You say that the automatic growth in traffic will mean that 20 per cent more vehicles will be using the junction by the time the bridge opens. Do you have any information that the bridge will add to that and, therefore, be responsible for more congestion and loss of amenity in the area?
Do you have any information on the history of accident rates on the A90? Obviously, you have a view about the impact that the new crossing might have on accidents.
We are not blaming the bridge per se. I have had the benefit of receiving a detailed presentation from John Howison on the bridge and its design features, and I was very impressed, particularly with the work that has been done on the bridge’s access and exit routes. However, that work stops about half a mile from the bridge. There is a suggestion that the increase in the provision of park-and-ride facilities might help public transport initiatives and that the use of the old bridge for public transport might reduce crossings by other vehicles. The airport growth will increase traffic requirements in the area, but I understand that work on that is being prioritised as well.
You do not have a problem with the bridge; you simply want something to be done to deal with the problem at Barnton in parallel with that process.
You are not the first person to make that point.
We believed that to be true until we saw John Howison’s presentation. His figures seemed to contradict that view, so we might withdraw that element. We have no specific evidence on the matter, other than the evidence from John Howison that contradicts our point.
I feel—or, rather, the community council feels—that it is very important to have an integrated transport policy around the bridge. That issue is not the bridge’s fault. The bridge provides an opportunity to pull the different bits together to make the whole thing work. It is a bit like putting a pacemaker into a patient. If it is not connected, the patient will die. The pacemaker might be fine—we might have a beautiful bridge—but it will not fulfil the purpose that it was designed for. Without such a policy, the bridge will not provide the economic corridor that we want up the east side of Scotland. We are frustrated by that.
My questions are specifically to Mr and Mrs Kirkcaldy. Before I move on to more general criticisms, let me start by asking about the submission from them that we have just received, which I have had a quick look at. On the final page, the submission asks:
Thank you for that summary. You also said that you are very concerned—and understandably so—about the disruption to your business from the construction of the crossing. On page 5 of your submission, you state that the business will be
How long have you been advised that the works around your property will last? Do you have any solutions to the problems that you have raised that would make life a bit easier for you during the construction phase? You have already mentioned the independent environmental health assessment.
So upwards of seven years, probably. The only mitigation that we can really see is that we are afforded the opportunity to be relocated during the construction phase.
We have tried to be helpful by outlining in our submission what we see as solutions to some of the problems. We have made quite a few suggestions, although I do not have the information in front of me so I cannot run through the whole list. Like most people here, we are not experts in any particular field. We are really talking from the point of view of being property owners and residents within a community. We can use only our best endeavours to comment on the various detailed aspects and make suggestions for what we see as solutions.
Thank you for your evidence.
I have two questions. You are perhaps aware that the code of construction practice removes from the local authorities control over aspects such as noise and vibration, to which you have referred. If that control remained with the local authorities, would that give you more confidence about the issues that concern you? Furthermore, has anyone had any indication of who the contractors are that you said have been around the area recently?
The other question was on local authorities having control over noise levels.
You also refer to your belief that Transport Scotland has departed from the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process. Where and in what way has it departed from that?
I come from the same place. We should consider whether the existing bridge can be repaired at much less cost than building a new bridge. The proposal is badly thought out. There seems to be a rush to get another crossing built, on the basis that we badly need it. I would prefer us to have a good look at repairing the old bridge, to see how long it will last. That would buy us time to select the right place for a new bridge, where it should be at less risk to the environment and so on.
The effect on me will be similar. When we moved to the area we liked the views, particularly over the current iconic rail bridge. The prospect of having a four-lane motorway 100m from our bedroom is not something that we planned on when we acquired the property. We will lose the view completely and will look out on to a bund. We are not even convinced that the planting will be mature; we think that it will be some horrible immature forest to start with. The noise of the piling for the new road is a concern, as is the effect of the piling on the structure of the house. We will also lose completely the greenbelt land in front of our house and all the amenity on the Dundas estate where the new road will go, which is one of the principal attractions of living there. That is all going to go.
I am sorry—we are just getting the correct photographs to remind us of where you are talking about. That is where the banking is allegedly going to go.
We stood and looked across at the road. At which end of that bit is your property? Are you at the immediate road end or at the furthest end?
We are at the immediate road end, right on the right-hand corner. Ours is probably the closest property to the road.
The cables have deteriorated. It is difficult work, because you need a couple of points on the curve and, if you’ve just gone into the cables for the first time, you have only one point and you have to try and work things out. The first time the Forth Estuary Transport Authority reckoned that there was an 8 per cent loss of strength in the cable; however, after going in a second time—I think that it was in 2006, but I am not exactly sure—they reckoned that the rate of deterioration was not as severe as they had originally thought. They reckoned the loss of strength was 10 per cent. The bridge cannot be operated if there is a 20 per cent loss of strength in the cable; the factor of safety was 2.5 when it was built, and the bridgemaster will not operate it below a factor of safety of 2. The idea behind the cable drying is to halt corrosion and ensure that the loss of strength does not go much beyond 10 per cent. In effect, the bridge will last for the rest of its service life, which was originally 120 years.
I will come back to you in a moment on what you foresee happening if the crossing does not go ahead and maintenance issues arise.
I do not think that we have enough evidence of how other bridges in the world have lasted longer than the current Forth road bridge. I find it pretty shocking that it appears to be time-expired after 46 years. I believe that its design life was 100 years, which is similar to that for the new crossing. Moreover, no traffic reduction proposals, whether for HGVs or private cars, have been put forward and it is very hard to find any evidence on traffic figures. I was very interested to hear earlier comments about the traffic modelling—
Quite—so what is being done to ensure that the same mistake is not made with the new bridge?
If I understand the position correctly, the maintenance work that is being talked about will have to be carried out at some point if the existing bridge is to stay. The cost of that will not go away.
We are straying slightly at this stage. Can you stick to what you think the implications would be if the new crossing did not proceed?
This is something that you should be doing anyway. The south east of Scotland transport partnership and Fife Council have given evidence to the committee that roughly 800,000 vehicles a year could be removed from the bridge corridor if park-and-ride and park-and-choose facilities were in place at Halbeath and Rosyth. SEStran has included those in a package of measures that would cost £50 million and which are outlined in annex C of its written submission. Those measures would help to increase the number of people who cross the bridge, but not the number of vehicles that cross it. A lot could be done to increase the capacity of the road network to carry people, not vehicles, without building a new bridge.
The difference between £120 million and even the low estimate of £2 billion suggests that there is an awful lot of scope for job creation, even if those job losses materialise. However, as Mr Marshall said, that is only a consultant’s view, based on the significant delays that are already experienced in traffic flow across the bridge. A couple of weeks ago, traffic on the bridge came to a halt because of the cold weather, and issues would arise as a result of planned maintenance on the new bridge, too. If maintenance work on the existing bridge would cause job losses, that would be an issue with the new bridge as well, unless the traffic were transferred back on to the old bridge. Like Mr Marshall, I suspect that if there were two bridges, public demand would force the politicians to make the second bridge available in such a situation. The cost of repairing the existing bridge will arise much sooner even if all the traffic is taken off, if it then has to go back on again.
Do Mr Stevens or Mr MacDonald wish to put forward any arguments at this stage?
We have a very good rail network across the bridge, and additional jobs could be created by increasing the amount of trains that run on that line. That would involve construction work, and the additional trains would reduce the traffic flow.
I thank you all and bring this session to an end. We will be joined in a moment by witnesses from Transport Scotland.
We move to the third panel, and I welcome back those from Transport Scotland who are with us again. John Howison is the interim project director—I notice that he is accompanied by a racy-looking motorcycle helmet this morning; I do not know whether that is competent evidence, but I am intrigued. He is joined by Mike Glover, commission project manager; Alan Duff, team leader for traffic; and Frazer Henderson, bill manager.
The first thing is to see what the actual level of the impact would be in the context of our compliance with the code of construction practice. The area that Mr Kirkcaldy is in is quiet at the moment. The environmental statement contains three distinct classifications of area. His would be in the lowest category, which is category A. The environmental statement contains a requirement as to the daytime level of noise that will be allowed. Generally, at 65dB, that level is somewhat below the absolute level in the code of construction practice, which is an umbrella figure. In Mr Kirkcaldy’s area, that will be reduced. I refer to the noise level outside his building, but we need to consider what that means in general terms. I ask Mr Glover to add to that.
The Kirkcaldys are in a unique position, which we are very sympathetic to.
I will hand back to John Howison in a moment, but—
I am quite sure that you did not mean to make a “Let them eat cake” remark. Do you wish to respond on that point?
It certainly does. I made an observation about the windows because Mr and Mrs Kirkcaldy are still sitting in the public gallery and I wanted you to put on the record your assurance that that is not your thinking on the issue.
You said that 65dB would be the limit in that area. To help our understanding of that, will you give an indication of what other things make that sort of sound? Is it the same as a tractor or a lorry chugging away outside, or something else that we might understand?
But can you give us an example that we might understand of something that makes a sound of about 65dB?
An analogy.
Yes, an analogy.
This is a very dubious analogy, but 60dB is the level in a busy office environment, and 65dB is above that.
That is the level outside the house.
In relation to Mr Kirkcaldy, I would argue that there is a strong possibility that we could relocate his business elsewhere in the near vicinity, should the occasion arise.
We would have to consider each case individually.
I confirm that all the air quality and noise issues and all the technical issues that support the health impact have been independently audited. A health impact analysis is extremely subjective—Mrs Kirkcaldy rightly referred to the issues that are considered in it—so it is traditionally not independently audited as such; the issue is the supporting constituent parts that lead to it. We have made it quite clear that the Kirkcaldys are in a unique position, and we are sympathetic to finding ways in which we can help to mitigate their situation. Clearly, we will research what we can do to give them that assurance, but I would mislead members if I said that we will do what is being proposed, because that might not be physically possible.
Yes.
That is as opposed to starting to dig outside front doors at that time in the morning. Will you clarify that?
Your description is absolutely right. I think that I spoke before about a warm-up and a cooling down at the end of the day. The first half hour, which sometimes extends to an hour, is when the operatives organise themselves and carry out what we call toolbox talks—in other words, the briefing to the operatives before they go out to the work site. Often it is too late to brief people when they get out to the site. Conceptually, what you portray is right—turning on the big machines and getting the large bulldozers, or whatever they might be, operational in that warm-up period of half an hour to an hour is quite modest. There will also be traffic movements that impact on the Kirkcaldys, because part of the operation will be to transport operatives in light vans down to the foreshore, although there will not be heavy plant. I hope that that addresses your points.
From the starting date of 22 February. I add a further point as general background. The situation with Inchgarvie lodge will be difficult to manage as part of the construction programme. We have undertaken an assessment of the extent of the impacts. However, it is worth mentioning that in the absence of the new bridge being built, the land in Echline fields would not remain as open fields; a planning consent is currently in place. That is not of our doing; it is a commercial arrangement between Cala Homes and the City of Edinburgh Council, which felt that it needed housing in that location to match its requirements. Therefore, whether or not the bridge goes ahead, significant building and construction works in that area will affect both Inchgarvie lodge and the houses at Clufflats, Springfield and Echline.
The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee declined my offer to give a lecture on traffic modelling—
We have done two things. For the high-level model, the documents are available.
For the intermediate ones, at the request of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee we went to South Queensferry to give people an appreciation of what the traffic modelling entailed and to answer questions on it. Next week, we are going to North Queensferry, and a date has yet to be set for Kirkliston. We are trying to go out and explain what we have done.
The technical memorandum sprung from the fact that we, the Highways Agency, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Office need to keep some form of control over the way that various projects are developed by our consultants. The reports were therefore meant not to be an administrative requirement on ourselves but to provide guidance on how the people whom we charge with undertaking work should undertake it.
The forecasting in the forecasting report is all about how much travel demand there will be if we do something. All of the travel demand forecasting that we have done for the project comes from the TMFS and is included in its documentation; I am not sure whether it is in a separate report or whether it is included in the model development report. There is no specific forecasting report for the Forth crossing, but all of our forecasts are derived from the TMFS, which has the supporting documentation.
No. As I explained, the wording that is used in the design manual for road and bridge works is targeted at people whom we charge with undertaking such work on our behalf. It is for us, as signatories to the document and the appropriate authority for the works in Scotland, to take individual decisions on individual schemes, should that be more appropriate.
Thank you for that clarification.
The majority of HGV traffic that goes across the bridge does a right turn and goes to West Lothian or beyond, but I cannot recall whether the figure that has been cited is accurate. We can check that.
This morning we heard—mainly from the second panel, but also from the first—about the overall costs of the project. Various assertions were made, some of which are familiar to us from the evidence that we have heard so far from various organisations, but there were one or two slightly different propositions.
Yes. I add that the work that was done for FETA was done very much at the feasibility study stage. It made some assumptions about whether it would be possible to continue to run traffic on a carriageway with work being done to weave a new wire directly above it. We should assume that the predictions for disruption that are made in that report are probably at the lower end of what would be likely to occur.
In those two applications to TEN-T EA, what amount was applied for?
Sorry, how much was that?
The grant for preparation work is 90 per cent. I cannot remember the exact figure, but I will provide it later. My recollection is that the first application was for about £10 million.
I understand that European regional development fund moneys are separate and are subject to limitations on budgets. Was ERDF funding also applied for?
My understanding is that the area is not eligible for such funding.
The “unsuccessful bidder’s premium” must be the best example of an oxymoron that I have ever heard.
Yes, that point has been put to me. The answer is that an unsuccessful bidder’s premium does not per se suggest that the competition is unsuccessful if we have two bidders reaching the end.
The impact would depend on when the bidder pulled out. If it happened at an early stage, the competition would be fundamentally compromised. If it happened at the very end, and a bidder were still making a bid in the expectation that there was competition, we would consider that bid and decide whether it represented good value for money or whether we could do better by some other means.
You have made predictions about scope change. One of the issues that made it difficult to control the building costs of the Scottish Parliament was the constant changes to the contract. I think that you told the Finance Committee that the design of the bridge is basically fixed. Could you confirm that? Does that also apply to the road infrastructure?
Earlier, you mentioned the groundworks that are going on—Mrs Kirkcaldy also referred to them. Who is picking up the bill for those? Are both bidders jointly paying, or is Transport Scotland?
Yes.
To return to that point, Mr Mather had made an abstract calculation in relation to significant increases in road traffic. You projected a 2.5 increase per year, from which he extrapolated an 18 to 20 per cent increase in traffic on the A90. That was the basis of his concern about a substantial increase in traffic volume. What is your response to that?
You will be aware that Mr Kirkcaldy runs his own architecture business from his home. He was very concerned about the disruption to his business and felt that the business as a whole would not be sustainable. He might have to move out during the construction phase. How can the effects on and potential disruption to his business be mitigated?
The peak construction period will be related to the construction of the concrete piers, which will be on Inchgarvie land, and the abutments behind. There will be a combination of plant and the placing of concrete—that sort of thing. We are not talking about general vehicle movements.
Are there measures in the code of construction practice to provide for additional soundproofing to the homes of individuals who are affected, such as the Kirkcaldys? If someone has to move out of their home temporarily during the construction phase, will a compensation package be available? If a business is lost or severely damaged for the five-year period, will compensation be available? Am I right in thinking from reading evidence to the Finance Committee that there is a ceiling of £10 million on the compensation package? If that is correct, the figure appears to me to be fairly low, considering some of the issues that have been raised in objections from people throughout the area.
To pick up on that final point, the £10 million is not a ceiling or a cap; it is simply our estimate of what the compensation will amount to.
The code of construction practice addresses most of the questions. The contractor will have to use best practicable means to control, mitigate or monitor noise—it will be under that obligation at the outset. The contractor will also have to produce a noise and vibration plan, which we must approve before it can start any work. Therefore, that gives a degree of assurance that what the contractor is proposing will be sound—no pun intended. The contractor will also have to undertake a risk assessment of adjacent properties, which might lead to structural or dilapidation surveys if properties are at risk. That is another degree of comfort to householders.
If someone loses their job or source of employment because of the work and is unable to relocate, can any compensation be provided for the loss of the business as a whole?
It is perhaps worth explaining that compensation issues and estimates are not handled by us; they are handled by the district valuer, who is part the Valuation Office Agency. Broadly, district valuers have undertaken such work for us for at least as long as I have been employed by the Scottish Government, which is nearly 40 years. They have gained huge experience of estimating over that period.
My final question is also about noise. You heard Mr and Mrs Kirkcaldy arguing that there should be an independent environmental health impact assessment. The reasons for such assessments have been referred to. What are your views on that? Is it possible to arrange for such an assessment to happen?
Could you at least look into the matter and report back to the committee?
Yes. We will look into it.
It is.
We have not failed to take it into account. We recognise that in the winter in Scotland it is dark for much of the day, particularly at the times when building works will be being prepared. I ask Mike Glover to say more about that.
The compounds will be lit for security reasons as much as anything else, but the haul roads will not. If Parliament decides that the site should be to the west, the main compound will be quite some distance from the properties, but there will be light. When we form the embankment as part of the construction, the site will not be so vivid. There should be no major impact from that light on the areas to the south—Clufflats and Springfield. That is all that I can add.
We will stay with you, Mr O’Donnell, if you would like to move on to consideration of Mr Richardson’s evidence.
Mr Richardson was particularly interested in a couple of points about the traffic modelling. While you were waiting to give your evidence, you will have heard his observations about a tool that has recently become available to you that was not used in your modelling for the proposed crossing. Have you any comment to make on Mr Richardson’s observations, particularly in relation to the differences between strategic modelling and traffic modelling that is done at a local level?
As will I.
Does that tie in with other criticisms or observations by Mr Richardson that Transport Scotland has departed from the STAG process or guidance?
I do not believe that we have departed from the STAG process or guidance. I would like to address the suggestion that an intersection between the connecting road and the A904 is a new idea. In fact, that is a natural place for a junction, and it was temporarily moved from that location because of other considerations. Although junctions were not looked at in detail under the STAG process, the outline plans that indicated the proposals for the link to the bridge showed south of the bridge a toll booth, a junction at the A904 and a further junction at the M9. To suggest that a junction has sprung from mid air is to look at the situation the wrong way round. The junction is in the natural place, and there would have to be a reason for putting it in a different position.
On page 10 of Mr Richardson’s objection, he mentions a
I think that I would have signed that document in my role as chief road engineer. As a result, you will perhaps forgive me for not springing to the exact reference that you quoted.
I return to the discussion that we had about traffic modelling and traffic flow. In evidence from our second panel, Mr Marshall suggested that up to 70 per cent of the HGV traffic that goes across the current bridge is travelling west and could be diverted to the Kincardine bridge. Is his suggestion correct? If so, could we move more traffic across the Kincardine bridge? Does the bridge and the road network in the area have the capacity to allow that?
I asked first whether the suggestion that 70 per cent of the HGV traffic that goes across the current Forth bridge is heading west was accurate.
That would be useful. Our concern relates not to traffic to West Lothian but to traffic to Glasgow: at issue is whether such traffic could take the more direct route, if we were to enforce that choice in some way.
I will summarise. Although Mr Marshall, I think, told us that people were used to this level of disruption, the disruption would take place over a much longer period and it could not be contained within non-peak driving hours—it would have an impact outwith that period. A totally different level of disruption would therefore be required to undertake maintenance of the existing bridge at the level that is envisaged.
From the evidence that we have heard from witnesses who live in the area and who are familiar with the proposals, it seems that there is a lack of understanding among a wide community of people about the scale of the work that would be required to repair the existing bridge and the effect that that would have. I imagine that the witnesses are representative of general public sentiment, and they feel that the new bridge is unnecessary because repairing the existing bridge would be much less difficult than is thought. What needs to be done to have people understand your perspective?
We had hoped to take evidence from Mr Minogue, but he was unfortunately unable to come along to the meeting. You have seen his objection and his suggestions. Do you have any comments on his suggestions?
Our starting point in setting the framework for the control of costs is that we intend to approach the project through a limited risk design-and-build contract and to secure the contract through competition. Once we have a tender in front of us we will know its likely outturn price, subject to the caveat of inflation, of course, which you mentioned. Our confidence in the approach is borne out by the fact that we have used this type of contract for road projects in Scotland since 1991. During that time, our average tender to outturn price has been about 3 per cent, compared to the average that was experienced before that, when we used a measure-and-value contract, which retains an awful lot of the risk, which ran at 30 per cent—that is not unusual for the industry norm. So, we are using a type of contract of which we have experience and are securing a good price for it through competitive tension.
We applied for the preparation costs that we foresaw. On the first occasion, I think that the application was for one year’s costs—
An argument could be made that the project has Scotland-wide salience, but we can do that on another day.
We have split up the works into various contracts. At the moment, we are tendering for the principal contract, for which the expected price that has been publicly stated is between £0.9 billion and £1.2 billion. That contract is for only part of the works and does not include inflation, which will add on to the costs during the time that the works are current.
So a last-minute withdrawal could create a few headaches, if you ended up with only one bid.
We are acutely aware that we are designing a bridge with a lifetime of 120 years and that the requirements during that period will vary considerably in unforeseeable ways. Therefore, we have built in a considerable amount of flexibility in the way in which the bridge can operate, in relation to the number of lanes, the width of the hard shoulders and so on. From that point of view, the bridge is the bridge that we want to purchase and is highly constrained within the bill and the environmental statement.
Two consortia are operating within the bidding process. Would it be appropriate for there to be anything in the documentation for the process that would prevent the losing bidders from bidding for the subcontracts that the winning bidders got, or, indeed, would encourage them to do so? Is my question clear enough?
Transport Scotland is promoting and funding those investigations. That is our normal practice for a design-and-build contract.
Thank you. That concludes the public part of our meeting.
Item 2 is stage 1 evidence on the Forth Crossing Bill. I ask everybody to ensure that they have their BlackBerrys and mobile telephones turned off, as they will otherwise interfere with the sound recording. As has been the format previously, we are delighted to welcome witnesses to give evidence to us in panels. The main purpose of today’s meeting is to hear from some of the objectors to the bill. We have not been short of objections to consider, and some of the ones that we have received are extremely detailed. We have read all the objections in detail, in order to absorb their content. There is a déjà vu element to some of them, as there are common themes emerging. However, at this stage of the proceedings, the committee is considering the general principles of the bill, so we have invited the objectors to speak to certain aspects of their objections to the whole bill.
We accept the point that the new bridge will increase traffic only marginally on the A90 and through the Barnton junction. That is a reasonable assumption to make. However, Transport Scotland states that the natural growth of traffic is 2.5 per cent a year—that happens automatically. Using that figure, we can see that, by the time the new crossing opens, there will be 20 per cent more traffic crossing the Barnton junction.
So you have hypothesized on the back of assumptions that are made about traffic growth generally.
Yes.
Yes, because I believe that the bridge will fail to achieve its aims if that is not done.
Okay, thanks for that.
The health impact assessment was published only on 25 November and was not part of the documents that were presented to us at the open meetings. The existence of the assessment did not become apparent to us until after we had lodged our objections. We found it only through trawling through Transport Scotland’s website.
I think that you have identified very well a gap in the market. Basically, your argument is that we should have an independent environmental health impact assessment using the criteria that are laid down in the other comments in your submission. Is that a fair assessment of your view?
Yes, I believe so.
We have had very brief conversations with Transport Scotland but no detailed discussion about my specific losses or potential losses. I am a practising architect. Clients come to my studio to look at designs, as do consultants and contractors. Given that we will be in what could be viewed as an island surrounded by constant construction traffic flow, access will be a problem. It will also be a problem to create an environment in which it is comfortable to meet and concentrate on work, given all the thundering traffic that will be going by.
Has your assessment been that there will be a reduction in business—I think that you have identified that—or that you will be unable to continue with your business once the bridge construction starts?
I would be better able to answer that if some monitoring was happening in and around our premises. When we asked Transport Scotland to monitor the pre-construction work situation, we received a negative response, the response being that there is a noise monitor in close proximity, in the neighbouring residential area. We do not have a benchmark to start with. I believe that it is the elevated level that has to be considered and not the end level.
Although the committee visited the area around Inchgarvie lodge, you may not have had the benefit of coming into the courtyard and seeing the raised garden. Our house turns its back to the noise from the current Forth road bridge and the prevailing winds carry the noise away. As Ken said, we have constantly asked for a noise monitor to be put on the house to demonstrate that just a few hundred metres away the noise levels can be a lot higher. We are secluded where we are, and the courtyard encompasses the property. As Ken says, we cannot benchmark without having had the benefit of monitoring.
Have you considered in detail the code of construction practice?
We heard in a previous evidence session that work will start earlier in the day than in other examples. The start time for the Airdrie to Bathgate railway line, for example, was 8 am, I think, as opposed to 7 am in this case. Obviously, that has implications for noise. Were you aware of that? What are your thoughts on that?
We are currently experiencing that. As you probably know, the contractors have moved into the area. We had been told that no further heavy vehicles would be coming up and around the private driveway of Inchgarvie lodge once things had started, but these are pre-works, and of course the vehicles are back again. The road surface is already deteriorating. We have had tractors and construction vehicles up and around that private drive, not only churning up the drive but waking us up just after 7 o’clock in the morning at the weekends.
Are there any other points that you want to make at this stage?
I presume that it was test boring.
When you say recently, what do you mean?
So you got a letter, but Mr and Mrs Kirkcaldy did not get one.
A letter came some time ago to say that that work might take place.
Did it indicate how long the work would last?
Good morning, Mr Richardson. Again, the questions are fairly detailed ones on your objection. On page 7, you state:
As far as I am concerned, no detailed assessment of an alternative option to the current proposal has been undertaken. I specifically put the question to Mr Howison and his team from Arup-Jacobs, and they advised me that it was a natural progressive decision from the original proposal, which was the link road near the Scotstoun interchange.
I am not sure that I mean the STAG process. I am more concerned about the traffic modelling, especially the independent audit of such models and the procedures that are laid down in the design manual. For instance, it is a mandatory requirement on Transport Scotland that a validation report be made on all local models, but that has not been done. The same goes for a forecasting report, which has not been carried out. Also, although Transport Scotland assured me last summer that an independent audit would be carried out, Mr Howison now says that it is not required.
Did he say why it is no longer required?
No.
It is just not required, full stop.
That was his answer.
That all relates back to traffic modelling. I understand that the environmental statement is a high-level assessment, usually carried out through the strategic transport model for Scotland modelling, with some input at the local level. As Mrs Kirkcaldy said earlier, the impact on residents and communities is local and severe, and in my opinion no great assessment work has been put into the environmental statement on a local level. It is not good enough to rely purely on strategic modelling.
Sorry, I did not hear the last part.
As I explained earlier, the local models have not been audited. We cannot trust the information that has been put into the environmental statement. That, in a slightly technical form, is where I am coming from in my objection.
Thank you for that.
My colleague David Stewart will seek your opinions specifically on issues relating to the cables on the existing bridge.
Thank you, Mr Hunter. You have anticipated my follow-up question about the effect of a new crossing, were it to be built, on each of you personally. I ask Mr Stevens for that information.
It will be horrendous. Before the bridge is even being built, the surveys—the practice piling, if you like—and everything else are shaking the house. I started working for Lothian Buses about three years ago and I am on a three-shift pattern. Even with the surveys that are going on just now, there are generators running at 7 in the morning and trucks going up and down. Before, we did not have any problems with noise pollution anywhere in Springfield, all the way down the field. Also, you have visited Springfield and will know that the views are stunning. So, as a 59-year-old—it was my birthday just the other day—with only six or seven years to retirement, what do I have to look forward to? A building site on my doorstep. Even when the bridge is constructed and everything is done, I will still face more pollution and noise, and I will not have any views at all. It is just catastrophic. I have had serious discussions with my wife and our best way out seems to be either to try to let the house or to rent it out to the people who will be building the bridge and just go. I just do not see any other way around it. In the new crossing and where it will be placed, there is nothing in my favour at all.
Mr Marshall, will the new crossing affect you personally?
I stay right beside the Forth, just a few yards from Portobello beach, which is somewhat distant from the construction site. We have some active members in the South Queensferry area, in particular, but our objection—in a private capacity rather than in the public interest—is more about the use of taxpayers’ money.
There are obviously issues with the current bridge, many of which one would expect with a bridge that is almost 50 years old. Issues that were anticipated include the need for the main expansion joints to be replaced. The original joints were only meant to last 30 or 40 years. The main issue that has given rise to the renewed campaign for another crossing relates to the cables and the discovery in 2004 of a degree of corrosion in the cables that was not anticipated when the first internal inspection of them was carried out.
That is another argument. Would reducing the traffic on the current bridge in some way extend the bridge’s life span? I have seen nothing to suggest that it would.
I am not denying that at the end of the day we will probably need another crossing; I just think that this project has been ill thought out.
I am not an engineer, but I have spoken to a number of engineers who are involved in the maintenance on the existing bridge and they say that it can be repaired, albeit at a cost. I do not believe that there is a firm estimate of the cost, or if there is, it has not been put in the public domain, as far as I know. However, the cost should be a lot less than the cost of building a new bridge as the infrastructure is already in place.
We are exploring that as well.
In fact, the people of Edinburgh rejected such a suggestion a couple of years ago.
We will not know for quite some time, though, whether that has worked, will we?
It is not “quite some time”! It was exactly two years ago that the cable drying was installed in—I think—the mid-span of the west cable. They say that it takes about two years to dry the cable out, so we would be able about now to go into the mid-span of the west cable and have a look. I think that they are talking about waiting until the summer of 2012 to go back in and have a look at all the cables. However, that is not so far away. They had encouraging results when they went in the second time to the main cable and looked at what was happening: they found that the humidity was decreasing, which was why the restrictions that were originally posited for 2014 to 2017 were moved to—I think—2017 to 2021. We therefore hope that the cable drying will work. Frankly, if it does, no one will notice any disruption. As I said, there will be the usual maintenance issues on the bridge as would have happened anyway.
I will stay on the theme of the work that needs to be carried out on the existing bridge. We took evidence from the current bridgemaster, who argued that it would take between seven and nine years to repair the main cables, as Mr Marshall identified. The bridgemaster told us that the minimum cost of that work would be around £122 million and that economists have argued that 3,000 jobs might be lost in Fife if the bridge were closed for even half a year. Witnesses have already identified some of the other problems with the bridge—with the expansion joints and anchorages, for example. On one level, there seems to be good reason for considering an alternative crossing. I ask Mr Marshall for his views, bearing in mind the points that the bridgemaster made to us.
The £2 billion may be available in the Scottish Government’s budget, but you will have to slash and burn throughout the land to find the money to build the new bridge over that seven-year period. Sorry—I have forgotten your main point.
That is what I wanted to get back to. The Roger Tym and Partners report—which I have not seen, although it is listed as a background paper in the February 2008 report on the replacement or augmentation of the main cables—talks about a loss of economic output in Scotland of more than £1 billion as well as 3,000 job losses, some of which would be lost permanently. However, I have not seen that report and do not know where to find it.
Three thousand job losses.
The point has been made that we will have to spend £120 million on repairing the old bridge anyway, if it remains. There is also the issue of trying to reduce our carbon footprint. We have all signed up to the protocols to reduce carbon emissions, and although that may mean that there is a bit of disruption and that we need to explore ways to increase vehicle occupancy and reduce traffic, it should be at the forefront of everything that we try to do with regard to the crossings.
I am fine for now.
Have you any information on accident rates on that road in particular?
That was kind of what Mr Mather said, although the community council said the opposite in its submission.
I think that Mr Mather almost withdrew his objections on those points when I questioned him, as I am sure you heard when he was talking about increased pollution and loss of amenity.
Our traffic modelling was undertaken not on that basis, but on the basis of local authorities’ plans for development in the area. That is why we predict the current figure of around 66,000 vehicles a day to grow to around 82,000 without the Forth crossing scheme. On whether the bridge scheme will produce an increase, as we have explained, the traffic largely travels southwards on the M9 and westwards on the A904; very little of it is attracted on to the A90 into Edinburgh.
You will be aware that we took evidence earlier this morning from Mr and Mrs Kirkcaldy. I am not sure whether you saw that evidence on the monitor.
I did.
I will move on to another aspect.
Hugh O’Donnell is keen to pursue that last point.
I am interested in Mr Glover’s observation about the windows being closed. We are talking about a construction phase of potentially five years. Given the nature of major construction, it could stretch beyond that time. I am surprised that you have suggested that keeping the windows closed for five or six years might mitigate against whatever level of noise those people are likely to suffer.
I am sorry. There was no intention even to suggest that the Kirkcaldys’ windows might be closed for that period of time. I was just trying to give the committee a feel for the levels of mitigation. The amount of construction time at their location will be quite discrete. It will not be like the motorway construction, including the earth moving, which will be a relatively continuous exercise.
No, it is not.
Yes, that is outside. Inside, even with the windows open, there is mitigation because the wave front of the noise is much reduced. I hope that that gives you a feeling for the issue.
In general—I am not referring only to the Kirkcaldys—is compensation for business loss an issue?
Right.
It is factored into the project price, not the contract price.
I concede that working out compensation is quite difficult. If you get the sum wrong and find that the figure is nearer £100 million than £10 million, will the taxpayer be responsible for that as part of the overall package?
The general point is that noise is not, of course, just an issue for the Kirkcaldys, although their situation is very difficult and acute. The problem of noise has been raised in other evidence that we have taken. In earlier sessions, we heard that construction will start at 7 am, I think, which is earlier than when work on the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link started. It is clear that there are noise issues that will affect the community in general. If the convener agrees, it would be useful if the panellists went back and considered that.
Yes.
And in relation to the work that is currently under way?
Two ground investigation exercises are going on at the moment. One is a marine ground investigation that started on 1 March and the second is a land-based investigation on the south side of the estuary that started on 22 February. They are proving surveys of the work that we have already done, so they are lesser in nature than the ground investigation works. We expect the surveys to last about eight weeks.
Eight weeks more, or from when they started?
That is true, although I guess that the developer would hope that it would not take it six years to build some houses.
The marine works will be lit 24 hours a day when operatives are progressing them so they will include a light source in an area that is currently fairly dark. However, the light issue is referred to in the code of construction practice at paragraphs 3.7.4 and 3.7.5, which require the contractor to comply with the requirements of the roads authorities in relation to lighting on or adjacent to public roads and with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prevent nuisance due to artificial lighting in areas away from existing roads.
As far as the regional model is concerned, what Mr Richardson said is correct. Although the original aspiration was that the model would be used for the project, it was simply not developed in time.
Bear with me though, because I have to set some sort of context.
Yes, it sets the context. On the last part of that very helpful introduction, is there a method by which people who have concerns about the modelling can have access to the documents? For example, are they on Transport Scotland’s website? That would give them some comfort that there has been a much more detailed analysis.
Yes, I know that.
I am not surprised at all; it took me long enough to say it.
Does the documentation for the proposal that is before us contain a provision that rescinds the mandatory nature of the item to which I have referred in relation to the Forth crossing, or does that remain a requirement? If so, is that an oversight in relation to the project?
We have a mature road network in central Scotland. Traffic from Perth that is going south has a range of options: it can travel down the M90 and over the Forth bridge; it can travel down as far as Kinross, along the A977 and over the Kincardine bridge; or it can take the A9 directly to the M80 and the west coast. Because the network is mature, flow preferences are well established. We do not need to model them again—there is a big model called the road network that shows the way that people want to go.
We believe that the scheme’s governance is particularly strong. We do not believe that the extra safeguards that Mr Minogue suggests should be included in the bill, or are necessary or beneficial.
Traditionally, we analyse the value for money of a particular project in terms of traffic economics. That analysis is set out in the policy memorandum. The benefits from the scheme obviously exceed the cost of the scheme. The way in which the benefits to the economy—rather than the traffic economics—are calculated is very formularistic. The matter is being looked at by other people in different ways.
We are suffering from two things. First, there has been a considerable amount of misinformation. For example, it has been said that recabling the existing bridge will not be that bad. We saw an example of that misinformation today. Secondly, we have not majored on recabling, because we believe that our scheme will avoid that. We do not want to emphasise how bad the disruption from recabling would be, because of the impact that that might have on investors in Fife and because we do not think that it will actually happen at the end of the day. We have tried to explain to the local communities, through meetings and other types of consultation, the impacts that the bridge development will have, but people who do not particularly wish the development to go ahead have perhaps given less thought to the consequences of it not going ahead.
As you will know, we still await the report from the Finance Committee on its scrutiny of the financial memorandum. Can you comment on speculation about controlling costs, particularly for big-build projects such as this? I think that we touched on the issue in the first witness session. How will costs for the proposed crossing be managed? Panel members will be well aware that there have been general worries in the past about cost overruns in big projects in Scotland, not least for the Parliament building. There is speculation about the Edinburgh trams project in that regard. I think that when you have previously answered such questions, you have made it clear that the taxpayer is generally responsible for cost inflation and that we all find it difficult to predict the future. I think that you also mentioned that inflation in construction costs has tended to be higher than rises in the retail price index and that that obviously is a factor. How, then, will we control costs in the Forth crossing project? The taxpayer will take the inflation hit, so what risks will the successful contractor take? How does the design-and-build route compare with the public-private partnership route? Could you also say a bit about other sources of funding? If my understanding is correct, Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency funding was unsuccessfully applied for. Could you clarify that? There are a number of questions, then, on how we control costs on the biggest construction project since devolution.
What is your understanding of the reasons for that refusal? Was it about the demand, the design or the cost benefit of the project? That would be of interest to the committee.
We understand that TEN-T EA turned us down on the first occasion because it did not see this as an on-going project but one for which we sought funding for only one year. On the second occasion, notwithstanding our pointing out the relevance of Rosyth for traffic going north and Edinburgh airport for traffic going south, it considered the project to be of largely regional rather than transnational importance.
What contingency has been made for the scenario in which, despite the existence of an unsuccessful bidder’s premium, one of the bidders pulls out?
And the bids must be in by December.
Yes.
Yes. That said, the likelihood of a last-minute withdrawal is reduced by the fact that it would cost a contractor more to withdraw at that stage than it would to continue to bid.
I think so. The winning bidder will need to give us an indication of his key suppliers as part of the contract, although they can be changed with our consent. Further, other areas of work beneath the key subcontract level may also be subcontracted out.
We have no specific information to justify any point that we make, to be quite honest.
In essence, therefore, the concern that you have is to do with the volume of traffic; you are not suggesting that the A90 is a dangerous road that could be made more dangerous.
That is right.
That is helpful. Thank you.
That concludes our specific questions to Mr Mather. After we have put some questions to the other witnesses, we will come back with more general questioning, in which all witnesses will be invited to participate.
Let me turn to more general questions. First, let me congratulate you on all the work that you put into providing such a detailed main objection, which must obviously have taken a lot of time and effort to prepare. Obviously, the objection has many strands, some of which are about the whole bill and some of which are about provisions within the bill. Can you quickly summarise your grounds for objecting to the whole bill?
We have looked at it from our own perspective, as well as the perspective of people living in Queensferry. We just cannot see how the proposal for a third bridge across the Forth, whose connecting roads will totally encircle Queensferry, has considered how Queensferry itself will be affected. We wondered whether at this stage—as the width of the bridge has changed—it would be worth reconsidering quickly the tunnel option or whether the bridge itself could be redirected to land on the south side further west of the communities. The road could connect directly to the M9, rather than connecting around to the south of Queensferry.
During the construction phase, it will be very difficult to continue my business there. I would probably have to think about relocating during that period. I am not too sure of the effects of the bridge once it is in use, because I do not know what kind of mitigation will be put in place.
In your submission, you say that you are very concerned about noise—again, that is understandable. You say that you believe that the noise might breach the Noise Insulation (Scotland) Regulations 1975. What contraventions have you identified and do you see any arguments for modifications to the code of construction practice?
As far as I can, yes. We have read through it. It is quite a complicated document. I am by no means an expert on noise, because noise is a particularly difficult subject to understand. I would probably rely on experts to give us that information.
The length of time is difficult to predict because some of the work may be in advance of the contract. A new sewer was put in relatively recently. It goes on three sides of us and has to be relocated for the whole road. There are works to underground electricity lines. All of those works may happen as pre-contract works, which would extend the period of the works beyond the five or six years that we have been told they will last. We are not absolutely sure—it depends on the contractor’s programme—how much of that time the works will be in our vicinity or that of Queensferry, because the programme includes all the other infrastructure works.
No, we have had no information. Basically, there have been a dozen people in yellow jackets, walking up and down and having a look-see. We assumed that it was this committee having an advance look around the area.
Speaking for myself, I think that that would be a great comfort. Noise and vibration are two of the main concerns that we mentioned to our local MSP, and it would give us an authority to go to if there were a problem. We understand that there will be some representation from Transport Scotland on site, although we do not know whether it will be one person or a group of people. When the work goes ahead, we will need a direct contact with whom we can raise any concerns that develop during the contract period.
You are right that the committee has visited the site—I have just reminded myself with some of the photographs, and we were wearing yellow jackets. However, we were there in the middle of the morning, and I hope that we were not an unnecessary disturbance. We were trying to be discreet.
It is happening just now.
Right now. I could have taken photographs this morning—I thought about it. There are big drills boring into the ground, and there are construction vehicles travelling up and down the drive. The workers are moving down, looking at the potential haul road and coming closer and closer to our property with the construction vehicles.
Perhaps I can help. A letter came from Transport Scotland to indicate that the further investigative work would be carried out by the contractors that are bidding for the work. I assume that that is what is happening at the moment.
No.
That brings us to you, Mr Richardson. My colleague Hugh O’Donnell will put some questions to you.
You referred to the mandatory requirement; I see that point on page 10 of your objection.
The fact that no audit is required is concerning. You would think that, for a project of such size, Transport Scotland would ensure that everything was checked, all validation and forecasting reports were accurate and an independent audit was obtained. Given that I was told in the summer that the project was subject to an independent audit, I suspect that an audit was done and the project did not pass. In other words, my suspicion is that Transport Scotland did not like the results and so decided not to require the audit.
On page 12 of your objection, you state:
This discussion has been quite specific, and those are the questions that we had to put to you this morning. We have digested much from your submissions, and we will put further questions to Transport Scotland that arise from them and what we have heard this morning. If no one wants to take the opportunity to make any further comment, I thank you all.
I am delighted to welcome our second panel this morning: Mr Graham Hunter, Mr Gerald Stevens, Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Mr Lawrence Marshall, who is representing the ForthRight Alliance. We have received apologies from Mr Minogue, who has had to cancel for personal reasons, and, unfortunately, from Carol Davidson, who was to represent the Springfield residents group but who has indicated at the last minute that she is unable to join us.
The existing bridge can be fixed at much lower cost to the Scottish taxpayer or the Scottish Government than building a new additional bridge, which will cost more than £2 billion, will exacerbate climate change emissions and will increase traffic beyond even trend growth. Although there will be some disruption if cable drying does not succeed and the cables have to be replaced, that disruption is not worth £2 billion of public expenditure that could be better used for much more worthwhile projects across the land.
I have seen nothing in any of the presentations that have been made to suggest that the proposed bridge will provide a sustainable solution to current traffic issues. I fear that in 15 or 20 years we will be back to saying that there is virtually a car park between the bridge and Edinburgh, and asking what we can do to reduce the traffic. What is proposed is a kind of halfway house that involves the existing bridge being maintained for 800 buses a day, or whatever the current figure is. What will be the capacity of the future bridge? Regardless of whether it can hold all the traffic, I do not think that the road network can. If we will not get anything better than the current bridge, surely all efforts should be made to identify what will offer the biggest bang for our buck and the most sustainable solution, especially given some of the indications that we have in relation to dehumidification and cable replacement. I do not think that the case has been proven.
It seems slightly idiotic—I do not mean to be personal about anyone here—to keep two bridges. If a new bridge is required, we should delist the current bridge so that it can be demolished. The economic disruption that would be caused by repairing the existing bridge would be much less significant than that which would result from the traffic delays that would be associated with building a new bridge.
Thank you, Mr Stevens. You are all familiar with the fact that we visited the area extensively. We have here a panoramic photograph of the area in which you live and we can see it for ourselves.
That is right. We asked whether the road could be lowered or hidden, but we have been told that that cannot be done for technical reasons, although it has never been fully spelled out whether cost is behind that rather than technical reasons.
Okay. Thank you.
Our colleagues on the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee have been taking evidence on similar topics, to which we have access. I was trying to remember what the figure on resistance to the bridge was—I think it was 18 per cent. There are issues with the deterioration in the cabling of the existing bridge.
You are aware that the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association have very strongly supported the new crossing because of concerns about maintenance. Although the bridge had a certain life expectancy, the current volume of traffic is way in excess of anything that was originally foreseen.
I am asking about the maintenance issues on the current bridge being used as justification for not needing the new crossing.
Mr Stevens, what in the arguments for maintenance of the current bridge has not persuaded you of the need for an additional crossing?
I do not think that there is any doubt that building a new bridge will have an additional cost.
I think that everyone agrees that there is a need for a crossing. My fundamental problem is with the timescale and the rushed way in which the matter is being approached. I would like a more sustainable platform for the discussions. We need more time to think things through and to consider whether a tunnel in a different location would be a better option than a bridge or whether there is a bridge option that would genuinely mean that we had just one crossing rather than two. That is what I would like to see, with the road network to the south, including the M9, and the infrastructure linked in. We need a sustainable programme that takes some of the HGV traffic off and moves traffic to off-peak hours, and we should perhaps introduce tolls to discourage some of the traffic from crossing the bridge. It would be better to consider the matter on a far wider timescale of five to 10 years.
To build on those comments, there will be disruption whatever happens—whether the existing bridge stays or a new bridge is built. It is a question of considering which option will have the minimum impact. Repairing the existing bridge would probably have the minimum impact as a lot of the work would be done offshore. The marina developments would probably still have to be done if the foundation work was required, so there would probably still be a lot of disruption around Port Edgar because that would probably be the base for the work, as it is in the current plan.
I would be slightly surprised if the minister was quite as enthusiastic about the public appetite for tolls.
I do not think that he would be as enthusiastic, although he might be pleasantly surprised.
That was a couple of years ago, but the green movement is much stronger now. I am not a whole-hearted supporter of that movement—do not take it that way. However, from an economic perspective, road charging is now regarded as acceptable.
I agree with that. The issue is all about time; let us not rush in but let us have a look at the existing bridge and see how long we can do with it. Let us be honest: if we charge on now and spend all the money on the new bridge, we will just have the most expensive bus lane in Europe, because we will have to fix it and do something with it. As for bus lanes for Edinburgh, that issue will not affect South Queensferry, because Lothian Buses does not go there.
Obviously, we would hope that the cable drying, which is now fully installed, will work and will halt the corrosion. We cannot undo the corrosion in the main cables.
Okay. David Stewart will pursue the matter.
There will be costs involved in repairs, which could take up to nine years to complete, and there is the potential for job losses in Fife as well as problems with the expansion joints and anchorages.
Thank you. Does any of the other witnesses want to add anything?
You mentioned the £120 million cost of repairs that the bridgemaster talked about and 1,000 job losses—
Mr Marshall, your submission to the committee states:
I think that I said in evidence—to either this committee or to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee; I cannot remember which—that around 425 buses per day use the bridge at present, so we ought to get Transport Scotland to increase that figure from 300 to 425. That is extraordinarily poor use of the existing bridge, given the cost of fixing and maintaining it.
Yes—there will be very little difference in traffic volumes in relation to the construction of the new bridge. West Edinburgh is heavily affected by a lot of development at the moment, such as the housing developments at Kirkliston and in the Winchburgh area, and the work at the airport. There are extreme pressures on that area.
No, I do not have any specific information on accident rates. As a local resident, I am not aware of any specific problem with accidents on that road.
Previous
Work Programme