Official Report 390KB pdf
Item 2 is our main business for the day. We will hear an update from the Forth replacement crossing team on the progress and current status of the Forth crossing project.
Good afternoon. I would like to make a brief statement, if I may.
I begin by asking for a general update. What progress has been made since the committee was last given an update, which was in February? What have been the key events? What problems have been encountered? That would be helpful.
I will cover the headlines first, which are the main developments in the past six months.
Unless the convener has specific questions on the bill, the overview that Mr Climie has given has probably set out where we are. I am happy to take any more detailed questions that you may have.
Perhaps you could talk about the months to come and how the progress of the bill relates to the progress of the project.
As Mr Climie said, the assessor’s report is expected some time in October. The expectation therefore is that stage 2 of the bill—the legislative function of stage 2, rather than the judicial function—will occur some time in November. That being so, the expectation is that stage 3 of the bill will be in December. Clearly, the date will be set by Parliament. I am not privy to the actual date, but I am aware that it will be some time in December. We should have royal assent to the bill, if it is passed, in January. That will enable us to initiate the contracts and sign them in April or May next year.
Are there any events or possible events that could delay the timescale that you are currently working to?
The key consideration is whether the bill passes through Parliament. If it does not, that will be a major impediment to our proceeding. However, on the presumption that the bill will get support from Parliament, I cannot foresee any significant impediments.
The committee’s report on the Forth Crossing Bill sought movement on a number of issues. Has there been any progress on developing the public transport interventions that were outlined in the public transport strategy for the Forth replacement crossing that was proposed by the south east of Scotland transport partnership, the City of Edinburgh Council and Fife Council?
I will set that in context. Forgive me—I perhaps should have mentioned the issue in response to the convener’s question.
Certainly.
Under the Fife ITS contract, we intend to implement bus hard shoulder running southbound from the northern extremes of the scheme. That would link in with any public transport using the M90 or A92, and it has the potential to link in with any development of park and ride at Halbeath at an early stage, should that proceed. During congested periods, buses will be able to use the hard shoulder and run all the way down to Ferrytoll, and then onwards across the bridge to destinations southwards and in the central belt. That will be part of the Fife ITS contract, and it will, hopefully, relieve concerns about congestion in the Ferrytoll area in particular during the difficult construction works there. That will definitely be taken forward.
In general, do you have a desire to see public transport interventions in place before, or in parallel with, the opening of the new crossing?
Very much so. That was brought out during the assessor hearings. It is in everybody’s interests, particularly ours when the bridge is being constructed, to get public transport measures in place. They will provide relief from high volumes of traffic and will help in Fife in particular, where there will be some detailed and tricky traffic management work when we connect the new bridge into the existing motorway. Getting more people on to public transport will assist us.
How do you involve transport users? We have spoken about the involvement of SEStran, councils and so on, but what about the transport users themselves? Will the workshop be so large that it can involve all those people?
You raise a very good point. We first need to get our investment strategy in place, which we will deliver from the workshop. Thereafter, a great deal of work has to be done by all parties, including Transport Scotland, the local authorities and SEStran, to encourage modal shift and to engage with transport users. Work is continuing to be done by other elements within Transport Scotland and by the local authorities to create the necessary climate. I take your point whole-heartedly—this is something in which Transport Scotland and local authorities must invest time and energy.
I seek some clarification from Mr Shackman. You mentioned the hard shoulder being used as a bus lane on the A90/M90 corridor. Can you confirm that you seek to go all the way up to the Halbeath roundabout off the M90? Given the points that you and Mr Henderson have made about relieving as much pressure from the new crossing as possible, would it not be advantageous, as many of us have argued with the minister, to have the new park-and-choose facilities at Halbeath and Rosyth in place before the new crossing is completed?
I will answer the last part of your question first. I do not disagree with what you are suggesting about Halbeath and Rosyth, but that should stay as a topic for the workshop in November, once the spending review has been determined. We cannot develop that as part of the project—that is to be done separately, and the timing of it is down to budgetary resources.
Knowing how the modal shift is working before the bridge is built is of advantage to users and to the general plans. We have talked about some of the technicalities, but it is important for us to understand the timetable and the measures that you will have to show what modal shift across the Forth is likely or is beginning to take place.
At this stage, it is quite hard to answer that question in any detail. There are intentions, and, as I have mentioned before, the intentions will suit our ends and purposes if they can be delivered on. First, we need to get a comprehensive, funded strategy in place. Once we have the funded strategy in place, we will be in a position to have the ways and means to encourage modal shift on to public transport in supporting the delivery of that strategy.
You will understand why we want to keep this in perspective. As we speak to you regularly, we will want to see the strategy moving along. At this early stage, you are saying that Transport Scotland has a wider interest in public transport, but it must be given more skin on top of the bones than your remarks imply is the case at the moment.
I think that a body will manifest itself once we have had an opportunity, in November, to come forward with a concerted strategy with the other key players. Once the local authorities, SEStran and we are signed up to a funded strategy, we will be able to bring on board all the other players such as the bus operators and the user groups that you mention. It is just the reality of the situation that we are having to adopt this staged approach.
Okay. We need to minimise the effects of construction on cross-Forth and local bus services. That is something that, I am sure, Jim Tolson knows quite a lot about from where he lives, and it is of interest to the committee. We want some idea of how you intend to do that. Is that also waiting until after November, or do you have detailed plans at the moment?
Do you mean plans for minimising impacts during construction?
Yes.
No. The need to minimise the impacts not only on bus movements at, for example, Ferrytoll park and ride while that facility is being modified and upgraded but on all road users is very much built into the construction contracts. There are mechanisms in the contracts that incentivise the contractors to minimise disruption to road users. Typically, on the main route, that means maintaining two lanes in each direction during the peak hours. Access to and from Ferrytoll park and ride, not just for the buses but for the people who want to get on them, is paramount to the success of the project in that respect.
Thinking slightly ahead, have you built into the new bridge plans to allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross the Forth when the Forth road bridge is closed to them?
There is no permanent facility envisaged as part of the plans for cyclists and pedestrians, because the new bridge will be classified as a motorway. As you are probably aware, the existing facilities on the Forth road bridge will be maintained for cyclists. We are working with the Forth Estuary Transport Authority to come up with an operational arrangement that will still allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross when adverse weather affects the Forth road bridge such that it is closed. We have to work with FETA to see whether there will be a facility to pick people up and bus them across the bridge or take them across in a van, for example. We have been discussing that with FETA.
Will you be able to report back on that in more detail some time soon?
Yes.
Has any decision been taken on how the Forth crossing will be managed when it is running?
There is no further update on what we said in the policy memorandum.
I have a couple of quick follow-up questions on modal share and the various interventions that might be necessary to try to encourage modal shift towards more sustainable options.
I do not think that there is any ambiguity there. Clearly, ministers have made that statement and we will adhere to that aspect. What I was referring to were the specific infrastructure interventions such as park-and-choose sites, bus hard shoulder running and bus lanes coming down from the M9 spur. Those are the infrastructure elements that form part of our public transport strategy, which we published in January. Those are the elements on which determinations have to come forward.
Before those decisions have been made, how can we or ministers—or anybody—be sure that the commitment that there will be no increase in the number of private car journeys will hold true?
Only two lanes will be available for car journeys on the new bridge. During the construction phase, we will have two lanes that will be available at all times for car journeys. There is a limit on the capacity for car journeys across the new bridge.
Are you suggesting that we would be expecting to run at full capacity then?
I will hand over to the engineers.
What we are saying is that the replacement crossing fundamentally has two lanes in each direction, which is in keeping with the existing Forth road bridge, but it will operate better, with extra capacity, because it will have a hard shoulder, wind shielding and all the other aspects of which you are aware. It will also have the ITS to make better and more efficient use of the road infrastructure that is being provided. From day one, although there are only two lanes in each direction, the bridge will operate more effectively and more smoothly. However, as development proceeds north and south of the Forth, there will come a point where that extra capacity, if you like, will be used up and people will have to use other modes. That is where using buses and enhancing public transport through the public transport strategy will come into play. People will have to adjust their travel patterns to suit improvements to both the rail network and bus services in the area.
However, we do not yet know what those will look like.
No, as the public transport strategy has not been brought to a conclusion. We also do not know which developments in the area will proceed before others. Although many developments are planned in the Edinburgh and Dunfermline areas, we do not know which will come to fruition first and over what period, bearing in mind the current state of the economy.
It sounds as if a degree of hope is built into the minister’s commitment.
No, it is just that we cannot foresee the future. You need a crystal ball to see clearly what will happen. It is not easy.
Rob Gibson’s final point concerned the management and maintenance of the crossings. What advice has Transport Scotland offered ministers on the best and most efficient way of managing and operating both bridges? What advice has Transport Scotland received to ensure that the new crossing is totally accessible for maintenance purposes?
Decisions on maintenance and, in particular, the future of FETA, will not be made until 2013. However, the bridges are very close to each other and, in my opinion, it would seem appropriate to combine their maintenance. However, it is for others to determine whether that happens.
Have you given advice to ministers in that regard? If so, can you share it with us?
It is not for me to say at the moment.
The issue of community engagement has been raised with the committee in the past. We discussed it in February, reflecting some of the concerns that community groups had expressed. Since our previous meeting with you in February, what changes have been made to the arrangements for community engagement?
A substantial number of changes have been made both in the light of representations that communities have made and as a consequence of further reflection by the project. As I said to Ms Somerville in February, we needed to reflect on things that we have done previously and to identify how we can do them better. As a consequence, we have made a number of significant changes to the code of construction practice, especially in chapter 2, on liaison and public information. Those changes will continue in a further revision that we intend to publish tomorrow.
What does “nearby” mean in that context?
It means properties that are in the vicinity of the works. They will be notified when the works are likely to impact on them. For example, if works are taking place in South Queensferry on the approach to the bridge, residents of the Echline, Springfield, Clufflat and Linn Mill areas will be notified of what is occurring.
Will notification go to each household directly?
Yes.
Following the efforts that have been made to improve community engagement, can you give me some examples of changes that have been made to the project as a result of communities’ views being fed in?
Yes. I have quite a long list here, although it is probably not as long a list as we envisaged when we embarked on the project.
It would be helpful if the longer list, if there is one, could be provided to us in writing, although what you have said so far gives us a flavour of the changes that have been made.
Certainly.
At a recent meeting with some of the community groups, I was told that there is a concern about information that had long been promised, but which is still not available. In particular, I was told that geological survey information relating to the project, which community groups had been led to understand would be put into the public domain, was still not available, and that despite repeated requests neither was the promised scale model of the bridge and associated road infrastructure, which would have given local people a much better understanding of the impact that they would be expected to live with. Are there plans to make those forms of information available? If so, when?
If memory serves me right, the geological report, which related to groundwater issues, has been or will be shared this week. Because it has taken a long time to produce it, one of the team will go out to meet the individuals concerned to give an explanation and to put what is a technical report in layman’s language. I think that the relevant community body is the Echline corner consultative alliance. There are plans to take that forward.
Will that report be in the public domain?
Yes.
That will be reported on afterwards.
And on the model?
You might know that we have developed a virtual reality model, which we believe gives individuals a better interpretation of the impact and, in fact, of the whole nature of the scheme. The beauty of that model is that it is portable, whereas a scale model would not have been portable. We have been able to take the model to Kirkliston, to the north of the Forth and to South Queensferry. Because we can put it on a laptop, we can take it with us when we go to meet communities. We think that that has been a better use of limited funds than producing a scale model would have been.
Are you saying that there was never an offer to produce a scale model in physical form?
Sir, we have never made a commitment to produce a model. We put a lot of investment into the virtual reality model because we felt that it would address a wider audience. Indeed, we have taken the VRM, as we call it, to our public consultation events, and when people have had a particular interest or a particular view, we have been able to use the VRM in an effective way by putting them in the location that interests them so that they can see the bridge or the landscape. We thought that that was a better way forward. We have never made a commitment to produce a model, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I am certainly not against the idea of having a virtual model. Such models can be useful, but they are useful in a different way from a physical model. With a physical model, people can choose to focus in on the detail or see an overview. People can relate to it in their own way. Both types of model have value.
Physical models are extremely tactile. I would never fight against having a physical model. It is a question of horses for courses and the appropriateness of different types of model, given the timing. It is inevitable that there will be a model in the contact and education centre—the visitor centre. That will be part of the arrangement.
It would be helpful if you could let us know when that will be available so that we can answer any queries that come up.
Yes.
Is the virtual model provided in such a way that people can have a copy of it and use it on their own machines, or are people simply looking at a preset animation?
The model is interactive, but because of its sheer scale and power, people need extremely specialised machines to run it on. However, we have never limited it.
We have a video fly-though version on our website. People can access that whenever they want to, but we are happy to show the virtual reality model to anyone who wants to inspect it. As Mr Glover mentioned, when we gave the series of community briefings in June, July and August, we took the virtual reality model and had it alongside a slide-show update on the project so that people could focus on particular areas or issues that they wanted to look at.
Okay. It strikes me that, because it relies on technology that most people do not have even if they own several computers, as most households do these days, it is a bit restrictive, because people cannot access the information in their own time or contemplate it in their own way.
You will have noted the examples that I mentioned of the changes that we have been making. We have needed to refresh the virtual reality model to reflect some of those changes. When the contract is signed, we will have a fixed view of where particular things will be. At that point, we might look to refresh the virtual reality model and, as Mr Glover said, there would be greater value from having a fixed model at that time.
Perhaps at that point it could be considered whether a version can be made available for platforms that people have at home, which would seem to be more useful.
The South Queensferry compound is part of the bill, but I re-emphasise that the preferred location is on the west side of the south approach road. In the area to the east of the south approach road—the Echline fields area, which is owned by Scottish ministers—we have recently committed to an exclusion zone of at least 50m wide wherever we possibly can, adjacent to the housing. There will be no contractors’ materials or plant whatever in that zone. Beyond that zone, from the fence or whatever boundary feature is put there up to the line of the works, the contractor will be permitted to store some plant and materials, which will be accessed during the day so as not to disturb residents. It will be for low-frequency-use materials and plant only. That seemed to be a sensible use of land that is already owned by Scottish ministers, and we have built in an exclusion zone that is a minimum of 50m wide.
It is still a little unclear to me why that is now needed. Under the previous proposal, the site was going to be used as the compound proper, and that seemed to be enough.
It is simply to provide additional flexibility to the contractor without implying that there will be any further nuisance—for want of a better phrase—to the local people. It will be used for storing topsoil material, which will potentially be there for two or three years and could act as a temporary bund to provide additional screening mitigation, and various pieces of construction—
Was the community there consulted before the decision was made to use the land in that way?
We spoke with the local community about it recently, during the assessor hearings.
There is no additionality in what is being proposed. Because the compound stretched along that flank of the construction, it also embodied the natural things that would be part of the lay-down areas of the construction activity. For example, when we build the abutment towards Society Road, we will need materials, plant, people and all the other facilities around it, and they have always been there. This is not a change of plan. A lay-down area where a contractor puts materials that are required for immediate construction is very different from a compound, which is a coming together of activities. We have moved the compound and all those activities away from people, but the activities that would normally have been associated with the construction must, by definition, stay with the construction. I hope that that makes sense.
Without wanting to spend too much time on the detail, perhaps I can convey to you my impression. I do not know whether it is to do with your communication or engagement, but there is a strong perception that it is a change of plan and an unwelcome one.
I assure you that, from our point of view, it was never intended to be a change and is not a change. If we have failed to communicate that, we will have to go back and try a bit harder.
Thank you. Let us move on.
On 24 August, Transport Scotland issued a revised code of construction practice for the project in response to formal objections to the bill as well as to issues that were raised in the consultation of statutory bodies and others. How does the revised code of construction practice better meet the needs of local residents?
As well as the version of 24 August, another one will be released tomorrow, which is 29 September. The two key areas where we have sought to make improvements that will assist local residents are in section 2, which I mentioned previously and which is on liaison and public information, and section 5, on noise and vibration. As you might imagine, both those subject areas exercised the assessor hearings substantially during the 11 days of the hearings. On 13 September, a complete day was devoted to addressing noise and vibration issues. We believe that the revised code of construction practice is a marked improvement and will better satisfy the needs of local residents and the project on public liaison. On noise and vibration, we have a really good way forward. I stress that we have been working closely with the local authorities on improvements to that section in the code of construction practice. Those are the two significant elements in the COCP on which improvements are being made.
Will you say a bit more about improvements to arrangements for noise monitoring?
At the basic level, we have given undertakings to communities to place noise monitoring equipment at locations where there is likely to be heavy construction activity. That is near the M9 and M9 spur junction; at the corner of Echline fields; between the Clufflats and Inchgarvie lodge; and at Linn Mill. It is likely that we will put in noise monitoring equipment on the north side of the Forth, although fewer communities are directly affected on that side. That monitoring equipment will be there throughout the construction period and for one year post construction.
My colleague Margaret Smith MSP and many of her constituents have raised concerns with you and others about traffic management during construction of the Forth crossing. What changes to access arrangements for contractors have been made to minimise impacts on local traffic and residents on streets that are to be used by construction traffic, such as Society Road?
We have been consistent on the issue of Society Road, to take that as an example. We have said in evidence previously that Society Road in its fullest extent will be used only at the beginning and end of the contract to create the section of Society Road that will be used for construction activities. Other than during those periods at the beginning and end, only that section of Society Road will be used. That is from Clufflat Brae, where we will break through the field, down to the barracks. Other than that, there will be no construction traffic on Society Road.
How, in addition to that, have the traffic management arrangements that are planned for the construction phase been changed to better accommodate cyclists and pedestrians?
One of the major changes that we have introduced, which has come out of direct consultation, concerns the two wide cycleways/pedestrianways at the South Queensferry junction. People have to cross traffic to get to them. We have evolved a pathway that goes from Clufflat Brae area in the south, through the Echline fields, around the south of the north end of the south abutment and then up towards Newton. That is a cycleway and pedestrianway. That is an example of how we have responded directly to issues that have been brought to our attention. We are still maintaining what I would call the strategic routes across the South Queensferry junction, which involves the 3m-wide cycleway/pedestrianway, as there is a strategic need there, but we have also introduced that route for what I would call more domestic use and walking. That has been widely accepted as a positive move.
I am grateful for that.
Have contractors now provided estimates of greenhouse gas emissions for the construction of the Forth crossing?
No, they have not provided them yet, but that forms part of the overall tender assessment that we carry out through the final invitation-to-tender documents, which we will be sending out just before Christmas. There is a section in those documents where contractors must complete their carbon footprint calculation, which will be part of the evaluation process that will be included in the awarding of the contract.
The invitations will be sent out just before Christmas. When do you expect to get the estimates?
The tender return date is 28 January. We will then have a two-month evaluation period prior to the award of the contract.
What role will those estimated greenhouse gas emissions play in deciding the award of the tender to build the Forth crossing?
The contract is split 92.5 per cent on cost and 7.5 per cent on quality. The greenhouse gas or carbon element of the submission is part of that 7.5 per cent assessment, which also includes commitments to community engagement, taking on unemployed people, giving apprenticeships, taking on graduates and running training schemes, as well as careful programming of the project. It makes up about a quarter of that 7.5 per cent. If you look at the project as being £1 billion, that is worth quite a lot of money.
You are talking something less than 2 per cent.
Yes—but that is worth quite a few million pounds.
Absolutely.
Was any consideration given to alternative approaches as part of the assessment of the climate change impact of the project, for example using a carbon price?
That is effectively what is happening. Without going into too much detail, the way that the assessment is done for the main crossing element is that it considers where the materials come from and how they are manufactured. The materials are split down into, for example, steel and concrete, and if they come from the other side of the world there will be a much bigger penalty than if they come from somewhere local. The assessment uses current guidance on the cost of such things and the impact that they make in respect of carbon. I cannot give you the figures off the top of my head, but we could supply them to you if you want them.
That would be helpful.
I do not know whether I heard Mr Climie correctly, but I think he said that the main contract invitation to tender would go out just before Christmas, with a closing date of 28 January 2011. Is that a standard period at that time of year? Do some contractors not take Christmas off?
I am sure that some of them do, but we have to bear in mind that we have been through a 12-month dialogue period in advance of the invitation to final tender on 17 December, so we do not expect considerable new information suddenly to be released. This is just the formal closing out of the procedure. If the firms have to work through Christmas, so be it, but we do not anticipate that they will have to, because the bulk of the work will already have been done. In advance of the invitation to final tender, they will submit to us an outline proposal at the beginning of November, which we have an opportunity to review and comment on to ensure that we have no significant areas of concern and that there are no clarifications that we think we will need in advance of the final tender.
Could the timescale for the invitation to final tender be influenced by any glitches that you identify in the intermediate process that you mentioned, which will take place around November?
It could be, but we do not anticipate that that will happen. As I said, because of the 12 month-dialogue period that we have had—we are having the ninth in a series of dialogue meetings tomorrow and on Thursday—we do not anticipate that anything will come up, and there is sufficient time between them giving us the outline procedures at the beginning of November and the invitation to submit the final tender on 17 December. We do not anticipate there being any changes to those dates.
Several major transport projects have been delayed as a result of people feeling that they needed to make a legal challenge based on, for example, Aarhus convention rights not having been met. Without wanting to get into a debate about whether we all support the project, if it is going to go ahead according to the timescale that you are requiring, you will need to be crystal clear that there is no possibility of a challenge on those grounds. Have you closely examined that issue?
Yes: we have done so in particular because we have followed a hybrid bill process, and people could, in terms of the Aarhus convention, judicially review the process with a determination, which would, in effect, be judicially reviewing the Parliament. Clearly, Parliament has taken legal advice on that matter.
As there are no more questions for the panel of witnesses, I will mention the process by which we get updates. We have been in the habit of having a verbal update at a meeting such as this one every six months or so. Given the complexity of the project and the on-going developments that will be taking place, it might be useful for us to get a written update more frequently than that, maybe every couple of months or thereabouts. Is that agreeable to you?
Yes. I see no reason why it should not be possible to do that.
That would certainly be helpful. Thank you very much.