Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Official Report 656KB pdf

---

Forth Replacement Crossing and Major Transport Infrastructure Projects (Update)

Good morning everyone and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I remind everyone to ensure that mobile phones are in silent mode. We have received apologies from Fulton MacGregor; Christine Grahame will attend as his substitute. Mike Rumbles will attend the meeting later on.

The first item is an update on the Forth replacement crossing and other major transport infrastructure projects. As the committee knows, the cabinet secretary wrote to notify us that the Forth replacement crossing will open to traffic on 30 August.

I welcome Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, and from Transport Scotland: Alasdair Graham, head of planning and design; David Climie, project director of the Forth replacement crossing team; and Lawrence Shackman, project manager of the Forth replacement crossing team. I also welcome Michael Martin, who is the project director of the Forth crossing bridge constructors.

Would you like to make a brief opening statement, cabinet secretary?

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to come along and provide the committee with further information on the progress of the Queensferry crossing and the other projects—the Aberdeen western peripheral route, A9 dualling, A96 dualling and the M8, M73 and M74 improvement projects. My update will be brief: I will then welcome any questions for me, David, Michael, Alasdair and Lawrence.

On 20 June, I was pleased to advise the committee that the Queensferry crossing will open to traffic on Wednesday 30 August. That followed confirmation from the FCBC that it would be in a position to open the crossing to traffic for the first time on 30 August, due to the excellent progress that has been made over previous weeks.

I am pleased to update members on the significant progress that has continued on the north approach roads and on the Queensferry crossing itself since my appearance at the committee on 31 May. I will start with the crossing. The installation of wind barriers is close to completion along the full length of the structure. The Alimak hoists—or “Ally McCoists” as they have been called—have been removed from the tower top to deck level on the south and north towers. Those were the lifts at each tower that were used by workers throughout the construction of the crossing. Preparations are currently under way to remove the hoist on the centre tower.

On the north side, the final construction works and paving of the Ferrytoll junction and slip roads are progressing to completion as planned. Final surfacing of the junction took place on the weekend of 3 and 4 June and finishing works are currently in progress.

Between now and the opening of the crossing, our focus will be on completing the waterproofing, final road surfacing and all activities on the towers and cables above road level.

On 20 June, I was also delighted to be able to announce the opportunity for the public to take part in the Queensferry crossing experience—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for 50,000 people to cross the Queensferry crossing on foot before it becomes part of the motorway network. Members will agree that the project has really captured the public imagination, and there has been a fantastic demand to take part in the Queensferry crossing experience?. The evidence of that demand is the more than 195,000 entries that we have received since the ballot opened on 20 June. However, the ballot will not close until 12 noon on 5 July, so there is still plenty of time for those who wish to apply. Everyone entering has a chance of being one of the 50,000 people to walk over the new bridge. I encourage people to submit an entry so that they, too, might share in the experience. It is clear to me and to those who are involved in the crossing’s construction that the people of Scotland have taken the bridge to their hearts. There is a great deal of anticipation and excitement about the opening celebrations, as can be seen in the excellent public reaction to the Queensferry crossing experience. We will not be able to accommodate everyone, but I am sure that it will be a hugely enjoyable event for all involved.

On the other major projects, following the opening of the M74 Raith underpass in February, the new and improved M8, M73 and M74 progressively opened during spring and were fully opened to traffic on 1 June 2017. As is normal with such projects, final landscaping, finishing and snagging works will be ongoing until the autumn, although that should not affect peak traffic flows.

Since those new roads fully opened more than three weeks ago, the contractor has been focusing its resources on the installation of motorway gantries and signage, and those works are being undertaken overnight in order to avoid impact on road users. There has already been substantial progress. Almost immediately after opening, the benefits of the £500 million project became apparent. The significant new road capacity has already started to deliver economic benefits right across Scotland, due to the strategic nature of that part of the motorway network.

On the AWPR and the Balmedie to Tipperty project, extensive activity has been taking place across the sites over recent months. The Stonehaven southbound slip road opened in April 2017, bringing early benefits to the people of Stonehaven by taking long-distance traffic away from the town. Earthwork operations have also recommenced, which has allowed the contractor to continue with the Balmedie to Tipperty section so that it will be completed at the same time as the remainder of the project.

A significant milestone on the project was reached when the 1,000th beam was lifted into place at the new Goval junction on 21 June. We still need another 183 beams, and it is anticipated that they will be in place by the autumn. Elsewhere, road surfacing and foundation works are continuing apace. The new major bridge over the River Dee is taking shape, with work on the deck progressing well.

Transport Scotland officials and I are continuing to work together with the contractor, Aberdeen Roads Limited, to deliver the benefits of the project to the people of the north-east at the earliest possible opportunity.

It has also been a busy period on the A9 dualling programme. With the Kincraig to Dalraddy section currently under construction and the Luncarty to Pass of Birnam project now in procurement, a significant amount of construction work is under way and being planned. On the Kincraig to Dalraddy project, traffic was switched on to the newly upgraded carriageway last weekend to allow the final phase of works to be undertaken, including the removal of remaining temporary works and the completion of site-wide finishing and landscaping works. That section is on target to be fully open to traffic during summer 2017, as planned.

Following a successful industry day on 10 April, procurement has commenced on the next section of the A9 dualling programme, with the publication of the contract notice for the Luncarty to Pass of Birnam section of the dualling. Six prequalification submissions have been received, and the bidding process is expected to commence in July 2017. Advanced works are scheduled to start on site later this year, with the main construction contract expected in spring 2018. Design work on the remaining nine schemes of the A9 dualling programme is progressing well, with more than 90 per cent of the programme having now reached preferred route status.

Design work is well under way on the A96 dualling programme, too. Last November we published draft orders on the 31km Inverness to Nairn section, which includes the Nairn bypass. Last week we presented to local communities at a series of exhibitions the options that are under consideration for the 46km section between Hardmuir and Fochabers. More than 1,800 members of the public attended the exhibitions, and the vital feedback that the engineers received will inform further design and assessment work as we look forward to identifying a preferred route option for that section next year. We also expect to start route options assessment work on the section between east of Huntly and Aberdeen later this summer, following the procurement of design consultants.

The fruits of the Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment are now becoming plain for all to see, with projects such as the M8 bundle reaching completion. The scale of our ambition to deliver sustainable economic growth for Scotland can be seen right across the portfolio of projects, from the Queensferry crossing to the A9 and A96 dualling programmes. In delivering those projects, we have supported jobs and enabled businesses to grow right across the country. The A9 and A96 dualling programmes will further augment that successful approach.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to update you on the projects, and I am happy to try and answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for your not-so-short opening statement. I ask Rhoda Grant to lead off with the first question.

Are you confident that the Forth replacement crossing will open on 30 August?

Yes, I am confident of that. I have had substantial discussions with the contractors and the people in Transport Scotland who are overseeing the project. Others can, of course, speak about this, too. I have been assured that there is a high degree of confidence that we can open on that date.

Is confidence 100 per cent?

I do not think that anything in life is 100 per cent, but we would not have announced it if we were not confident of being able to open on that date.

Are there contingency plans in place for what happens if the crossing does not open?

It is perhaps best for others to talk about that, but we always have contingency plans, especially for a project such as this.

Yes—we have detailed contingency plans. Michael Martin and I walk across the bridge. I walk across it at least once a week, and I think that Michael does so at least twice a week, and we are both very encouraged by what we have seen of the progress over the past few weeks.

Now that we have announced 30 August as the date, that acts as a great focus: the entire workforce knows that that is the target date, and we are all committed to meeting it. Obviously, we have contingency plans, should something completely unexpected occur, but we are confident that we can achieve opening on 30 August.

That date is nine months later than what was originally planned for the opening. Nine months is quite a long time in a contract of this size. We have heard about weather and the like. Are there other aspects that have led to the delay?

I do not think that the opening will be nine months late. We had an original date of at the end of last year, and then we had the contract completion date, which is June, so we are 10 weeks behind the contract completion date. We can look pretty close to home to find major projects that have gone well past that. We have also seen the aircraft carriers coming out of Rosyth that have been delayed by substantially longer and are at least twice, and by some accounts three times, over budget. The project will be finished 10 weeks after its contract completion date.

Rhoda Grant is right to say that we had an earlier target, but we had pressure because of the existing crossing being undermined by dampness in the cables. That issue is now not as it was when we first gave the date.

As I am sure the committee will know, the main reason for not being able to open the crossing when we wanted to has been the weather. Over the past few months, in particular, high winds have prevented us from taking down cranes. Weather conditions are the main reason.

You mentioned the Queensferry crossing experience, which is the weekend when 50,000 people will cross the bridge on foot. That sounds quite exciting. As I understand it, the bridge is going to be open on the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, then closed again on Saturday and Sunday. It seems to be a bit odd to open it and then close it again. What is the thinking behind that?

I will ask those who have arranged the event to comment. The thinking is that we had told the committee and the public that we had a window within which we anticipated having the bridge open to traffic, which was between mid-July and the end of August. It is vital that we do that, not least because of the time that we have had to open the bridge, as I said in response to the previous question, but also for logistical reasons.

The weekend is being set aside for that once-in-a-lifetime experience, so we can accommodate both things—the opening to traffic in the window that we previously stated, and what will probably be the only chance for people to walk across the bridge. There are other elements in the official opening programme, which I am not able to disclose to the committee at this stage because we have still to go through some security issues before confirming them. That might make it more obvious why the schedule of events is constructed as it is, but it is mainly for logistical purposes, and to ensure that we open to traffic on 30 August, as we said we would.

The other key point is that that process also gives us the opportunity to trial the emergency links and crossovers that we have at either end of the bridge. If we open the bridge for two days and then close it, we have to use those emergency links, therefore we and the operating company can both see how the links work in practice. If, in the future, we have to transfer traffic back on to the Forth road bridge should there be some sort of major incident on the Queensferry crossing, we will have tested the links when it is not a critical time.

That is fair enough. If you cannot tell us, you cannot tell us, but is the official opening likely to be that weekend, or will it be later?

I am not able to confirm that just now, but as soon as I can—it should be shortly—I will let the committee know exactly what the arrangements are.

David Climie gave a clever answer on testing the systems. I assume that there will be a cost for moving the barriers, getting traffic on, putting the barriers back and getting the traffic back on to the bridge for both opening and closing the bridge. Who will bear that cost?

That cost is covered by the project budget. It is something that we always anticipated would have to be done. A full testing programme has to be carried out—not just on the emergency crossovers, but on the entire intelligent transport system and the structural health monitoring system. All that is fully included in the budget that we have for all the operations.

I accept that it is covered within the budget. What is the cost of it?

I cannot give you the specific cost detail; I do not have the breakdown of that.

It is just an interesting question. There will be a cost, and I think that the committee would benefit from hearing it. Can you let us know that in due course?

Yes.

09:15  

There will be other costs as well, and that will not be the biggest cost. I will be happy to provide a full account of the costs—perhaps when we know the detail of all the opening celebrations. I will just say that none of that cost will impact on the £245 million savings that we have already made on the project.

I hear that, and I will welcome a breakdown of the costs.

My final question is to ask you to explain the handover of the bridge works. When will Amey assume responsibility for the management, and what on-going role will FCBC have for five years?

I am happy to explain that. As you correctly say, there will be a handover, which we call “section A completion”. That is when the bridge is formally handed over to the Forth bridges operating company.

There is not a line in the sand: we will not suddenly hand over a set of keys and the crossing becomes the FBOC’s to operate. There will be a phased handover of between three and six months. It will happen gradually, as the remaining snagging and other work is completed. As you correctly said, FCBC is subject to a five-year defects liability period, so if issues arise on the bridge that are down to the original construction, it will be up to FCBC to come back and fix them. Amey will be responsible for operating the bridge at that time, so FCBC’s access to the work will have to be co-ordinated through Amey during the five-year defects liability period.

After the transition phase of between three and six months the bridge will be fully operated by Amey, supported by FCBC when necessary.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have already spoken about putting up new gantries and signage and doing other projects that I know well.

How and when do you intend to publish changes to the road layouts prior to the opening of the crossing? Will there not be confusion because you will open it, shut it, then open it again? What signage or policing systems will be in place to ensure that people know where to drive?

You will have the definitive answer from David Climie in a second, but I travel that road all the time: I travelled it last night. If you travel it now, you can see how, on both sides, you come to a point where you must go either one way or the other. I do not want to minimise or oversimplify the matter, but it is just a question of having barriers in place that direct vehicles one way or the other.

As the convener has pointed out, there will be a cost, but I do not think that the layout is going to be too complex for road users if it is done in the correct way. For example, if you are coming from the south side, you can see where the road currently goes off and you will be directed to go that way. Subsequently that will shift back. David can give a more technical answer.

The whole concept is that it should be as easy as possible. The phased approach that we are using to open the bridge will assist in that. Pedestrians and cyclists will always use the Forth road bridge—they will do exactly what they do at the moment. The only thing that will change is the road traffic.

All road traffic will initially switch to the Queensferry crossing—as I explained in some detail when I was before the committee a month ago—because we still have to complete the last slip roads at the north end of the Forth road bridge to allow it to operate as a public transport link. For an initial period, everything that currently uses the Forth road bridge, other than pedestrians and cyclists, will use the Queensferry crossing.

We will then have a countdown to the Queensferry crossing becoming a motorway and the Forth road bridge opening as a public transport link only. When that happens, the only traffic that will be diverted off the Queensferry crossing will be buses and taxis. The large majority of traffic will continue to use the Queensferry crossing.

We have prepared a detailed users’ guide that will lay all that out in a lot of detail, with diagrams, pictures and so on. It will be issued four weeks in advance of the opening of the Queensferry crossing. We will publicise it on our website and distribute it to local communities.

You have given us an idea of the contingencies that are in place to deal with any collisions or driver confusion during the after-opening period.

One thing confuses me. We will have two bridges and all the cars will go on the Queensferry crossing. Buses and taxis can go on the Forth bridge. What happens if a driver makes a mistake, goes the wrong way or goes into the wrong lane and along the wrong bridge? Will they be charged? Let us face it: nothing is 100 per cent foolproof and there will be cases in which people, perhaps in darkness, get confused and go down the wrong lane. What are we doing to ensure that there are no collisions and there is no driver confusion?

David Climie will get the facts right but you might remember that, at our last appearance at the committee meeting, we said that there was nothing to prevent public transport from using the Queensferry crossing. It is entitled to do so under current regulations, so there is no comeback on buses and taxis doing so but they will be guided to the Forth road bridge and it will be to their benefit to use it because it will be an easier access through to Edinburgh and back out again. That is not an issue but I think that common sense will dictate that buses and taxis will want to use it.

Perhaps David Climie can answer about cars going on to the Forth road bridge.

The main road will be clearly signed as the Queensferry crossing. There will be automatic number plate recognition cameras on the slip roads going on to the Forth road bridge so, if someone goes there, their number plate will be taken and it will be followed up on. I am sure that, certainly in the early stages, there will be a lead-in period with some allowance for a genuine mistake. There is enforcement that can be put in place, but I am sure that it will be monitored sensibly.

To clarify, if people make a genuine mistake you will let them off but, if you believe that they are doing it deliberately—as people do—will there be a fine for people going on the wrong bridge?

The section of the Forth road bridge that is the public transport corridor will be signed as such at the start of the bridge. There will be prohibitory signs so it will be clearly stated that someone will be doing something wrong if they drive over it. It is exactly the same principle as if someone was going the wrong way down a one-way street: they would be breaking the law, with the obvious consequences. There is also closed-circuit television coverage on both crossings, so any vehicle that goes on the wrong bridge will be spotted on CCTV as well as on the automatic number plate recognition systems. It is for the police to enforce that.

There will be all sorts of benefits to car users from going on to the new crossing because it will have a faster speed limit. Therefore, it is in drivers’ self-interest to follow the rules.

At the cabinet secretary’s most recent appearance at the committee, David Climie said that the cabinet secretary had correctly stated that, because the contract was live, discussions were going on about liquidated damages and that we were not yet at the point of passing the contractual date. Two days after that, we read in the newspapers that it was costing the contractor £100 million a day for every day that they went over the contractual date. I am absolutely sure that not everything I read in the papers is true. Are you in a position to clarify whether there are any liquidated damages—damages in relation to the late completion of the contract?

There is absolutely no question that it is £100 million. That would have put about £3 billion on the project.

I understand that, but the papers have been flashing figures around and I wondered whether you or David Climie could clarify.

Certainly. On liquidated damages and the numbers that have been bandied around by the papers, I think that the £100 million that you mentioned was linked to an announcement by Galliford Try about its overall results. It was taking about a £100 million loss attached to some projects and I think that 80 per cent of the loss was identified as relating to two construction projects. There were suggestions that there were two in Scotland and one of them could well be the Queensferry crossing. I think that that is where the £100 million figure came from. It certainly bears no relation to liquidated damages or anything like that.

We still have a commercial contract going on. We are coming towards the end of it and commercial discussions are taking place. I cannot comment in detail about how they are progressing but those discussions are in line to complete shortly after the contract is completed, which is a positive aspect of the contract.

So you are not yet in a position to tell us about any damages or penalties. Can you tell us whether any extensions have been granted to the contractor, which you were reluctant to do at the previous meeting?

That is part of the overall commercial discussions that are taking place. There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on that. Part of that revolves around extensions of time. They are allowed to be applied for under the contract and that is part of the discussions that are taking place.

So you are not in a position to answer either of those questions.

It would be inappropriate for me to do so when commercial discussions are continuing on exactly those subjects at the moment.

Those questions will obviously hang over to another meeting of the committee that you will no doubt attend.

Cabinet secretary, I will ask about public transport and, in particular, the promotion of the use of cross-Forth bus services following the opening of the Forth replacement crossing. I presume that, if there is any such promotion, it will have to be in advance of the opening. Perhaps you could roll that into how the public transport strategies will be rolled out.

Lawrence Shackman will come back on the detail of that but it is important to say that the coverage the committee gets for its questions—the question was asked at my previous appearance before the committee—helps us to raise the profile of the issue.

On active travel, I underline the point that there will be no absolutely change to the access that pedestrians and cyclists currently have apart from the fact that, for one weekend only, they will get the chance to walk over the new crossing. There was some confusion about that when I last appeared at the committee. Beyond that, the existing bridge becomes a public transport corridor, which means that it will be open to taxis and buses. That should allow for much greater ease of crossing because of the absence of general traffic. We have a public transport strategy, with which we have previously furnished the committee, for how we intend to promote that further.

The previous meeting of our public transport working group was in April and we gave the group a full, thorough analysis of the connecting roads, the two bridges and how they will operate for bus traffic. We also had a bus training day earlier in the year for all the bus operating companies, at which we took them through the whole project—all the nuances of how the buses can operate and the project’s various features. The Ferrytoll park-and-ride site is now completely open and feedback from the bus operating companies about that is positive.

To touch on active travel, we are preparing a leaflet about cycling and walking over the Forth road bridge and in the surrounding area, which will accompany the user guide.

At the public transport working group, the feedback from the bus companies was that they are keen to see how the bridge will operate, and they plan to consider their marketing strategies after the bridge is open so that they can get a better feel for how it will operate and how they can promote some of their routes, as well as considering new routing.

Will there be a forum at which that will continue to be discussed after the opening?

Yes. The next public transport working group meeting is scheduled for October, so that meeting will look back at how the initial operation of the bridge is going and consider whether there are any issues. We hope that there will not be. It will also consider the original strategy. We have an undertaking to review all the potential projects that were thought of five or six years ago as part of the strategy to determine whether they should go forward. We have already incorporated some of them into the project and we will consider the benefits that they bring in the months and years ahead. That meeting will be important for looking back at what we have done, looking forward at where some of the interventions could go and closing them down if at all possible. We will reconvene that group whenever necessary in future to ensure that we revisit the public transport aspects of the project, consider whether we can improve them and ensure that they operate effectively.

10:00  

You would acknowledge that, as things stand, it is the bus companies that determine routes, to an extent. What role is there for Government in the promotion of increased use of public transport, given that the bridge will be the dedicated route for public transport?

A very active role. We mentioned the improvements to the Ferrytoll park and ride, which have been part of the project. We have also invested substantially in the Halbeath park and ride, and we are working with Fife Council on possibilities for a Rosyth park and choose, planning permission for which was granted back in 2013, and which would increase capacity for people who want to stop their car journey and go on to public transport in advance of crossing the Forth.

We have also invested heavily in the active travel route on the south side of the Forth. By investing money, and through the activities that my colleague Humza Yousaf undertakes, we are keen to promote a move to active travel or public transport wherever possible.

Thank you.

I have two brief questions, before we move on to the next line of questioning. First, can someone confirm which bridge the emergency services—ambulances, fire engines and so on—will use? Secondly, are there any plans to change the name of the crossing?

I will answer the second question, because it is easier. No. There are no plans to change the name—if you are referring to the new Queensferry crossing.

Yes; “Forth replacement crossing” is not a name that rolls off the tongue.

That is the Queensferry crossing, and there will be the Queensferry crossing experience. You might not remember—it might have been before your time in the Parliament—that we had a big, open competition to choose a name. We received about 7,000 suggestions. My favourite, “Kevin”, did not make it to the shortlist. [Laughter.] The name “Queensferry crossing” was chosen.

Not Bridgey McBridgeface, then. [Laughter.]

That was another one.

Perhaps we can have an answer to the more important question about the emergency services.

The emergency services can use either bridge. It would be crazy not to let them do that. That is a given.

Thank you.

We will head further north. I bring in Stewart Stevenson.

Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the AWPR, which is of great interest to my constituents, my colleague Gillian Martin, who will be before us shortly, and others? As part of that update, will you comment on reports that a farmer says that he has been somewhat inconvenienced by what is going on? How are we managing the interaction with communities who are adjacent to the works? One might think that some disruption is inevitable, but communities will want to hear how we are dealing with the potential for that.

I am happy to provide an update. I think that similar questions were asked at the last meeting of the committee that considered such subjects. I have given an update on aspects of the project that have opened, and the timescale for other parts of the project opening.

On relationships with farmers, the contractor, Aberdeen Roads Limited, has provided reassurance that it has endeavoured to carry out as much as possible of the works during the day. However, sometimes it has had to carry out works at night.

Matters such as access to farms and night-time working are dealt with in conjunction with local authorities. When a road such as the one that we are talking about is built, it is a contract requirement that access to land for farmers must be maintained, as I am sure you know. That must be done through a permanent or temporary arrangement. Nevertheless, there are sometimes occasions when access is not possible, but the contractor will always endeavour to ensure that such occasions are kept to the absolute minimum.

As you said, there have been isolated issues. I will not name individual farmers, but I can confirm that the contractor has confirmed that it will maintain temporary access to fields until new access tracks have been completed. ARL has also agreed that a minimum of 14 days’ notice will be given should a change to such arrangements be necessary. It is regrettable that that might have to happen, but it is impossible for us to complete a project of this scale without some disruption—we must just try to minimise the disruption.

The bottom line is that the contractor is required to give notice of interactions with businesses or particular farmers who are adjacent to the works.

And over and above that, the contractor has agreed to give 14 days’ notice, should a change to the arrangements be necessary.

The other question on the AWPR is whether we are on track.

As with the Queensferry crossing, I rely on the advice that is given to me by officials, who are in relatively constant dialogue with the contractors. They also go out on site to see the progress that has been made. The advice is that we can complete the project along the lines that we have previously set out.

We had the delay of the Balmedie to Tipperty section. I should say that all the times that we have were set by the contractor not by us. They were part of the bidding process. We did not seek, for example, the early completion of the Balmedie to Tipperty section, which has not happened, although other aspects of the contract have been completed and people are currently benefiting from those. The overall contract is set to be completed over the course of the winter of 2017-18 and we hold that that can be achieved.

You explained that there was a particularly wet period last year, which contributed to the delay. As we have had a particularly dry winter and I think probably a pretty dry spring, have we caught up, are we ahead, or are we just back on target?

The delay of the Balmedie to Tipperty section was because we could not conduct those earthmoving activities over the course of the winter. You cannot really catch up from that. We said that it was not going to happen over the winter. You are right to say that we have had better conditions since then and good progress has been made.

However, I do not think that the project is at the stage where we can give a running commentary—to use somebody else’s phrase—on exactly where we are with different parts of the project. What we are talking about is the overall completion date. Where we have been able to, we have opened some parts early, but we are sticking to the overall completion date, which is of course over the winter of 2017-18. Good progress has been made on the project.

Stewart Stevenson said that there has been some disruption. I can put it much more strongly than that; there has been huge disruption for the farms that this road is going through.

We welcome this road and everyone wants to see it finished. When this project started, there was a huge amount of good will from the farmers whose farms the road goes through but, unfortunately, that good will has been lost to a large extent and I can understand why. I have mentioned this issue on many occasions—the fencing along the whole line of the road is of a very poor standard. The fencing is breaking down within just a few months of stock being in the fields. There are problems with the fencing.

I am not going to name names but one property has had no water supply for seven months because of this road—that is unacceptable. On another occasion, stones and general rubbish were dumped in a field and covered with a thin layer of soil. That is completely unacceptable behaviour. The problem when such things happen is getting them sorted out, as it takes for ever. The relationship between the farmers concerned and the contractor is now very bad. If things were sorted out, we could go forward, but even though the farmers complain and complain, it is just a nightmare to get anything done.

The biggest problem is that the initial good will that was there has disappeared and that will result in huge problems with all the other roads because the agents will—

Can we have a question?

The question is coming. The agents are now sick and tired of the whole thing and that will impact on the A96 work and the A9 work, because the good will that was there has disappeared and that bad feeling will transfer on to all the other road works that are going ahead in the north-east. I would just like a comment on that, because that is a very sad state of affairs.

Cabinet secretary, I will give you a chance to marshal your thoughts. Peter—would you like to make a declaration just so that everyone knows that you have farming interests?

Certainly—sorry about that. I declare that I am a farmer in the north-east, but the road does not directly impact on my business at all.

I think that Mr Chapman has raised these issues at previous committee meetings. It is not in my interest for people to get frustrated by their interaction with either the contractors or the managing agents. People have to give the contractors a chance to remedy any issues but the things that you have described should not be happening. If the individuals involved do not feel satisfied that there has been a proper response, I have said before that they should please come to me about it. I am happy to step in. Whenever anybody has written to me, I have had a discussion with Transport Scotland, which I am happy to do. That is a genuine offer. I say that people should give it a chance first of all. Contractors should not be putting topsoil over rubble, and nobody should be cut off from their water supply for seven months. If Transport Scotland does not deal with an issue, people should come to me and I will try to help with it.

Thank you for that offer. Jamie Greene will move our questioning on to another road project.

I will not labour my point, as the cabinet secretary’s opening statement provided a good update on the A9 and A96 dualling projects. They are quite long-term projects, ending in 2025 and 2030, with substantial pieces of road to be dualled. Cabinet secretary, will you give us a general overview on whether you foresee any major delays or problems on those, or are we on track to keep to the rough deadlines that we have? Given that, for example, around 10 per cent of the A9 will be ready by this summer, if we use a simple maths equation, does that mean that the rest of it will be done by 2025?

We do not anticipate any change to the date. I appreciate the point that is being made about the construction that is being seen. Of the 11 phases, the one that I referred to in my opening statement will be completed by the end of the summer.

What is true to say, and it is very important, is that we have made very good progress on the advance work that has to be done before we can get to the stage of construction. That can include public inquiries and all sorts of planning processes. We are currently very involved with what is called a co-creative process with a group on one of the routes in Perthshire.

When I gave my opening statement, members heard about a lot of progress that has been made in getting projects to the point of construction. That is not always the longest part of the process, as we have seen on the AWPR over many years. We anticipate being able to finish the A9 project in 2025.

Jamie Greene did not ask about budget but, because people have always asked for a global figure, we have said that it will be around £3 billion. I do not suggest that there is any reason to change that, but it has always been the case that, if we are talking about a completion date 14 or 15 years ahead and 11 phases, our estimate will be a ballpark figure. I also acknowledge that in the figure that is being applied to the A96. However, we have no reason to change our current estimate, on either budget or timescale.

That leads on perfectly to my next question. How does that work? You have a long-term ambition that will cross over not just a number of budget years but a number of parliamentary sessions. How do you put a figure on the cost when you are requesting money from the Scottish budget each year, to ensure that you meet the relevant pro rata part of the overall budget? It is not always clear how that works in long-term projects.

With the A9, as each phase gets to the stage where it is a construction contract that has to be let, how we accommodate that in the budget becomes much more definitive for us. It will go through the normal budget process. For example, let us say that we had three phases going through in one year. We would have to accommodate that in the budget, but we would have given a commitment that was already in the capital programme and was what we might call baked into our figures in future. There are 11 discrete contracts, because the work is being done in phases. There was a lot of demand when we announced that we would be the first Government to dual the A9. People wanted to know roughly what it would cost. To answer that, we said that our best guess—which it had to be at that stage, for the reasons that Jamie Greene outlined—was around £3 billion. Since we announced it in, I think, 2011-12, nothing has happened to change that estimate, but it will become much more refined as we get closer to 2025.

I have a brief supplementary question. In your opening statement, you said that the Kincraig to Dalraddy part of the A9 would be completed this summer. I think that I then heard you say,

“the end of the summer.”

Can you be more specific, given that we are in the summer?

Are we? [Laughter.] You are right to say that we said that it would be in the course of the summer. There is nothing to suggest that it will be delayed from the time we said. We tend to refer to seasons rather than months these days. If I said that it would be the end of the summer and that turns out not to be correct, I will come back and confirm that to the committee, but there is no anticipated delay to what we originally said on that.

Okay—so it could be finished next week, given that that is in the summer? [Laughter.]

If the sun should appear. I do not feel that I want to say any more about that.

No—I do not think so. We should bear in mind that the traffic was switched on to one of the sections of the newly constructed dual carriageway in order that the final phase of works could be undertaken, including the removal of temporary works. That will go on, and we are on target to open in the summer.

09:45  

If it is an Indian summer, it will open in September.

That is my worry.

One of the consequences of the Kincraig to Dalraddy works is that people have used the local roads such as the old A9 as a rat run to avoid the 40mph average speed cameras and there have been accidents on it. Have you learned from that? When the next section is done, will you ensure that the speeds on adjacent roads are monitored carefully to ensure that they are not being so used and that it is not likely to cause accidents?

We have to take each case on its merits. If we were to apply restrictions to surrounding roads, some of which have a different speed limit in the first place from the existing A9—and, eventually, the dual carriageway, where the limit will be 70mph—we would get substantial public reaction. A lot of it has not been about rat runs. At various points, we have had to direct traffic through those routes because of the road works that are taking place. However, we try to take into account the impact on neighbouring communities and neighbouring roads and will continue to do that.

To be absolutely clear, if we continue from Aviemore on the old A9 to Kingussie, we miss out the 40mph average speed cameras. I am not suggesting that the speed restrictions on those roads should be changed; I am saying that the police should be more aware because there has been an uplift of accidents on those roads. Will you pick that point up on other parts of the A9 where that might happen?

We will certainly take that on board. Before we apply such restrictions, we consult the police and surrounding communities.

We review all our projects at the end and consider the lessons learned, any of which could be taken forward to the next schemes. We will do that for the project that you mentioned, convener, and any lessons to be learned will be taken into account during the next stages in consultation with the police, as the cabinet secretary said.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have driven up and down the A9 many times, as you can imagine, and there are some sections of it that look almost impossible to dual. Do you have an overview of which sections will be most difficult?

Yes. You will know the road well. There are geological challenges, environmental challenges and challenges with existing infrastructure—at various points, the railway comes close to the road—so there are some pressure points.

The co-creative process that I mentioned relates to the Dunkeld area and is taking place because of the interaction of many different aspects: going on and coming off the road and the impact on local roads, as the convener mentioned, once the project is completed. Further north, the challenges tend to be more about geology and landscaping but, in some areas, they are about how local communities will access the road. At Kindallachan, for example, the issue is the railway coming right next to the road and how the local communities can access the road safely. It can be expensive to provide that access at some points. A grade-separated junction can cost between £20 million and £30 million sometimes, so we always have to take into account the cost to the public purse.

The A9 is a challenging road and, if people have travelled it for many years, as I have—not as frequently as you will have done—they will be well aware of the challenges. However, none of the challenges has been insurmountable. We are pretty much there with nine of the 11 phases and there is still some work to do on the other two.

Good.

I turn to the M8, M73 and M74 improvements, the majority of which are in my constituency. On the point that you made to Peter Chapman on the A9, cabinet secretary, you have given me excellent help each time I have contacted you about the M8, M73 and M74. You have put up with me and helped me. I thank you and I thank Humza Yousaf for the work that he did. I also make a special mention of the Scottish Roads Partnership’s Ian Balmer, who has been excellent, and Transport Scotland, which has worked with me of the past couple of years. I have had some of the problems that Peter Chapman said that he had but you solved them, cabinet secretary, and I suggest to Mr Chapman that he take up your offer.

All major roads that are associated with the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvement project are now open, as you said. Can you provide an update on how the scheme is working and on what work is being done to complete the landscaping, the signage, the footbridges and the removal of traffic cones on the A725? I am not complaining about those in particular.

Thank you for your comments. It is in our interest to help with such things. As Peter Chapman has mentioned, there is real pressure on some areas, such as signage and the diversions that we have had to put in place—some of those have to be changed very quickly. I am sure that Alasdair Graham can answer on the A725 issue.

I want to pick up on the point that you mentioned in relation to the Scottish Roads Partnership. It is not much discussed at the committee, but the work that has been put in by the people concerned has been tremendous. Even you, who have had major challenges with that road, will recognise that the level of activity that goes on there has sometimes been quite frenetic.

We will allow traffic on to a new road when we know that we still have snagging and landscaping to do. Where the M73 joins the M74, we have a new road being tied to an older road and some of the existing road surface is not up to scratch, not least because of the works vehicles traffic. For that reason, we have brought forward some planned maintenance of that road. It is not part of the project, but I want to give you a complete picture. There is still work going on around the approach routes, cone removal, maintenance and landscaping.

Before I let Alasdair Graham respond, I will quickly switch back to the Queensferry crossing. We are all hoping that this will be the last time that Michael Martin has to appear before the committee—we do not know whether that will be the case because there may be further reasons for him to come back. However, I would like to acknowledge publicly the huge personal effort that Michael, and all those who work on the project with him, have put into it. I have seen that up close over a long period and I am well aware of the toll it takes on those who are so heavily involved—if I may use the word “toll” in relation to a bridge. There is a lot of pressure on the people involved and I would like to publicly thank Michael and his colleagues for all the work that they have done.

Over the last three weeks since the opening of the A725, the contractor has continued work focusing on the installation of the gantries and other signage works. Those works have been undertaken overnight to avoid any disruption to the peak traffic. Substantial progress has already been made. The final landscaping, finishing and snagging works will go on until the autumn. However, that should not affect the peak traffic flow.

The cabinet secretary has once again offered to take me on a drive around that area. The signage for Bellshill and Coatbridge as you come off the M8 from Glasgow on to the old A8 needs to be improved—the gantries are looking good, but there needs to be better signage. On some parts of the road, there are no clear signs to remind people of the speed limit.

That was a statement not a question, so we seem to have come to the end our questions. I thank the cabinet secretary and his team for coming to appear before the committee. Like everyone else, I am looking forward to the opening of the Queensferry crossing—it will be an exciting and long-awaited event.

I am not sure whether Michael Martin will be excused from further meetings, because once the crossing is open, the committee may want to seek a further session with you, cabinet secretary, the project team and Amey, to look back and to look at the future management of the project. However, I hope that we will not have another meeting between now and 30 August—indeed, we cannot do that because the Parliament will be in recess. I hope that it will all be good news from now on.

09:53 Meeting suspended.  

09:59 On resuming—