costs, as the resulting changes that would need to be made to junction 1A would have costs.
We have had conversations with West Lothian Council transportation officers. We have explored various ways of mitigating the effect, which mostly involve the use of various forms of more or less intelligent traffic lights and road crossings within Newton village, which in turn would increase journey times. The advantage of those is that they might have some small impact on sat nav.
I will keep my final question very brief, as I am conscious of the time.
I am pleased that we have heard so much this morning about the experience of the Airdrie to Bathgate project, which I think provides a good example of how we can deal with the pressures that arise during the construction period. Given that the earlier answers on the issue of consultation highlighted some concerns about the role of Transport Scotland, the promoter should not have sought to reduce the powers available to people to deal with the code of construction practice. Let us be quite clear that the Airdrie to Bathgate project has not been all plain sailing or easy-going—clearly, the nature of a major construction project is such that one would not expect everything to be wonderful—but the fact that there have been clear routes to deal with any difficulties that have arisen has given people confidence that their views will be listened to.
You have predicted my following question, but never mind. Currently, contractors are responsible for the monitoring of impacts such as noise and vibration. There was some suggestion that an independent body should be responsible for that; in the case of the Airdrie to Bathgate project, there was an independent monitoring officer. I invite each of the panel members briefly to give their views on that suggestion.
The Airdrie to Bathgate model certainly appears to have been quite effective and could be considered for this scheme. We have major concerns about the noise element, particularly the use of the term “best practicable means”, which is defined in legislation as
That is an interesting point.
I realise that Mr Gallagher has already touched on this, but has Transport Scotland spoken to any of the other panel members about initial development of the traffic management plan, which is drawn up by the contractor with a view to managing construction traffic?
The issue has not been discussed with us at all.
The 48-hour timeframe for complaints is probably too long, but I think that we need a certain amount of common sense in this matter. Some complaints might be incredibly important and might have to be dealt with immediately, while others might take a little bit more time. If we have a framework that we can trust and if residents themselves are shown a certain amount of respect in the process, these things should be okay.
I think that that sums up the matter.
My question was more about learning from the experience of those communities with regard to those projects, but you have not had any contact at all.
We became aware quite late on of the similarities between the Airdrie to Bathgate railway project and this project and the usefulness of its example. Although we have benefited from seeing the code of construction practice for the Airdrie to Bathgate line and discussing with our local authority officers how the experience might be useful, we have not had any direct contact with those communities.
I start with an apology because this answer will be fairly long: one must go right back to the beginning to see how the various decisions were taken.
I am happy with that—that side seems to be less of an issue.
Yes.
Will you lay them out for me, please?
Essentially, the direct link is longer and it would run through ground that is undisturbed at the moment.
You seem to be suggesting that it is better to drop a proposal that would stop whatever number of vehicles going through Newton in favour of a route that does not impact directly on an active and living community. For which environment is that an improvement?
No. It is certainly not as simple as that. The issue is that there is a marginal increase at Newton, while a substantial increase in the traffic through South Queensferry would otherwise have occurred.
Can you quantify that?
I said that option 2 would save perhaps up to 4,000 vehicles running through Newton. It would add about 15,000 vehicles running on the A904 directly to the south of South Queensferry.
You said that one of the reasons for dropping the direct link was value for money. Can you give us an idea of the additional cost of reinstating it? An order of magnitude would be fine.
The cost difference between the two options when the decision was taken was about £140 million at 2006 prices, excluding VAT.
Yes.
I would like to make a graphical point. With option 2, there would still have been a gyratory at Echline, where the new A904 junction is at the moment, because that is the only way traffic could have got from the new crossing towards Edinburgh. That is where the large volume of traffic that John Howison has talked about—20,000 vehicles—comes from. Traffic that came across the bridge would still have come to an interchange—a gyratory of some form—just south of the bridge. Traffic that wanted to go south to the M9 would have continued, but people who wanted to go to Edinburgh would have come off at that gyratory and gone towards Edinburgh. The layout for option 2 is almost the same as the one for option 1, but superimposed on that is a direct link that goes down. I just wanted to ensure that committee members could see that in their minds. It was not just a question of providing a straight route to the M9.
The general increase in traffic in the area has been brought about by planning pressures, both in Fife and West Lothian. We heard earlier that the amount of extra traffic that there will be once the bridge and the new road network have been put in place—as opposed to the growth that would occur if the cables on the existing bridge were reinstated—will be about 10,000 vehicles a day.
Delays being caused by traffic signals at Newton, further delays being caused by traffic signals at other junctions along the route and comfort being a particular factor in the journey are all considerations that may make me want to take the motorway link. Also, if I was going to other areas generally to the south rather than to the tract of land between the M9 and the A904, I might take the strategic route.
How will the independent team interact with the local council?
Who does that audit?
Why are the working hours for construction staff longer than those that were granted under other bills that have gone through the Scottish Parliament? How can you justify the extra disruption to affected residents? In written evidence, Transport Scotland has pointed out that the starting time for staff will be an hour earlier than that under private bills such as the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill.
Before I ask Mike Glover to answer that, it is worth reminding members of the nature of the project. We are talking largely about extensive marine construction activity to build the bridge. To the south, we are talking about in effect a South Queensferry bypass and, to the north, a link road to the M90. Those could be considered as three separate activities. Although the overall construction period is five and a half years, the construction period for the South Queensferry bypass will not be anything like as long as that. It will probably take two to two and a half years during that five-and-a-half-year period. On the north side of the estuary, the Ferrytoll links will take three to three and a half years.
I am not familiar with the Airdrie to Bathgate project, but I am familiar with other large contracts. As you know, I was involved with the Channel tunnel rail link—I was the deputy project director for 12 years, so I know a little about the organisation issues. The working hours of 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening form the envelope of time. With the marine works, operatives have to get to the work site, so there is what we call an hour’s warm up in the morning and an hour’s close down towards the end of the day. Therefore, fundamentally, the real construction activities will happen between 8 and 6. The requirement for hours of 7 to 7 is because of the sheer scale of the activity and its geographic distribution.
So in theory, work could start at 7 am, which is early for heavy noise to affect an area. The hours that you are suggesting are longer than those that were suggested in other private bills of which we have experience. The key point is that there is a clear link between earlier and later starts, and disruption to local communities by noise.
Your comment links nicely to my next question, which touches on a point that Joe FitzPatrick made about the code of construction practice. Many local residents are worried about noise, vibration and disruption. How responsive will the code be over the five to six-year construction period? Will you talk to local residents and change the code if you find that it is not effective in meeting local residents’ needs?
I can speak from experience, because the code of construction practice is a modern and appropriate tool to explain the intentions behind the construction process. Community liaison and outreach are a vital aspect of the code and of the way in which one should run major projects. Communication with the outside world should be on a 24-hour basis. With more conventional construction, people can go to a site office if they have a complaint during working hours. The structure that we will set up for this project will ensure that there is immediate contact with the community during all stages of construction; that will be advertised. There will be a 24-hour helpline for complaints, which will be received and recorded. Those records will be open to public scrutiny; in fact, the contractor will report the events that are taking place. Reporting will be continuous, so the situation will always be before the eyes of the public. As Andy Mackay said, the Scottish ministers’ team will ensure that such processes are in place. The scale of the project is such that the degree of community outreach will be much larger than members anticipate.
We announced that we were going to start drafting the code of construction practice when we undertook consultations with local communities in the early summer of last year. We provided a pre-consultation draft to Queensferry and district community council and North Queensferry community council and once we had received their initial responses we submitted a consultative draft to local authorities and a number of other bodies and then came back to the community councils. We analysed all the feedback that we received; changed the code in response to a number of comments, although there were a number that we did not change it for; and provided a response to each person who contributed to indicate how we had treated their views. That is how we have reached the current position with the code of construction practice.
Thank you very much.
I hope that you are not suggesting that the Scottish ministers should be any less accountable than any other body with regard to the population’s statutory protections.
Given that the local authorities are communities’ locally elected representatives, I would have thought that any code of practice should have been in addition to—as opposed to instead of—the statutory protection that communities already have.
So the register will form part of the supporting documentation.
We do not have a specific scheme. Under the bill, we will apply the same procedural rules, safeguards and requirements as generally apply for land and rights that are purchased compulsorily or which are affected. There are contexts in which compensation is payable to property owners when their property is not acquired, required or occupied. We have already touched on some of those elements. For example, if someone’s property is particularly affected by noise, we have the ability to provide compensation for noise insulation. We also have the ability to temporarily relocate people if they cannot endure the construction activities at a particular time. However, we will not provide any compensation to people for a loss of value during the construction activity.