Forth Replacement Crossing Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback and Outcomes Report Appendix to the June 2009 Report

Publication Date:

27/11/2009

C — RESPONSES TO OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS

The number of individual comments received which were of a more general nature is provided below.

table graphic

A summary of the individual comments made and responses to these comments are provided in Sections C1 to C4 overleaf. Where appropriate comments have been grouped together depending on the topic covered to avoid duplication of responses.

C.1 General Environmental Comments

C.1.1 General Environmental Impacts

Ref No. GE1

Comment:

Concern regarding the environmental impact of the project, commonly associated with traffic related impacts such as air and noise pollution and compliance with noise and air quality standards.

Response:

The Scottish Government has set air quality standards to protect sensitive members of the population. These standards, which are set out in The Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2007, are based on the best scientific evidence available. An air quality assessment has been undertaken for the proposed scheme in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the assessment is described in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. As part of the assessment, air quality monitoring has been undertaken and a computerised model used to predict the changes in air quality, both beneficial and adverse. The model takes into account factors such as emissions from traffic that may occur due to the introduction of the proposed scheme. The results of the air quality assessment describe the potential impacts of the proposed scheme in relation to relevant air quality standards.

In addition to assessing the potential effects of the proposed scheme in relation to local air quality pollutants, the air quality assessment also considers wider effects in relation to CO2 emissions and climate change targets in line with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

The predicted impacts of the proposed scheme in relation to air quality are generally very small and as a result no specific mitigation measures are proposed. Further information regarding the air quality assessment is provided in Chapter 15 (Air Quality) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

There are no statutory standards for noise. The World Health Organisation published Guidelines for Community Noise in 1999 and the Noise Insulation (Scotland) Regulations 1975 define the scenarios under which dwellings are eligible for noise insulation to control internal noise levels relating to new or improved roads. These guidelines and regulations have been considered in the environmental impact assessment. Transport Scotland has set out its strategy for mitigating noise impacts in a Noise and Vibration Policy which also forms part of the Environmental Statement. The strategy has been used to determine where specific noise mitigation measures are to be provided and these are also described in the Environmental Statement. Mitigation measures which have been considered include, for example, the use of screening measures such as noise barriers or earth bunds, and low noise road surfacing where appropriate.

Further information regarding the air quality and noise assessments is provided in Chapter 15 (Air Quality) and Chapter 16 (Noise and Vibration) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GE2

Comment:

Concern that the environmental impact assessment covers predominantly flora and fauna with less regard for impacts on the human population.

Response:

The environmental impact assessment has been undertaken in accordance with relevant guidance and legislation including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended). The matters to be assessed are set out in these documents and cover potential impacts on the biological, physical and historical environment, as well as on members of the public and on current or planned future use of the environment. The environmental impact assessment is reported in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GE3

Comment:

Implications for local planning associated with the scheme such as increased development pressure which would result in additional environmental impacts.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken which has considered compliance of the proposed scheme with national, regional and local planning policy and potential impacts on planning. Chapter 20 (Policies and Plans) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill presents the assessment. The assessment has determined that the proposed scheme is largely compliant with national, regional and local planning policy. The principle of development of the proposed scheme is established and generally supported in national, regional and local planning policy. Other developments which may occur in line with relevant development plans may also require environmental impact assessments to be undertaken and appropriate mitigation measures included in any proposals. Planning policy and land allocations for future development are a matter for the local authorities.

Ref No. GE4

Comment:

What are the costs associated with environmental mitigation?

Response:

A Financial Memorandum has been prepared which sets out the estimated cost of the proposed scheme and has been submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. The estimates include for the provision and maintenance of the environmental mitigation considered to be necessary for the proposed scheme, however the actual cost of the proposed scheme and the environmental mitigation provided will not be known until the proposed scheme is constructed.

C.1.2 Air Quality

Ref No. GE5

Comment:

General concern regarding air quality impacts.

Response:

An air quality assessment has been undertaken for the proposed scheme in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the assessment is described in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. As part of the assessment, air quality monitoring has been undertaken and a computerised model used to predict the changes in air quality, both beneficial and adverse. The model takes into account factors such as emissions from traffic that may occur due to the introduction of the proposed scheme. The results of the air quality assessment describe the potential impacts of the proposed scheme in relation to the relevant air quality standards.

Ref No. GE6

Comment:

Air pollution could be more effectively controlled if the route was in a tunnel.

Response:

An air quality assessment has been undertaken for the proposed scheme in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the assessment is described in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. The predicted impacts of the proposed scheme in relation to air quality are generally very small and as a result no specific mitigation measures are proposed. Further information regarding the air quality assessment is provided in Chapter 15 (Air Quality) of the Environmental Statement.

Tunnel options were considered as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study. The cable stayed bridge in "Corridor D", the currently proposed corridor, was selected following consideration of the options in this study for the reasons stated by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth in his statement on 19 December 2007. The news release relating to the announcement is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info and the full announcement can be viewed on the internet at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-07/sor1219-02.htm#Col4548 .

Ref No. GE7

Comment:

Concerns regarding increased air quality impacts due to the prevailing wind.

Response:

An air quality assessment has been undertaken for the proposed scheme in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the assessment is described in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. As part of the assessment, air quality monitoring has been undertaken and a computerised model used to predict the changes in air quality, both beneficial and adverse. The model was developed for the project using a number of different parameters including background pollutant levels and meteorological conditions. Information on meteorological conditions which was collected included data for wind speed, wind direction, temperature, rainfall, relative humidity and cloud cover.

Ref No. GE8

Comment:

Concern that pollution will be greater on the proposed scheme than if a more direct route to the M9 was followed.

Response:

A number of alternative options for the road network connections were considered as part of the work undertaken during 2008 and these included options providing a more direct link between the replacement crossing and the M9. These options were discounted in favour of the proposed scheme which demonstrated engineering, cost, environmental and sustainability benefits associated with maximising the use of existing road infrastructure. Further information is provided in the DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report and the Managed Crossing Scheme — Scheme Definition Report which are available on the Studies & Reports section on the project website, www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

C.1.3 Ecology

Ref No. GE9

Comment:

Concern regarding impact on wildlife and on designated sites.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. Ecological surveys have been undertaken over an extensive corridor covering a wide array of species and habitats to inform the assessments undertaken. The surveys and impact assessment have been undertaken in accordance with ecological best practice standards as endorsed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, as amended.

The results of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. The assessment includes consideration potential impacts on the water environment (Chapter 9), terrestrial and freshwater ecology (Chapter 10) and estuarine ecology (Chapter 11). Additional consideration also has been given to the potential for impacts on designated ecological sites such as the Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation at or adjacent to the Forth. Reports to Inform an Appropriate Assessment of the potential for impacts on the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA), the Forth Islands SPA, The Imperial Dock Lock, Leith SPA (Leith Docks SPA), and the River Teith Special Area of Conservation (SAC) have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. The reports will assist the Scottish Government complete an Appropriate Assessment of potential impacts on these sites due to the proposed scheme.

Consultation has been undertaken with various organisations regarding the ecology assessment and the proposed mitigation measures to reduce the effects of the proposed scheme. These organisations include Scottish Natural Heritage who is the statutory body with responsibility to advise the Scottish Ministers on matters relating to ecology.

Ref No. GE10

Comment:

Concern regarding potential for impacts on red squirrels.

Response:

Red squirrel surveys were undertaken to inform the environmental impact assessment undertaken for the project. Visual and hair-tube surveys were carried out in habitat identified to be potentially suitable for red squirrels, however, no evidence of red squirrels was found. Further information regarding these, and other ecological surveys undertaken, are provided in Chapter 10 (Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology) and 11 (Estuarine Ecology) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

C.1.4 Landscape

Ref No. GE11

Comment:

Content that the correct steps will be taken to prevent disturbance to the landscape.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. The assessment has informed the development of mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact of the proposed scheme. The results of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement describes the assessment of impacts on the landscape and the mitigation measures proposed.

C.1.5 Noise

Ref No. GE12

Comment:

Clarification sought regarding noise and pollution levels normally associated with a road of this nature.

Response:

Noise and pollution levels associated with roads vary considerably and are dependent on the volume of traffic using a road and the design of the road, including mitigation measures. It is not, therefore, possible to comment on noise levels associated with road projects in general.

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. The results of the environmental impact assessment are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement describes the assessment of noise and vibration impacts and the mitigation measures proposed.

C.1.6 Visual Impact

Ref No. GE13

Comment:

Concern regarding impact on wildlife and on designated sites.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. The results of the environmental impact assessment are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement describes the assessment of visual impacts and the mitigation measures proposed.

The assessment included taking consideration of night-time impacts due to road lighting, lighting on the replacement crossing and car headlights. Maps showing the zone of theoretical visibility of the proposed scheme which take account of lighting are shown on Figures 3.9 to 3.12 of the Environmental Statement and receptors likely to be affected by the proposed scheme are shown on Figures 13.2 to 13.8 of the Environmental Statement. The assessments undertaken have informed the design of appropriate mitigation measures where necessary and mitigation proposed is shown on Figure 12.4 of the Environmental Statement.

Ref No. GE14

Comment:

Concerned regarding lack of views and sunlight.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. The results of the environmental impact assessment are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. Chapters 12 and 13 of the Environmental Statement describe the assessment of landscape and visual impacts due to the proposed scheme and the mitigation measures proposed.

The assessments undertaken have informed the design of appropriate mitigation measures where necessary and mitigation proposed is shown on Figure 12.4 of the Environmental Statement. Measures proposed include integration of the road alignment and earthworks with the surrounding topography, where possible, and other measures such as planting and earth bunds to provide screening. It is recognised that changes to views will occur due to the proposed scheme and where practicable, the design of mitigation measures reflects the existing landscape to reduce adverse effects associated with the proposed scheme.

The assessment has not identified any significant impacts associated with a lack of sunlight occurring due to the proposed scheme.

C.2 General Accessibility Comments

C.2.1 Junctions

Ref No. GA1

Comment:

More detailed information should be published regarding road layouts.

Response:

Updated information regarding the road layouts was published in the April 2009 newsletter and in reports also published in April 2009, including the DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report and Scheme Definition Report. The newsletter was distributed to individuals who have signed up to receive updates from the project or who have corresponded with the project team at any point during its development. An electronic newsletter (ezine) was also used to provide additional information to users who had subscribed to the service to alert them to, for example, new developments on the project, the publication of new reports or findings. The reports are available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Further information regarding the design of the proposed scheme was provided at community information displays staged during August 2009. In addition to plans of the proposed scheme which also incorporated the landscaping and mitigation proposals, information on the construction compounds and Code of Construction Practice, information on compulsory purchase, compensation and the parliamentary process and the findings of the Feedback & Outcomes Report were also provided.

The DMRB Stage 3 Report will be published at the same time the Forth Crossing Bill is introduced in to the Scottish Parliament which will provide further information regarding the design of the proposed scheme.

Ref No. GA2

Comment:

South Queensferry Junction should incorporate an underpass instead of an overbridge

Response:

Ref No. GA3

Comment:

Positive comments regarding the proposed design of Junction 1a.

Response:

The design of the junction at Junction 1a on the M9 seeks to utilise as much of the existing junction as possible avoiding unnecessary costs and environmental impacts, while still providing for the traffic anticipated to use the junction. The proposed scheme also provides improved accessibility to West Lothian through the addition of west-facing slip roads at Junction 1a on the M9.

Ref No. GA4

Comment:

The A904/B924 Junction should be improved.

Response:

The A904/B924 Junction has been redesigned in conjunction with the relocation of South Queensferry Junction. A slight realignment of the B924 Bo’ness Road is proposed and the junction between the A904/B924 will be upgraded to accommodate this realignment to improve access to the A904 and provide access to the new grade separated junction at South Queensferry.

Ref No. GA5

Comment:

Satisfactory access should be maintained at Ferrytoll Park and Ride.

Response:

The junction layout at Ferrytoll has been designed to ensure that access is maintained to Ferrytoll Park and Ride. As a result of the impact of the work to improve the capacity and operation of the Ferrytoll Junction, the access arrangements at Ferrytoll park and ride site will be altered with bus and car access segregated, and the bus circulation system improved and extended to facilitate bus loading and waiting for passengers moving between services.

C.2.2 Local Roads

Ref No. GA6

Comment:

Is a new link being considered for the housing development site at Port Edgar?

Response:

The proposed scheme only contains realignments or improvements to local roads which are necessary for the project. Any new roads which are necessary for housing or other private developments will be a matter for the developer.

Ref No. GA7

Comment:

Concern regarding the impact of the A8000 realignment.

Response:

The realignment of the A8000 is necessary to accommodate the improvements and widening of the A90 at this location. Construction of the A8000 will therefore include will include realigning and raising the level of the road, demolition of the existing bridge over the A90 and construction of a new bridge. Where existing accesses are affected by the realignment of the A8000 these will be replaced. The method of construction employed will be a matter for the contractor; however it is anticipated that the new bridge and as much as possible of the realigned road will be constructed before connecting to the existing road under traffic management so that disruption to road users is minimised. Demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge over the A90 will be undertaken at times when the impact of disruption to the traffic on the A90 would be less significant. Requirements for traffic management, control and safety are set out in the Code of Construction Practice submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. The assessment has informed the development of mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact of the proposed scheme. The results of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. Mitigation measures proposed at the A8000 are shown on Figures 12.4g and 12.4h of the Environmental Statement and include mixed woodland planting to provide screening and standard trees to replace those lost due to the proposed scheme.

Ref No. GA8

Comment:

Dunfermline Wynd should remain open.

Response:

The proposed scheme maintains the existing bridge at Dunfermline Wynd and this road will remain open under the scheme proposals.

Ref No. GA9

Comment:

Concern regarding impact on the Fife Coastal Route.

Response:

The Fife Coastal Route is accessed from Admiralty Junction and the proposed scheme will maintain this junction and access to the Fife Coastal Route.

Ref No. GA10

Comment:

Concern that Kirkliston will remain a rat-run for traffic travelling to Edinburgh Airport and Edinburgh Park.

Response:

The slip road from the M9 Kirkliston Spur to the eastbound M9 at Junction 1a will be improved such that it will be two lanes wide and in conjunction with this improvement, the M9 will be widened to the east of Junction 1a to ensure that traffic flow will not be adversely affected along this section of the M9 due to the proposed scheme. Intelligent Transport Systems including variable speed limits, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures will be provided as part of the proposed scheme to improve the flow of traffic on the proposed scheme, including the M9 and it is anticipated that this will result in some improvement to the operation of Newbridge roundabout by managing the flow of traffic towards the junction. The Intelligent Transport Systems proposals will manage and improve the flow of traffic on the network and reduce congestion, improving the operation of the existing and proposed roads.

The improvements to the road network proposed as part of the proposed scheme are predicted to result in a slight reduction in traffic levels on the A8000 which suggest that rat-running on this route and through Kirkliston will reduce.

Ref No. GA11

Comment:

Concern that Clufflat road will be extended into Echline Field.

Response:

There are no plans to extend Clufflat road into Echline Field. Access from the construction site compound area to the west of the proposed scheme at South Queensferry will be via a new access which will connect to Society Road to the west of Clufflat.

Ref No. GA12

Comment:

Concern regarding traffic diverting through South Queensferry.

Response:

Further development of the proposed scheme at South Queensferry was undertaken following the public information exhibitions in January 2009 and this is covered in the response to comment RO14 in Annex C of the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report. The proposed junction at South Queensferry has been moved further west to connect directly to the A904. Traffic modelling indicates that the majority of traffic currently using the A904 travels from the west towards the existing A90 at Echline Junction and vice versa, thus locating the new South Queensferry Junction to the west of South Queensferry removes traffic from Builyeon Road. This reduction will be partly offset by traffic from South Queensferry travelling along Builyeon Road to access the junction and vice versa, but less traffic is predicted to travel in this direction. Therefore an overall reduction in traffic on Builyeon Road between Echline roundabout and the new South Queensferry Junction is anticipated to occur.

The proposed scheme will also improve accessibility through use of Intelligent Transport Systems which will be provided on the existing road network and on the proposed scheme. Measures such as variable speed limits, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures will be provided as part of the proposed scheme to control the speed of traffic on the main carriageways, the flow of traffic merging from the slip roads and provide information to road users. The Intelligent Transport Systems proposals will manage and improve the flow of traffic on the network and reduce congestion, improving the operation of the existing and proposed roads.

Ref No. GA13

Comment:

Early construction of the A801 Avon Gorge as part of the STPR is suggested which would be an alternative route during construction

Response:

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change set out on 10 December 2008 the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) which cover the future investment programme for transport in Scotland over the next 20 years. The STPR focuses on identifying those interventions that most effectively contribute towards the Government’s Purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. The STPR recommendations include Grangemouth road and rail access upgrades (Intervention 20). This includes a possible new crossing on Avon Gorge, although it is noted in the study that the environmental impacts of crossing the Avon Gorge must be fully considered before any intervention is progressed. Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

C.2.3 Traffic Generation

Ref No. GA14

Comment:

Concern that no efforts are being made to reduce traffic flows.

Response:

The Government has committed that the Forth Replacement Crossing project will replace but not increase the road provision for general traffic on the Forth Road Bridge. It is not Government policy to provide for unconstrained growth in vehicular traffic. The use of Intelligent Transport Systems, improvements to junctions and the inclusion of hard shoulders and wind shielding on the Forth Replacement Crossing will improve operational efficiency and improve traffic flow. The managed crossing scheme provides for additional travel demand through the provision of a dedicated public transport corridor, including the option for introduction of Light Rapid Transit, such as guided bus or tram based light rail, designed to increase public transport availability. The Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) has identified a number of other complementary measures in the Forth area to allow for growth in travel through public transport initiatives such as park and ride.

Ref No. GA15

Comment:

Concern there will be no improvement in traffic flow.

Response:

The proposed scheme will improve accessibility through use of Intelligent Transport Systems which will be provided on the existing road network and on the proposed scheme. Measures such as variable speed limits, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures will be provided as part of the proposed scheme to control the speed of traffic on the main carriageways, the flow of traffic merging from the slip roads and provide information to road users. The Intelligent Transport Systems proposals will manage and improve the flow of traffic on the network and reduce congestion, improving the operation of the existing and proposed roads.

Ref No. GA16

Comment:

Clarification sought that traffic from the proposed Winchburgh development has been considered.

Response:

Traffic modelling undertaken to inform the design of the proposed scheme has been based on the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS). TMfS includes anticipated development in each local authority area, based on information provided by the local planning authorities. Traffic forecasts include traffic associated with anticipated developments including consideration of traffic which may be generated by the Winchburgh development.

Ref No. GA17

Comment:

Concern regarding bus traffic on the A904 and congestion at South Queensferry Junction.

Response:

Further development of the proposed scheme at South Queensferry was undertaken following the public information exhibitions in January 2009 and this is covered in the response to comment RO14 in Annex C of the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report. The proposed junction at South Queensferry has been moved further west to connect directly to the A904. As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. In conjunction with this change to the design of the proposed scheme, new public transport links will be provided at Echline to provide improved public transport linkages between the Forth Road Bridge, South Queensferry and the A90. These measures remove the need for public transport to travel along the A904 to access the A90 as shown at the public information exhibitions in January 2009.

The junctions have been designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic flows, having regard to the capacity of the adjacent network using a computerised traffic model to ensure that the junctions operate satisfactorily.

C.2.4 Route Capacity

Ref No. GA18

Comment:

Concern that hard shoulders cannot be relied upon due to their dual use.

Response:

Hard shoulders on the replacement crossing will only be used by buses diverted from the existing bridge, for example due to high wind conditions. This will be managed using measures such as CCTV, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures to maintain effective operation of the system and safe operation of the road.

C.2.5 Traffic Routing

Ref No. GA19

Comment:

The majority of people in South Queensferry do not travel to Fife.

Response:

The proposed scheme will provide a new junction at South Queensferry where the route intersects the adjacent road network catering for all traffic movements at this location.

Ref No. GA20

Comment:

Concern regarding use of Castlandhill Road by traffic during construction.

Response:

A Code of Construction Practice has been submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill which describes how the Scottish Ministers will control and limit environmental impacts during construction; define minimum standards of construction practice; and inform and consult affected communities about how the effects of the works will be mitigated and the timetable of the works.

Measures included in the Code of Construction Practice include those relating to traffic management, control and safety (Section 4). A Traffic Management Working Group has also been formed comprising the trunk and local road authorities and the emergency services. This group will continue to meet and be involved during construction of the project, as set out in the Code of Construction Practice.

The Code of Construction Practice sets out requirements in relation to access routes for construction traffic, which will be limited, as far as reasonably practicable, to the trunk road network and main roads on the local road network.

Ref No. GA21

Comment:

Concern regarding traffic diverting through South Queensferry and travelling south on the A8000.

Response:

Ref No. GA22

Comment:

Local traffic or light vehicles should continue to use the Forth Road Bridge.

Response:

The managed crossing scheme includes use of the Forth Road Bridge which will carry public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. Further information regarding the managed crossing scheme is contained in the Scheme Definition Report which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Ref No. GA23

Comment:

Traffic survey information should be made available to the public.

Response:

Traffic survey information has been provided in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Requests for and provision of information such as this is dealt with through the procedures covered by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

C.2.6 Non-Motorised User Access

Ref No. GA24

Comment:

Concern that an existing cycle route runs through Inverkeithing town centre.

Response:

The routing of existing cycle paths is a matter for the local authority. The cycle route passing through Inverkeithing town centre is shown on Figures 17.2a and 17.3a of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. The assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme on cyclists is described in Chapter 17 (Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects) of the Environmental Statement.

The proposed scheme will maintain a combined cycle track/footway alongside the B981 to the Ferrytoll Junction and the Forth Road Bridge. Specific pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities will be included at the gyratory at Ferry Toll Junction.

Ref No. GA25

Comment:

There is no improvement in integration for cyclists, walking, trains or bus timetabling mentioned in the proposals.

Response:

As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed scheme incorporates provision for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians, however where conflicts remain, mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts. The assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme on cyclists is described in Chapter 17 (Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

The managed crossing scheme will facilitate provision of improved public transport although this will not be provided as part of the project. Improving public transport services is the responsibility of organisations such as rail operators, bus companies, local authorities and SEStran and the managed crossing scheme presents a significant opportunity for these organisations to improve public transport facilities and services to increase use of public transport.

Ref No. GA26

Comment:

Supportive of crossing, particularly in the light of providing facilities for cyclists.

Response:

Ref No. GA27

Comment:

Query regarding what happens to pedestrians and cyclists if existing bridge is closed.

Response:

The existing procedures on the Forth Road Bridge will operate in the event that the bridge is closed periodically to pedestrians and cyclists. The replacement crossing will be a motorway and will cater for all motorway traffic. As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. Public transport and taxis will be able to use the replacement crossing and in the event that the Forth Road Bridge is closed, buses will be permitted to use the hard shoulders on the replacement crossing. This will be managed using measures such as CCTV, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures to maintain effective operation of the system and safe operation of the road. No provisions for pedestrians and cyclists are included in the replacement crossing, except in emergency situations when pedestrians may access along the central reserve.

C.3 Public Transport

C.3.1 General Public Transport Comments

Ref No. GP1

Comment:

Concern that use of Forth Road Bridge by light rail, trams or guided bus will only be temporary until the bridge can no longer carry this traffic.

Response:

A technical assessment of the capability of the Forth Road Bridge to work alongside the Forth Replacement Crossing was undertaken. The assessment found that with the new bridge being designed to carry general permitted traffic and all heavy goods vehicles, a range of options for rail based light rapid transit public transport together with reduced road loadings could be considered for the existing Forth Road Bridge. The technical assessment of the capability of the Forth Road Bridge concluded that it could support future public transport requirements and accommodate non-motorised users (pedestrians and cyclists). The opportunity to use the Forth Road Bridge in this way led to the development of the managed crossing scheme with the Forth Road Bridge carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists and provision of an operationally flexible, narrower, replacement bridge of high quality and significantly reduced cost.

Given the age and nature of the existing bridge, an element of unforeseeable risk cannot be ignored. The Forth Replacement Crossing will be designed such that light rapid transit could be accommodated in place of the hard shoulders if a future unforeseen circumstance means that the Forth Road Bridge is not be suitable to carry all potential light rapid transit systems. Further information regarding the managed crossing scheme is provided in the Scheme Definition Report which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is continuing to monitor the condition of the cables and if, following opening of the Forth Replacement Crossing, the cables on the existing bridge require to be replaced then they will be. If this is the case, the significant disruption that would occur if the cables were replaced without the replacement crossing being in place will be avoided.

Ref No. GP2

Comment:

Concern that improvement to local public transport services should be put in place before the new crossing is in place.

Response:

As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. The managed crossing scheme will facilitate provision of improved public transport although this will not be provided as part of the project. Improving public transport services is the responsibility of organisations such as rail operators, bus companies, local authorities and SEStran and the strategy for the project presents a significant opportunity for these organisations to improve public transport facilities and services to increase use of public transport.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change set out on 10 December 2008 the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) which cover the future investment programme for transport in Scotland over the next 20 years. The STPR recommendations include measures relating to public transport in the Forth area. Additional park and ride sites are proposed as one of the measures contained in the STPR, including potential locations at Halbeath, Pitreavie, Linlithgow and other locations around Edinburgh. Light rapid transit connections between Fife and Edinburgh which would improve connections between Dunfermline, Rosyth and Edinburgh is one of a number of public transport measures which were recommended. The project is dependent on the Forth Replacement Crossing and the STPR recommendations will be considered in future Government spending reviews and a programme for delivering the measures will develop from this.

Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

Ref No. GP3

Comment:

Clarification sought regarding future light rail.

Response:

A light rapid transit system between Edinburgh and Fife is one of the 29 projects being proposed as part of the Strategic Transport Projects Review which has identified projects for the period 2012 onwards. The STPR recommendations will be considered in future Government spending reviews and a programme for delivering the measures will develop from this.

Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

Ref No. GP4

Comment:

Clarification sought regarding the number of taxis that will use the new crossing.

Response:

Traffic survey information does not distinguish between taxis and other cars and as such information regarding the number of taxis that may use the replacement crossing or the Forth Road Bridge is not available.

Ref No. GP5

Comment:

It is not cost effective to maintain the existing bridge as a public transport corridor.

Response:

A technical assessment of the capability of the Forth Road Bridge to work alongside the Forth Replacement Crossing was undertaken and informed development of the managed crossing scheme. The assessment found that with the new bridge being designed to carry general permitted traffic and all heavy goods vehicles, a range of options for rail based light rapid transit public transport together with reduced road loadings could be considered for the existing Forth Road Bridge. The technical assessment of the capability of the Forth Road Bridge concluded that it could support future public transport requirements and accommodate non-motorised users (pedestrians and cyclists). The opportunity to use the Forth Road Bridge in this way led to the development of the managed crossing scheme with the Forth Road Bridge carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists and provision of an operationally flexible, narrower, replacement bridge of high quality and significantly reduced cost.

The estimated cost of the proposed scheme at the time of public information exhibitions held in August 2007 as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study was £3.25 billion to £4.22 billion at 2016 outturn prices. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme is currently £1.7 billion to £2.3 billion at 2016 outturn prices, a saving of over £1.5 billion.

Ref No. GP6

Comment:

In future the M9 Spur should be used for public transport only.

Response:

The M9 Spur is an important part of the strategic road network and will become a trunk road under the proposed scheme. It is not proposed to restrict use of the road to public transport.

C.3.2 Rail

Ref No. GP7

Comment:

An additional rail bridge should be provided instead of a road crossing

Response:

Rail crossings were included in the options considered for the project in the Forth Replacement Crossing Study (FRCS). This is described further in FRCS Report 3 which is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/projects/forth-replacement-crossing-study-report-3 ). FRCS Report 3 explains that current and future improvements in rail infrastructure can be accommodated using the Forth Bridge and that as a result any future crossing of the Forth should not allow for further heavy rail and thus options considering heavy rail were discarded from further consideration. The report describes further that heavy rail has an important role to play in any future cross Forth Transport Strategy and that further capacity and reliability enhancements will be examined as part of the Strategic Transport Projects Review.

Ref No. GP8

Comment:

Concern regarding the existing railway lines through Dunfermline, Rosyth and between Halbeath and Inverkeithing.

Response:

The Halbeath to Inverkeithing rail link is one of a number of public transport measures which were recommended in the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR). It is proposed as a long term intervention for completion beyond the completion date for the Forth Replacement Crossing.

The STPR interventions also included light rapid transit connections between Fife and Edinburgh which could improve connections between Dunfermline, Rosyth and Edinburgh. The project is dependent on the Forth Replacement Crossing and the STPR recommendations will be considered in future Government spending reviews and a programme for delivering the measures will develop from this.

Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

Ref No. GP9

Comment:

There should be an increased level of rail use by travellers from Fife.

Response:

The Halbeath to Inverkeithing rail link is one of a number of public transport measures which were recommended in the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR). It is proposed as a long term intervention for completion beyond 2022 and the timescale for this project is beyond the completion date for the Forth Replacement Crossing.

Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

Ref No. GP10

Comment:

Concern regarding improvements to rail transport and the benefits this would achieve.

Response:

Public transport improvements are recognised in studies such as the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) to be of benefit in meeting travel demand.

Interventions recommended in the STPR include light rapid transit connections between Fife and Edinburgh which could improve connections between Dunfermline, Rosyth and Edinburgh. The project is dependent on the Forth Replacement Crossing and the STPR recommendations will be considered in future Government spending reviews and a programme for delivering the measures will develop from this.

The Halbeath to Inverkeithing rail link is one of a number of public transport measures which were recommended in the STPR. It is proposed as a long term intervention for completion beyond the completion date for the Forth Replacement Crossing.

Other rail improvements are included in STPR and further information regarding these is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

C.3.3 Park and Ride

Ref No. GP11

Comment:

Park and ride should be encouraged and there must be a clear commitment to park and ride.

Response:

The public transport strategy for the Forth builds upon a range of measures including those forming part of the managed crossing scheme, those recommended within the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) and those which have and are being promoted/developed by adjacent local authorities and SEStran. This includes park and ride improvements.

Although new park and ride facilities are not being provided as part of the project, the managed crossing scheme and Intelligent Transport Systems proposed on the scheme will create favourable conditions for additional park and ride sites which may be provided in the future.

Ref No. GP12

Comment:

Clarification sought regarding the size of a future park and ride site at Rosyth.

Response:

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change set out on 10 December 2008 the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) which cover the future investment programme for transport in Scotland over the next 20 years. The STPR focuses on identifying those interventions that most effectively contribute towards the Government’s Purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. Park and ride at Rosyth is envisaged as one of the interventions which could be implemented by 2016. A 500 space facility was considered in the STPR study. Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

Ref No. GP13

Comment:

Concern regarding lack of knowledge regarding the operation of Ferrytoll park and ride.

Response:

The project team is aware of the layout and operation of the site gained from consultation with the operators of Ferrytoll park and ride and the local authority during development of the project.

The junction layout at Ferrytoll has been designed to ensure that access can be provided to the strategic and local road networks, including the park and ride. As a result of the impact of the work to improve the capacity and operation of the Ferrytoll Junction, the access arrangements at Ferrytoll park and ride site will be altered with bus and car access segregated, and the bus circulation system improved and extended to facilitate bus loading and waiting for passengers moving between services.

Ref No. GP14

Comment:

The current solution is dependent on bus and park and ride and to cope with the increases in demand.

Response:

C.4 Other Comments

C.4.1 Need for the Scheme

Ref No. GO1

Comment:

Why provide a scheme that needs two bridges?

Response:

A technical assessment of the capability of the Forth Road Bridge to work alongside the Forth Replacement Crossing was undertaken and this informed development of the managed crossing scheme. The assessment found that with the new bridge being designed to carry general permitted traffic and all heavy goods vehicles, a range of options for rail based light rapid transit public transport together with reduced road loadings could be considered for the existing Forth Road Bridge. The technical assessment of the capability of the Forth Road Bridge concluded that it could support future public transport requirements and accommodate non-motorised users (pedestrians and cyclists). The opportunity to use the Forth Road Bridge in this way led to the development of the managed crossing scheme with the Forth Road Bridge carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists and provision of an operationally flexible, narrower, replacement bridge of high quality and significantly reduced cost.

Further information regarding the managed crossing scheme is contained in the Scheme Definition Report which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Ref No. GO2

Comment:

The project fails to fulfil two of the three strategic outcomes set out in the National Transport Strategy — it fails to reduce emissions and fails to improve the quality of public transport.

Response:

The managed crossing scheme will provide dedicated public transport routes across the Firth of Forth and this will facilitate provision of improved public transport although this will not be provided as part of the project. Improving public transport services is the responsibility of organisations such as rail operators, bus companies, local authorities and SEStran and the strategy for the project presents a significant opportunity for these organisations to improve public transport facilities and services to increase use of public transport.

Ref No. GO3

Comment:

Does not dispute the need for a new Forth crossing

Response:

In the Ministerial announcement on 19 December 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth advised that the effects of traffic and the impact of the Scottish climate have taken their toll on the Forth Road Bridge and that despite significant investment and maintenance over its lifetime, including recent dehumidification works, there remains uncertainty regarding the future condition of the Forth Road Bridge and its suitability as the long-term crossing of the Firth of Forth. The effectiveness or otherwise of the dehumidification works will not be known until at least 2012. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth stated on 19 December 2007 that "Doing nothing is not an option. Work is required now to protect this crucial link in Scotland’s transport network and to minimise the risk from the existing bridge not being available". The project is being taken forward against this background of uncertainty and in line with the statement made by the Cabinet Secretary.

C.4.2 Corridor/Tunnel Decision

Ref No. GO4

Comment:

The corridor for the crossing should be further west.

Response:

A number of different options and corridors were considered for the project as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study (FRCS). These are described in FRCS Report 3: Option Generating and Sifting which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info . The options which were taken forward for further consideration are described and assessed in FRCS Report 4: Appraisal Report which is also available on the project website. Five corridor options were considered in this report, including three corridors further west of the proposed crossing corridor.

The FRCS recommended that a cable-stayed bridge located east of Rosyth and west of South Queensferry be taken forward, on the basis of being the best overall performing option assessed, as the preferred option. Further information regarding the options considered for the crossing and the selection of the proposed crossing location and bridge is provided in the above reports and in the statement made by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth in his statement on 19 December 2007. The news release relating to the announcement is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info and the full announcement can be viewed on the internet at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-07/sor1219-02.htm#Col4548 .

Ref No. GO5

Comment:

Environmental impacts would be less significant if the route was in a tunnel.

Response:

Ref No. GO6

Comment:

A tidal barrage rather than a road bridge would be a more suitable option for a new Forth crossing

Response:

Various options incorporating a tidal barrage were considered for the crossing but were discarded as they would result in high costs and environmental impacts. Further information regarding this option is provided in Forth Replacement Crossing Study Report 3: Option Generation and Sifting which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info . Options 10 and 41 as described in this report incorporate a tidal barrage.

Ref No. GO7

Comment:

Having two road bridges situated beside each other will create overcrowding.

Response:

The design of the replacement crossing has involved consideration of a range of bridge deck and tower options which were considered against aesthetic, technical ease of construction and cost criteria. The replacement crossing is proposed to be a twin road corridor deck with a central mono-tower from which the cables would extend into a central corridor. The development of the replacement crossing has included consultation with Architecture + Design Scotland and factors contributing to the selection of the crossing form concluded that the crossing form was aesthetically the most pleasing design complementary to the setting of the existing road and rail bridge.

C.4.3 Route Choice

Ref No. GO8

Comment:

Impacts on the community at South Queensferry have been discounted.

Response:

A number of alternative options for the road network connections were considered as part of the work undertaken during 2008. The corridor for the proposed scheme was selected as it demonstrated engineering, cost, environmental and sustainability benefits associated with maximising the use of existing road infrastructure. Further information is provided in the DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report and the Managed Crossing Scheme — Scheme Definition Report which are available on the Studies & Reports section on the project website, www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

One of the main objectives of the Forth Replacement Crossing is to minimise, where possible, the impact on people and the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area. One of the main concerns expressed regarding the overall impact on South Queensferry was related to the line and elevation of the proposed scheme to the south of the town. Further development of the connecting road strategy for the proposed scheme was undertaken as a result of feedback from the January 2009 public information exhibitions and further design development which helps reduce the impact on South Queensferry (refer to Chapter 7 of the Feedback & Outcomes Report). This is also covered in Repeated Comment RO14 in Annex C of the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report.

Consideration of potential impacts on South Queensferry has been given through refinement of the design and environmental impact assessment. The assessment criteria cover potential impacts on the human, natural and built environment and therefore cover assessments relevant to potential impacts on South Queensferry. The assessments have informed the design of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts where necessary and these mitigation measures, together with any residual impacts, are described in the Environmental Statement.

Ref No. GO9

Comment:

Elimination of routes has been undertaken on a largely fiscal basis.

Response:

A number of alternative options for the road network connections were considered as part of the work undertaken during 2008. These options were discounted in favour of the proposed scheme which demonstrated engineering, cost, environmental and sustainability benefits associated with maximising the use of existing road infrastructure. Further information is provided in the DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report and the Managed Crossing Scheme — Scheme Definition Report which are available on the Studies & Reports section on the project website, www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Ref No. GO10

Comment:

The current preferred route will cause longer journey times, greater emissions, increased rat running in South Queensferry, greater human impacts and greater concentration of traffic on fewer approach roads.

Response:

Ref No. GO11

Comment:

What is the construction cost saving arising from the decision to place the scheme on its current route rather than the route indicated on the web from June 2007.

Response:

Public information exhibitions were held in August 2007 as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme at the time of these exhibitions was £3.25 billion to £4.22 billion at 2016 outturn prices. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme is currently £1.7 billion to £2.3 billion at 2016 outturn prices, a saving of over £1.5 billion.

Ref No. GO12

Comment:

There is considerable doubt as to what the solution is and what the eventual impact will be.

Response:

C.4.4 Bridge Design

Ref No. GO13

Comment:

The replacement crossing should have a reserved area for the storage of plant and materials.

Response:

A small facility will be provided at the south abutment of the replacement crossing for storage of vehicles required for the maintenance of the replacement crossing together with some accommodation facilities for maintenance workers which will be housed within the south abutment itself.

Ref No. GO14

Comment:

What are the recent trends in closures due to high winds on the Forth Rail and Road Bridges and what degree of improvement is expected on the new crossing?

Response:

Strong winds signs are erected on the Forth Road Bridge when the wind gust speed is between 35 and 50 mph and a speed limit of 40mph is normally imposed. A traffic diversion sign is erected when vehicles are diverted from the Forth Road Bridge when the wind speed is predicted to rise above 50mph. Information from the Forth Estuary Transport Authority indicates that yearly averages are 778 hours for speed restriction and warning signs and 116 hours for diversion of traffic. In the financial year 2007-2008 restrictions applied for a total of 207 hours and the bridge was closed to all traffic for nearly 18 hours. Similar information is not available for the Forth Bridge.

The replacement crossing will incorporate wind shields which will protect the crossing from the effects of wind and provide a more reliable corridor for wind sensitive vehicles.

Strong winds can affect driving conditions on various parts of the road network — and one of the aims in providing wind shielding is that if it is possible to use the general road network surrounding the replacement crossing it should be possible to cross the new bridge.

Ref No. GO15

Comment:

There will be significant disruption during maintenance of the bridge and maintenance costs will rise due to there being two road bridges.

Response:

The bridge form facilitates maintenance activities associated with the cables, should this be necessary in the future, as these can be individually replaced without affecting the load carrying capacity of the bridge.

The replacement crossing will have hard shoulders which will improve the operational efficiency of the bridge compared to the Forth Road Bridge which has no hard shoulders. The hard shoulders on the new bridge will ensure that breakdowns, incidents and any maintenance works do not cause the congestion which is currently experienced on the Forth Road Bridge. They also provide the flexibility to carry public transport should it be required in the future, carry traffic during maintenance activities and carry buses relocated from the existing Forth Road Bridge during the periods of high winds.

Ref No. GO16

Comment:

The Severn Bridge was closed due to ice breaking off the cables. This would not happen with a tunnel.

Response:

Any cable supported bridge in a cold climate may be prone to issues of icing of the cables. Incidents of ice falling from cables at the Severn Crossing occurred in early 2009; however problems with ice falling from cables and affecting the safety of traffic are extremely rare, particularly where the cables do not cross the carriageways on the bridge. At the Severn Crossing, high winds at the time caused ice from the cables to fall over the carriageways. As the bridge cables do not cross over the carriageway on the Forth Replacement Crossing it is not considered necessary to provide shielding to protect traffic on the bridge.

Ref No. GO17

Comment:

Please clarify that resurfacing works on the bridge will not be undertaken by hand.

Response:

Modern surfacing and resurfacing systems are designed to be machine-laid, and this type of system is intended for the replacement crossing.

C.4.5 General Design Comments

Ref No. GO18

Comment:

Pleased that the route is in cutting to the west of South Queensferry.

Response:

Ref No. GO19

Comment:

The scheme will improve transport links on the east coast.

Response:

The main purpose of the scheme is to maintain cross Forth travel given the uncertainty regarding the ability of the Forth Road Bridge to cater for the long term needs of cross-Forth travel. The replacement crossing will be a new cable-stayed structure with wind shielding and a single deck carrying a motorway of two general lanes and hard shoulders in each direction. Wind shielding on the new bridge will protect the crossing from the effects of wind and provide a more reliable corridor for wind sensitive vehicles. The hard shoulders on the new bridge will ensure that breakdowns, incidents and any maintenance works do not cause the congestion which is currently experienced on the Forth Road Bridge, which has no hard shoulder. They also provide the flexibility to carry public transport should it be required in the future, carry traffic during maintenance activities and carry buses relocated from the existing Forth Road Bridge during the periods of high winds.

Intelligent Transport Systems will be provided on the existing road network and on the proposed scheme. Measures such as variable speed limits, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures will be provided as part of the proposed scheme to control the speed of traffic on the main carriageways, the flow of traffic merging from the slip roads and provide information to road users. Variable message signs will provide up to date and relevant information to benefit road users. The Intelligent Transport Systems proposals will manage and improve the flow of traffic on the network and reduce congestion, improving the operation of the existing and proposed roads.

Ref No. GO20

Comment:

A good design could be of economic and social benefit to South Queensferry and the surrounding area.

Response:

It is anticipated that the replacement crossing will result in wider economic benefits following completion. The economic assessment for the proposed scheme considers a number of factors including transport costs and benefits, and construction and maintenance costs. In addition to this, an assessment of wider economic benefits that may arise has been undertaken using the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance. The wider economic benefits include agglomeration benefits, such as providing firms better access to markets and additional benefits relating to competition. These are estimated to be approximately £200 million. Further information regarding the economic assessment is contained in the Policy Memorandum which was submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GO21

Comment:

Benefits associated with Intelligent Transport Systems appear overstated and unproven.

Response:

Intelligent Transport Systems are recognised as being an appropriate and effective measure to improve traffic flow and road safety. A recent example in the UK is the M42 Active Traffic Management Scheme implemented by the Highways Agency.

The ability of Intelligent Transport Systems to improve the operation of the roads is recognised through the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) with one of the recommendations to be taken forward being provision of Intelligent Transport Systems to enhance capacity and operation of the road network. Further information regarding the STPR is available on Transport Scotland’s website www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr .

Ref No. GO22

Comment:

Concern regarding road safety.

Response:

The proposed scheme is being designed in accordance with current guidance, including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. As part of the design process measures are included to address any potential safety risks. The use of Intelligent Transport Systems, improvements to junctions and the inclusion of hard shoulders and wind shielding on the Forth Replacement Crossing will improve operational efficiency, safety and traffic flow. Where local roads are affected by the proposed scheme, these will be realigned, with the designs being undertaken with the relevant standards including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and local authority standards. The layouts of local roads beyond the extents of the proposed scheme and safety issues associated with those roads are a matter for the relevant local authority.

Ref No. GO23

Comment:

The design of the road on embankment is presumably to save costs associated with the A904 Junction

Response:

The road is necessarily on embankment to the south of South Queensferry for engineering reasons and this is not due to costs. Information regarding the design of the scheme is contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Corridor Report and the Managed Crossing Scheme — Scheme Definition Report which are available on the Studies & Reports section on the project website, www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

However, further development of the proposed scheme at South Queensferry was undertaken following the public information exhibitions in January 2009 and this is covered in the response to comment RO14 in the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report. The proposed junction at South Queensferry has been moved further west to connect directly to the A904. Whilst the proposed scheme layout shown at the public information exhibitions in January 2009 included the junction at South Queensferry raised above the main carriageway, the scheme now proposed retains the A904 at approximately its current level with the main carriageway passing below in a cutting.

Moving the junction to the west has also allowed a solution to be engineered which substantially lowers the height of the road as it passes south of South Queensferry. The embankment carrying the road has been capable of being lowered by up to 6m in this area, substantially reducing the visual impact of the road on the landscape and properties.

Ref No. GO24

Comment:

The project must be to develop a crossing of greater permanence than the current bridge and of the least damage to the local community and the local environment.

Response:

The replacement crossing will have a 120 year design life in line with current standards. During this period, maintenance of the bridge will be undertaken to maintain the operational performance of the bridge. The bridge form facilitates maintenance activities associated with the cables, should this be necessary in the future, as these can be individually replaced without affecting the load carrying capacity of the bridge.

The environmental impact assessment has been undertaken in accordance with relevant guidance and legislation including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended). The matters to be assessed are set out in these documents and cover potential impacts on the biological, physical and historical environment, as well as on members of the public and on current or planned future use of the environment. The results of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

In terms of bridge aesthetics, careful consideration has been given to the shape and form of the replacement crossing in order that it complements the existing bridges. Consultation has been undertaken with Architecture + Design Scotland who are supportive of the design.

Ref No. GO25

Comment:

Meeting the needs of South Queensferry will also satisfy those of the individuals who reside here and nearby.

Response:

The proposed scheme will provide a new junction at South Queensferry where the route intersects the adjacent road network catering for all traffic movements at this location. The operational efficiency of the route will be improved compared to the A90 and Forth Road bridge with wind shielding and hard shoulders provided.

One of the main objectives of the proposed scheme is to minimise, where possible, the impact on people and the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area. One of the main concerns expressed regarding the overall impact on South Queensferry was related to the line and elevation of the proposed scheme to the south of the town. Further development of the connecting road strategy for the proposed scheme was undertaken as a result of feedback from the January 2009 public information exhibitions and further design development which helps reduce the impact on South Queensferry (refer to Chapter 7 of the Feedback & Outcomes Report) was undertaken. This is also covered in Repeated Comment RO14 in Annex C of the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report.

C.4.6 Scheme Cost

Ref No. GO26

Comment:

Concern made over the existing public funds assigned to the health and safety aspects of large construction projects.

Response:

Safety is an extremely important factor in all construction projects, influencing the design, and thereby future use of the infrastructure provided, and also the construction process. This covers health, safety and welfare of construction workers and road users alike. Requirements in relation to health and safety are set out in legislation and other construction industry standards and following these is a mandatory requirement, in line with the importance that should be given to these matters.

In relation to operational safety associated with the proposed scheme, the design is being undertaken in accordance with current guidance, including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. As part of the design process measures are included to address any potential safety risks. The use of Intelligent Transport Systems, improvements to junctions and the inclusion of hard shoulders and wind shielding on the Forth Replacement Crossing will improve operational efficiency, safety and traffic flow. Where local roads are affected by the proposed scheme, these will be realigned, with the designs being undertaken with the relevant standards including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and local authority standards. The layouts of local roads beyond the extents of the proposed scheme and safety issues associated with those roads are a matter for the relevant local authority.

Ref No. GO27

Comment:

Concern that the scheme will not be delivered on budget.

Response:

The estimated costs have been prepared in accordance with Treasury guidance and include allowances for risk, optimism bias, VAT and inflation. Transport Scotland is confident that the final cost of the proposed scheme will lie within the current estimate of £1.7 billion to £2.3 billion at 2016 outturn prices.

Ref No. GO28

Comment:

What is the cost of noise mitigation that is considered acceptable per 100m of road?

Response:

The extent of mitigation provided is specific to individual schemes and is based on the extent and significance of environmental impacts.

Transport Scotland has set out its strategy for mitigating noise impacts in a Noise and Vibration Policy which also forms part of the Environmental Statement. The strategy has been used to determine where specific noise mitigation measures are to be provided and, as indicated above, these are also described in the Environmental Statement. Mitigation measures which have been considered include, for example, the use of screening measures such as noise barriers or earth bunds, and low noise road surfacing where appropriate.

Ref No. GO29

Comment:

Cost cutting initiatives are the key driver of this scheme.

Response:

Ref No. GO30

Comment:

In the inception report the costing of the previous solution contains an error which prevents comparison with the figures in FRCS Reports 1 to 5. The 3.5% levy imposed by the Treasury has been applied incorrectly.

Response:

Taxation allowances on the project have been applied in line with Treasury guidance. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme at the time of public information exhibitions held in August 2007 as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study was £3.25 billion to £4.22 billion at 2016 outturn prices. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme is currently £1.7 billion to £2.3 billion at 2016 outturn prices, a saving of over £1.5 billion.

Ref No. GO31

Comment:

There are no costs included in the current estimate for the maintenance of the existing bridge.

Response:

The estimated costs for the maintenance of the existing bridge have been taken into account in the economic assessment of the project.

C.4.7 Funding

Ref No. GO32

Comment:

Funding for such a major project should have been in place beforehand.

Response:

The Scottish Government has stated that funding for the Forth Replacement Crossing is in place.

Ref No. GO33

Comment:

Documents relating to the Forth Crossing and the Strategic Transport Projects Review both omit detailed economic and environmental appraisal of the favoured crossing against alternative uses for the required funding.

Response:

The Forth Replacement Crossing is listed in the National Planning Framework (NPF2) as a national development. The need for the project is described in NPF2, which states that ‘The Forth Road Bridge has been an essential part of the national road infrastructure for over 40 years. It is vital to the economy of Fife, an essential link for the East Coast Corridor and crucial to the connectivity of Perth and the Highlands and Islands. The main suspension cables of the bridge are showing significant signs of deterioration as a result of corrosion. While a programme of works has been identified to dry out the cables and thus prolong the life of the bridge, there is a considerable risk that this work will not be successful. If that proves to be the case, restrictions to heavy goods vehicles may be needed as early as 2013, with the bridge closing to all traffic by 2019. Complete loss of the road crossing would have very significant adverse economic impacts, both nationally and regionally’. Therefore the proposed scheme is identified as ‘an essential element of national infrastructure’.

Ref No. GO34

Comment:

The Scottish Association for Public Transport would support early action on a replacement crossing if engineering evidence existed indicating that the Forth Road Bridge was at risk of full closure within the next decade, subject to it being funded by borrowing related to specific additional streams of income and minimising the need for cuts in other public spending.

Response:

In 2004, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority became the first major suspension bridge operator to implement new industry guidelines for internal inspection of parallel wire suspension cables. This inspection revealed serious corrosion resulting in a loss of strength of about 8% and the possibility that Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) restrictions might need to be introduced as soon as 2013, with further restrictions within five years to extend the life of the bridge. In order to monitor the rate of deterioration acoustic detection equipment has been installed capable of identifying individual wires breaking.

The consequences of this assessment were considered by the Scottish Ministers who commissioned, first, a check of the findings, and subsequently, a study into how the loss of the Forth Road Bridge could be compensated by a replacement crossing. The seriousness of the loss also led to the inclusion of the replacement crossing as a National Development within the National Planning Framework (NPF2), which has been subsequently endorsed by the Parliament.

Since 2006, acoustic monitoring of the cables on the Forth Road Bridge has detected further new wire breaks within the individual wires that make up each cable and has confirmed that the problem is ongoing. A second inspection carried out in February and March 2008 indicated that the cables had lost about 10% of their strength, but may be deteriorating more slowly than previously feared. The inspection indicated that with the assessed rate of deterioration weight restrictions might now more likely be considered at a later date, between 2017 and 2021 within an overall window of 2014 to 2021. However, it is clear from studies and work currently being undertaken that the Forth Road Bridge cannot be guaranteed to continue to provide the levels of service needed to support social and economic traffic on the important transport corridor across the Forth into the future.

The Scottish Ministers have considered funding and procurement options for the project taking cognisance of the public accounting regime and value for money assessments. This is described in more detail in the Policy Memorandum submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. The funding and procurement option chosen (direct funding from Central Government and a conventional design and build contract) was selected as it presents the least risk process with the greatest guarantee of provision of the proposed scheme by 2016. The Scottish Government has stated that funding for the Forth Replacement Crossing is in place.

Ref No. GO35

Comment:

Concern regarding the political in fighting over funding.

Response:

The Scottish Government has stated that funding for the Forth Replacement Crossing is in place.

C.4.8 Existing Bridge

Ref No. GO36

Comment:

Will public transport vehicles be diverted to the proposed bridge in times of high winds?

Response:

As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. Public transport and taxis will be able to use the replacement crossing and in the event that the Forth Road Bridge is closed, buses will be permitted to use the hard shoulders on the replacement crossing. This will be managed using measures such as CCTV, variable message signs and other traffic information and control measures to maintain effective operation of the system and safe operation of the road.

Ref No. GO37

Comment:

Cabling on the existing bridge should be replaced as well.

Response:

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is continuing to monitor the condition of the cables and following opening of the Forth Replacement Crossing, if the cables on the existing bridge require to be replaced then they will be. If this is the case, the significant disruption that would occur if the cables were replaced without the replacement crossing being in place will be avoided.

Ref No. GO38

Comment:

Will it be possible for disabled drivers or drivers over 60 years old to use existing bridge?

Response:

It will not be possible for disabled drivers or drivers over 60 years old to use existing bridge. As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists. The drivers in question will be able to use the replacement crossing.

Ref No. GO39

Comment:

Can the current bridge and road network remain with greater emphasis to remove heavy goods vehicles from the bridge?

Response:

The potential restrictions on traffic would commence with heavy goods vehicles as these impose a greater loading on the Forth Road Bridge. However, as 86 % of the loading in the cables is due to the weight of the structure itself, restricting the number of heavy goods vehicles on the bridge may not, in itself, prevent full closure of the bridge in the future.

Ref No. GO40

Comment:

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority report estimates that disruption during cable replacement will cost £212 - £335 million.

Response:

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) assessed the technical feasibility of augmenting or replacing the main cables on the Forth Road Bridge. The assessment identified that the works would cause sustained and significant disruption to traffic over a period of 7 to 9 years with notional travel time delay costs of the order of £650,000 per day, if a carriageway were to be closed on the bridge on a weekday. Without an alternative crossing in place FETA has indicated from an assessment of existing businesses that during this work, economic output is likely to fall by around £1 billion, a drop in turnover in excess of £1.3 billion and a loss of around 3,200 jobs, some of which may be permanent. The economic effects would impact widely, but be most strongly felt in Fife where some parts have 20-40% of residents working in Edinburgh.

Ref No. GO41

Comment:

It is difficult to believe the programme of 7 - 9 years to replace the cables as the bridge only took 7 years to construct.

Response:

The outline work methods and programme developed by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) have been prepared by structural engineers with experience in major bridge design, construction and maintenance. In addition to replacement of the main cables, works to the main towers, side towers, footways and anchorages would be necessary, with the work having to be undertaken whilst maintaining traffic flow on the bridge. The work is recognised as being extremely complex and has very little precedent at the scale necessary on the Forth Road Bridge. Further information regarding the work necessary is included in the ‘Feasibility Study into Replacement/Augmentation of Main Cable - Stage 2 Optioneering Report’ prepared by FETA. Appendix F of the report provides outline programmes which indicate the tasks necessary as part of the cable augmentation/replacement work and anticipated timescales associated with this work.

Ref No. GO42

Comment:

There is double counting between the travel disruption costs and wider economic costs.

Response:

Ref No. GO43

Comment:

It is difficult to believe anything more than peak closures of the existing bridge would be required to replace the cables.

Response:

FETA considered a number of different options and traffic management scenarios for undertaking the works and these are described in the ‘Feasibility Study into Replacement/Augmentation of Main Cable - Stage 2 Optioneering Report’. Options considered included full closure of the bridge, carriageway or lane closures and tidal flow or no peak period closures. Key differences between the options are when work can be undertaken due to the proximity of traffic.

The main cables are located alongside the carriageways on the bridge and the work to augment or replace the cables will involve working adjacent to and above the carriageways. This presents a significant hazard, particularly if there is live traffic on the carriageway immediately adjacent to the work location. FETA indicated in the ‘Feasibility Study into Replacement/Augmentation of Main Cable - Stage 2 Optioneering Report’ that if the work had to be undertaken that it would clearly be preferable from a safety perspective to undertake the work with the bridge fully closed. However, it is recognised that bridge closures would result in the greatest disruption to road users and impact on the economy.

Ref No. GO44

Comment:

The possible upgrading of the Forth Road Bridge has been made to appear as expensive as possible. An independent appraisal by experts not beholden to the UK is needed.

Response:

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) assessed the technical feasibility of augmenting or replacing the main cables on the Forth Road Bridge. The assessment identified replacement of the main cables is technically possible at a cost of £122 million for the engineering works and that the works would cause sustained and significant disruption to traffic over a period of 7 to 9 years with notional travel time delay costs of the order of £650,000 per day, if a carriageway were to be closed on the bridge on a weekday. Without an alternative crossing in place FETA has indicated from an assessment of existing businesses that during this work, economic output is likely to fall by around £1 billion, a drop in turnover in excess of £1.3 billion and a loss of around 3,200 jobs, some of which may be permanent. The economic effects would impact widely, but be most strongly felt in Fife where some parts have 20-40% of residents working in Edinburgh.

A detailed assessment has been independently carried out for Transport Scotland which has confirmed the figures as being indicative of the costs of carrying out the work.

Ref No. GO45

Comment:

Conflicting statements on the longevity of the existing bridge raises questions about the future proofing for public transport.

Response:

Given the age and nature of the existing bridge, an element of unforeseeable risk cannot be ignored. The Forth Replacement Crossing will be designed such that light rapid transit could be accommodated in place of the hard shoulders if a future unforeseen circumstance means that the Forth Road Bridge is not suitable to carry all potential light rapid transit systems. Further information regarding the managed crossing scheme is provided in the Scheme Definition Report which is available on the project web-sit www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is continuing to monitor the condition of the cables and if, following opening of the Forth Replacement Crossing the cables on the existing bridge require to be replaced then they will be. If this is the case, the significant disruption that would occur if the cables were replaced without the replacement crossing being in place will be avoided.

C.4.9 Tolls

Ref No. GO46

Comment:

Abandoning tolls is irresponsible. It offers a powerful traffic management tool and has curbed growth on the Severn bridges.

Response:

The Scottish Government has removed tolls from the Forth Road Bridge in line with Government policy on 11 February 2008. This policy was implemented by the Scottish Parliament in its approval of the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Act 2008. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change set out on 10 December 2008 the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) which cover the future investment programme for transport in Scotland over the next 20 years. In this announcement, the Minister advised the Scottish Parliament that the Forth Replacement Crossing will be toll-free.

C.4.10 Compensation

Ref No. GO47

Comment:

Requests for clarification regarding what is covered in compensation.

Response:

Transport Scotland published Guidance on the Parliamentary Process, Compulsory Purchase Process and Compensation in July 2009. This document provided information on the parliamentary and objection process, compulsory purchase arrangements and compensation for those who may be affected by the scheme, such as landowners of property, farms or businesses which are directly affected by the proposed scheme.

C.4.11 Quality of Exhibition/Consultation Process

Ref No. GO48

Comment:

Scale models should be provided at exhibitions.

Response:

It is not intended to create a scale model although a 3D computer simulation of the proposed scheme, including the replacement crossing will be created.

Ref No. GO49

Comment:

Comment made that the exhibition video stated that public consultation had already taken place yet no prior notification of this was received.

Response:

A video was on display at the public information exhibitions in January 2009 which provided information regarding the Forth Replacement Crossing project. Previous exhibitions took place through a series of public information exhibitions held in 12 locations over 21 days in August 2007 as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study. The public information exhibitions were held at locations which were deemed to have an interest in the selection of a crossing corridor and crossing type. Some 4,465 people registered their attendance at the public information exhibitions and 756 feedback forms were received from the consultation. Feedback was analysed and a report published in November 2007 which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

The public information exhibitions were widely publicised through a variety of means including press adverts, a two-week radio advertising campaign, distribution of publicity postcards, press releases and on the project website.

Ref No. GO50

Comment:

Concerns regarding advertising for the exhibitions held in January 2009.

Response:

The public information exhibitions held in January 2009 were widely publicised through a variety of means including press adverts, a two-week radio advertising campaign, distribution of publicity postcards, press releases and on the project website.

Ref No. GO51

Comment:

I have been advised that almost £1m had been spent on the Forth Replacement Crossing Study and the Government had selected a bridge crossing without knowing if the ground it was to built on could support it.

Response:

Preliminary ground investigations were carried out during the Forth Replacement Crossing Study to inform development of the project alongside other information available regarding existing ground conditions. The appraisal of options, including reference to information gathered during preliminary ground investigations, is described in the Forth Replacement Crossing Study Report 4: Appraisal Report. The reports are available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Ref No. GO52

Comment:

Concern regarding the level of detail shown in the images at the exhibitions.

Response:

The plans and photomontages on display at the public information exhibitions were the most up to date plans that were available. These were indicative designs as development was continuing at a rapid pace at that time.

Ref No. GO53

Comment:

The time to comment on the proposals was inadequate given the size of the scheme.

Response:

Public information exhibitions were held from 20 to 31 January 2009 to facilitate consultation with the public and to provide the opportunity for feedback on the developing proposals announced by the Scottish Government in December 2008. The deadline for providing feedback was 23 February 2009. The period during which feedback was requested was five weeks from the commencement of the public information exhibitions and was considered an appropriate length of time for comments to be made. A number of responses were received shortly after this date and these were also considered in the analysis described in the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report published in June 2009.

Ref No. GO54

Comment:

Transport Scotland stated that affected parties will be consulted but the only communication I have received is the booklet regarding surveys.

Response:

Consultations with landowners have been ongoing since early 2008 and initially focussed on gathering information to inform the development of the proposed scheme. Following the selection of the preferred corridor in late 2008, continuing consultation aided the development of the scheme proposals. The main strands of consultation include landowner identification, arranging of site access for survey works, including environmental surveys and ground investigation and consultation regarding the design of the proposed scheme.

Following the selection of the preferred corridor for the connecting roads in late 2008, land plans showing the approximate extent of the route corridor were prepared. Individual plans were distributed to potentially affected landowners in December 2008. This marked the start of a programme of one-to-one meetings and dialogue with potentially affected landowners and occupiers.

Matters discussed during consultations with landowners have included a review of land ownership details, the ongoing design of the proposed scheme, environmental issues, land requirements and accommodation works to be provided as part of the proposed scheme.

Consultation with landowners and affected parties will continue up to and during the construction stage of the project.

Ref No. GO55

Comment:

I understand that some residents were invited to preview the exhibitions although I was not included in this group.

Response:

Previews of the public information exhibitions were offered to key stakeholder groups the day prior to the public opening. Previews were arranged for MSPs, local councillors and other elected representatives, business and industry groups, statutory bodies, community councils and community groups and the media. Individual landowners and the public were invited to attend the public information exhibitions from their formal commencement on 20 January 2009

Ref No. GO56

Comment:

I am unaware of being represented by third parties such as Queensferry and District Community Council or a residents association.

Response:

Community councils are established under Part IV of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The general purpose of a community council, as defined in the Act, is to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities for its area, and to public authorities, the views of the community which it represents, in relation to matters for which those authorities are responsible, and to take such action in the interests of that community as appears to it to be expedient and practicable. Queensferry and District Community Council operate a website www.queensferrycommunitycouncil.org and provide information regarding the council and matters relevant to the community it represents.

Transport Scotland cannot comment in relation to the extent of representation provided by the community council or other organisations.

Ref No. GO57

Comment:

Request to be kept up to date and be involved in all relevant meetings.

Response:

Information continues to be made available through various means including electronic and printed newsletters, community information points and the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Information such as newsletters is made available electronically to those who subscribe to the service. Any requests to receive email updates should be submitted to the project team at frcenquiries@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk.

Consultation meetings have continued to be held with local representative groups such as community councils. Further information regarding consultations held is provided in the Policy Memorandum submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GO58

Comment:

The exhibition feedback form is not up to the standard I would normally create.

Response:

The public information exhibition feedback form was designed to facilitate provision of information and feedback to be taken into consideration in the further development of the project. Sections were accordingly allocated for feedback covering the environment, accessibility, public transport, construction or other projects. In addition to the forms, feedback was also provided by correspondence such as letter and emails. All feedback was considered, irrespective of the method used to provide information to the project team.

Ref No. GO59

Comment:

Requests for specific responses.

Response:

As indicated on the public information exhibition feedback forms, Transport Scotland could not provide personal responses to the exhibition feedback, however each response received has been included in the analysis and each comment within the individual responses has been identified and considered in the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report published in June 2009 or in this Appendix to the June 2009 report.

C.4.12 Other Miscellaneous Comments

Ref No. GO60

Comment:

Request for acknowledgement that feedback form has been considered.

Response:

As indicated on the public information exhibition feedback forms, Transport Scotland could not provide personal responses to the exhibition feedback, however each response received has been included in the analysis and each comment within the individual responses has been identified and considered. Information regarding how feedback has been considered was provided in the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report published in June 2009 and this Appendix to the June 2009 report.

Ref No. GO61

Comment:

What planning gain is envisaged for Queensferry for the loss of greenbelt?

Response:

No consideration of planning gain is given in assessments relating to infrastructure projects such as the Forth Replacement Crossing. Planning matters are the responsibility of the relevant local authority.

Environmental impact assessment has influenced the design of the proposed scheme and has been undertaken to enable appropriate mitigation to be developed to reduce the environmental impact of the proposed scheme. Assessments relating to landscape impacts have been undertaken and appropriate mitigation has been developed taking consideration of the proposed scheme design and potential environmental impacts. The assessment and mitigation measures proposed are described in Chapter 12 (Landscape) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

The assessments also consider potential impacts on planning designations such as greenbelt and these are described in Chapter 20 (Policies and Plans) of the Environmental Statement.

Ref No. GO62

Comment:

Which crossing would heavy goods vehicles use if both bridges were closed due to high winds?

Response:

The replacement crossing will incorporate wind shields which will protect it from the effects of wind and provide a more reliable corridor for wind sensitive vehicles. Strong winds can affect driving conditions on various parts of the road network and one of the aims in providing wind shielding is that if it is possible to use the general road network surrounding the replacement crossing it should be possible to cross the new bridge.

Experience of other estuarial crossings such as the second Severn Crossing shows that wind barriers provide a high degree of reliability against closure. Since the mid-1990s when the second Severn Crossing opened, it has never closed as a result of strong winds.

The existing bridge will become a dedicated public transport corridor following completion of the replacement crossing. If emergency or abnormal conditions arise that prevent use of the replacement crossing it is possible, depending on the condition of the existing bridge, that the police may direct traffic to use the existing bridge. Such use would only be as directed by the police under extreme conditions.

In the unlikely situation that both bridges are closed at the same time for any reason, all traffic will be required to use an alternative crossing point.

Ref No. GO63

Comment:

Whilst work should continue on detailed design and cost estimates, no decision on construction contracts should be taken before 2012.

Response:

In order to meet the required programme for completion of the project, construction work is due to commence in 2011 and it will not be possible to delay construction of the proposed scheme without delaying the date at which the replacement crossing would come into operation.

Ref No. GO64

Comment:

What are the 2008 (or 2007) levels of movement and mode share on the Forth Crossings and the range of expected levels (and related assumptions) for 2017 and 2022?

Response:

The Transport Model for Scotland has been used to forecast levels of travel demand. The base year demand (2005) over the Forth is approximately 80,000 person trips per day by car, bus or rail. Car travel accounts for 83% of these trips. In 2017 the level of demand is forecast to increase to 115,000 person trips per day, without the proposed scheme and 125,000 person trips with the proposed scheme in place. Car travel is forecast to account for 88% of trips.

The forecast levels of demand do not take into account the various public transport interventions recommended in the Strategic Transport Projects Review. In addition, although the transport and land use models include all the likely traffic impact associated with land use developments the public transport infrastructure measures associated with such developments are generally not included in the future models. As a result, the level of car based travel is likely to reduce with the introduction of the public transport measures and therefore it is considered that the estimates provide a worst-case analysis when assessing the likely future traffic levels.

Ref No. GO65

Comment:

No comments to make or content that all issues will be considered.

Response:

Development of the project has been, and continues to be undertaken in accordance with relevant procedures such as the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and environmental legislation to ensure that all relevant issues are considered. Consultation has been undertaken to inform the development of the project and feedback from the consultations undertaken has also been taken into consideration. Information regarding the project development which describes the issues considered and key factors relevant to the design and assessment of the proposed scheme is available in reports on the project website www.fortherplacementcrossing.info and in other documentation, such as the Environmental Statement and Policy Memorandum submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GO66

Comment:

Requests for information.

Response:

Consultation with affected parties such as landowners and occupiers has also continued since the January 2009 public information exhibitions and information regarding the ongoing design of the proposed scheme has been provided through this process.

Information continues to be made available through various means including electronic and printed newsletters, community information points and the project website.

Ref No. GO67

Comment:

Clarification sought regarding the future use of Admiralty House and the woodlands surrounding it.

Response:

Admiralty House and the surrounding woodlands are currently owned by the Scottish Ministers. No decisions regarding the future of the property have been made.

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. The assessment has informed the development of mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact of the proposed scheme. The results of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill. The assessments include those relating to landscape and this is described in Chapter 12 (Landscape) of the Environmental Statement.

The majority of the woodland at St Margaret’s Hope and Admiralty House will not be affected by the proposed scheme. Mitigation measures such as mixed woodland and scrub woodland planting is proposed at this location.

Ref No. GO68

Comment:

The public should be consulted regarding the type of crossing and the effect on public finances.

Response:

Alternative crossing types and locations were considered as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study. Public information exhibitions were held in August 2007 as part of the study. Public information exhibitions were also held from 20 to 31 January 2009 to facilitate consultation with the public and to provide the opportunity for feedback on the developing proposals announced by the Scottish Government in December 2008.

A Financial Memorandum has been submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill which sets out the financial implications of the project and this will be considered by the Parliament during its consideration of the Forth Crossing Bill.

The Bill process provides the public with an opportunity to make representations regarding the project to be considered during the Parliamentary process. Information regarding the parliamentary process has been published by the Scottish Parliament and is available on the Parliament website www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billguidance/infoHybBill.htm .

Ref No. GO69

Comment:

Concern that I may have to move from my home by decisions of people who do not live in South Queensferry.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on the environment. It is not necessary to acquire any homes to enable construction of the proposed scheme and the environmental impact assessment has informed the development of mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact of the proposed scheme. The results of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed are presented in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

The Scottish Parliament will consider the proposed scheme during the parliamentary process to consider the Forth Crossing Bill. The Bill process provides the public with an opportunity to make representations regarding the project to be considered during the Parliamentary process. Transport Scotland published Guidance on the Parliamentary Process, Compulsory Purchase Process and Compensation in July 2009. This document provided information on the parliamentary and objection process, compulsory purchase arrangements and compensation for those who may be affected by the proposed scheme, such as landowners of property, farms or businesses which are directly affected by the proposed scheme. The leaflet is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info . Those people who believe that they are affected by the scheme may wish to take legal advice as to the appropriate course of action in respect of their interests.

Information regarding the parliamentary process was also published by the Scottish Parliament and is available on the Parliament website www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billguidance/infoHybBill.htm .

Ref No. GO70

Comment:

I will be voting in future for a government that listens to the public.

Response:

Public information exhibitions were held in August 2007 as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study. Public information exhibitions were also held from 20 to 31 January 2009 to facilitate consultation with the public and to provide the opportunity for feedback on the developing proposals announced by the Scottish Government in December 2008. The feedback from the public information exhibitions has been considered during the development of the project.

Ref No. GO71

Comment:

Concerned regarding total closure of the new crossing.

Response:

Inclusion of hard shoulders and wind shielding on the Forth Replacement Crossing will improve operational efficiency and improve traffic flow compared to that provided on the Forth Road Bridge which will become a dedicated public transport corridor following completion of the replacement crossing. If emergency or abnormal conditions arise that prevent use of the replacement crossing it is possible, depending on the condition of the existing bridge, that the police may direct traffic to use the existing bridge. Such use would only be as directed by the police under extreme conditions.

Ref No. GO72

Comment:

Concerned regarding closures due to snow and ice on the road surface.

Response:

The replacement crossing will be maintained during the winter with snow clearing and de-icing undertaken as appropriate in line with winter maintenance activities undertaken on all trunk roads.

Ref No. GO73

Comment:

Concern regarding closures due to the ice falling from cables.

Response:

Any cable supported bridge in a cold climate may be prone to issues of icing of the cables. Incidents of ice falling from cables at the Severn Crossing occurred in early 2009; however problems with ice falling from cables and affecting the safety of traffic are extremely rare, particularly where the cables do not cross the carriageways on the bridge. At the Severn Crossing, high winds at the time caused ice from the cables to fall over the carriageways. As the bridge cables on the Forth Replacement Crossing do not cross over the carriageway it is not considered necessary to provide shielding to protect traffic on the bridge.

Ref No. GO74

Comment:

Concern regarding the impact of accidents or maintenance works.

Response:

The ability of the existing road network to cope with the effects of incidents depends on the severity of each incident and the length of time over which disruption occurs. The replacement crossing will have hard shoulders which will improve the operational efficiency of the bridge compared to the Forth Road Bridge which has no hard shoulders. The hard shoulders on the new bridge will ensure that breakdowns, incidents and any maintenance works do not cause the congestion which is currently experienced on the Forth Road Bridge, which has no hard shoulder.

If emergency or abnormal conditions arise that prevent use of the replacement crossing it is possible, depending on the condition of the existing bridge, that the police may direct traffic to use the existing bridge. Such use would only be as directed by the police under extreme conditions.

Ref No. GO75

Comment:

The cost of the bridge would be better spent on other important things such as schools and hospitals.

Response:

Ref No. GO76

Comment:

The cost of the scheme is significantly cheaper than that originally envisaged, with the belief that some of the savings have been achieved at the expense of the residents of South Queensferry.

Response:

Consideration of potential impacts on South Queensferry has been given through refinement of the design and environmental impact assessment. The assessment criteria cover potential impacts on the human, natural and built environment and, therefore, cover assessments relevant to potential impacts on South Queensferry. The assessments have informed the design of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts where necessary and these mitigation measures, together with any residual impacts, are described in the Environmental Statement.

Ref No. GO77

Comment:

The value of Queensferry to live in will be diminished significantly.

Response:

Ref No. GO78

Comment:

We will engage with the process while reserving the right to properly scrutinise the project, something we believe the Parliament and the media have failed to do.

Response:

Consultation with affected parties such as landowners and occupiers has continued since the January 2009 public information exhibitions and information regarding the ongoing design of the proposed scheme has been provided through this process. These consultations have assisted development of the project to be presented with the Forth Crossing Bill. Consultation with landowners and affected parties will continue during the procurement and construction stages of the project.

Ref No. GO79

Comment:

The trunk road network will not be completed as the old bridge will be disconnected.

Response:

The M9 Spur, the route from the A90 across the replacement crossing and the A90 to the north of the bridge will all become trunk roads providing a continuous trunk road between the M9 and A90 to the south of the Forth and the M90 to the north of the Forth. The Forth Road Bridge will be used as a public transport corridor, connecting to Ferrytoll Junction in the north and Echlne Junction in the south with additional public transport links to connect it to the A90 in the vicinity of Scotstoun Junction.

Ref No. GO80

Comment:

Comments made regarding reliability are repetitive, misleading and misinforming.

Response:

The use of Intelligent Transport Systems, improvements to junctions and the inclusion of hard shoulders and wind shielding on the Forth Replacement Crossing will improve operational efficiency and improve traffic flow compared to the level of service provided by the Forth Road Bridge.

Hard shoulders will be provided on the replacement crossing which will improve the ability of the road network to cope with the effects of incidents. The wind shielding will be designed specifically for the bridge taking account of local conditions and will improve operation of the bridge compared to the Forth Road Bridge which experiences restrictions under certain weather conditions.

Ref No. GO81

Comment:

The scheme does not encourage sustainable transport.

Response:

Provision of a dedicated public transport route across the Firth of Forth will facilitate provision of improved public transport although this will not be provided as part of the project. Improving public transport services is the responsibility of organisations such as rail operators, bus companies, local authorities and SEStran and the strategy for the project presents a significant opportunity for these organisations to improve public transport facilities and services to increase the use of public transport.

Ref No. GO82

Comment:

No mention is made of integration with other crossings and other estuary crossing methods.

Response:

The managed crossing scheme will provide a replacement crossing which will operate in conjunction with the Forth Bridge and the Forth Road Bridge.

The replacement crossing will carry motorway traffic and the managed crossing scheme will provide a dedicated public transport route across the Firth of Forth which will facilitate provision of improved public transport although this will not be provided as part of the project. Improving public transport services is the responsibility of organisations such as rail operators, bus companies, local authorities and SEStran and the strategy for the project presents a significant opportunity for these organisations to improve public transport facilities and services to increase use of public transport.

The Forth Bridge will continue to carry rail transport. The Forth Replacement Crossing Study (FRCS) Report 3 provides information regarding future rail improvements and how these were considered in the development of the project. The report makes reference to the SEStran Integrated Transport Corridor Study (SITCoS) and advises that the study indicates that increases in train capacity would result in a 50% increase in southbound morning peak hour passengers by 2026 and that there are plans to introduce a further 1100 seats into Fife morning peak services. The FRCS report also indicates that increased rail use through future rail infrastructure improvements could be accommodated using the Forth Bridge. Information regarding the FRCS is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info .

Ref No. GO83

Comment:

The project appears to adopt a 20th rather than 21st century outlook with the needs of the car squeezing out all other considerations.

Response:

Ref No. GO84

Comment:

Are the planning authorities being led by short term interests.

Response:

The decision to progress with the project has been endorsed by the Scottish Parliament through inclusion of the replacement crossing as a National Development within the National Planning Framework (NPF2) and the Forth Replacement Crossing is listed in the National Planning Framework (NPF2) as a national development. The need for the project is described in NPF2, which states that ‘The Forth Road Bridge has been an essential part of the national road infrastructure for over 40 years. It is vital to the economy of Fife, an essential link for the East Coast Corridor and crucial to the connectivity of Perth and the Highlands and Islands. The main suspension cables of the bridge are showing significant signs of deterioration as a result of corrosion. While a programme of works has been identified to dry out the cables and thus prolong the life of the bridge, there is a considerable risk that this work will not be successful. If that proves to be the case, restrictions to heavy goods vehicles may be needed as early as 2013, with the bridge closing to all traffic by 2019. Complete loss of the road crossing would have very significant adverse economic impacts, both nationally and regionally’. Therefore the proposed scheme is identified as ‘an essential element of national infrastructure’.

Ref No. GO85

Comment:

What plans are being made for the eventual scrapping of the bridge and who will pay for this? Is the proposed building method amenable to this?

Response:

The managed crossing scheme is proposed to provide for the long term needs of cross-Forth travel and the replacement crossing will be operated and maintained in line with this objective.

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 apply in relation to projects such as the Forth Replacement Crossing. This requires that the infrastructure is designed and provided with due regard to its construction, operation, maintenance, de-commissioning, demolition or dismantling. The design of the replacement crossing will be undertaken in accordance with this statutory obligation.

If the replacement crossing requires to be decommissioned and dismantled in the future, the cost would be borne by the Scottish Government.

Ref No. GO86

Comment:

Our children will pay for the mishandling of this crossing.

Response:

Ref No. GO87

Comment:

Concern regarding the level of consultation with Queensferry residents.

Response:

The location of the replacement crossing was selected following work undertaken for the Forth Replacement Crossing Study which led to the Ministerial announcement in December 2007. Public information exhibitions were held in August 2007 as part of the study. Public information exhibitions were also held from 20 to 31 January 2009 to facilitate consultation with the public and to provide the opportunity for feedback on the developing proposals announced by the Scottish Government in December 2008.

Consultation has been undertaken with groups including Queensferry and District Community Council and communities adjacent to the proposed scheme, and this has been used in the development of the proposed scheme. Consultation undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment is described in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement.

Ref No. GO88

Comment:

What is the Forth Replacement Crossing replacing?

Response:

As part of the managed crossing scheme, the replacement crossing will replace the Forth Road Bridge in carrying general road traffic.

Ref No. GO89

Comment:

Concerned that FRC will damage the possibility of a ferry/hovercraft option between Fife and Edinburgh.

Response:

Fundamentally, the project will maintain the essential crossing of the Forth for road traffic and will replace but not increase the road provision for general traffic on the Forth Road Bridge. It will, however, provide a dedicated public transport corridor, which along with the rail network and initiatives such as a ferry/hovercraft (should others promote such a scheme), will cater for future increases in cross-Forth travel.

A number of different options and corridors were considered for the project as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study (FRCS). These are described in FRCS Report 3: Option Generating and Sifting which is available on the project website www.forthreplacementcrossing.info . A ferry crossing was considered and discarded in the initial sifting options described in this report. This was discarded early in the assessment process as it would not provide the capacity required for the crossing.

Ref No. GO90

Comment:

An indication of the benefit South Queensferry will see needs to be included.

Response:

The Forth Road Bridge has been an essential part of the national road infrastructure for over 45 years. It is vital to the economy of Fife, an essential link for the East Coast Corridor and crucial to the connectivity of Fife and beyond.

The critical importance of the Forth Replacement Crossing is recognised by its inclusion within the current National Planning Framework for Scotland, which is used to designate certain projects as national developments. Designation is the mechanism for confirming the need for these developments in Scotland’s national interest.

In addition to minimising the risk to the economy due to the lack of a crossing at this location, it is anticipated that the replacement crossing will result in wider economic benefits following completion. The economic assessment for the proposed scheme considers wider economic benefits that may arise. This assessment has been undertaken using the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance. The wider economic benefits include agglomeration benefits, such as providing firms better access to markets and additional benefits relating to competition. These are estimated to be approximately £200 million. Further information regarding the economic assessment is contained in the Policy Memorandum which was submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GO91

Comment:

The project should be a positive development but the needs of this established semi rural community should be considered.

Response:

One of the main objectives of the Forth Replacement Crossing is to minimise, where possible, the impact on people and the natural and cultural heritage of the Forth area. Concerns expressed regarding the overall impact on South Queensferry have been considered in relation to line and elevation of the proposed scheme at this location. Further development of the connecting road strategy for the proposed scheme was undertaken as a result of feedback from the January 2009 public information exhibitions and further design development which helps reduce the impact on South Queensferry (refer to Chapter 7 of the Feedback & Outcomes Report). This is also covered in Repeated Comment RO14 in Annex C of the Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback & Outcomes Report.

Ref No. GO92

Comment:

The council would be happy to coordinate activity to provide opportunities for local subcontractors in conjunction with Scottish Enterprise and Business Gateway Fife. Formal discussions on this matter could commence as soon as possible.

Response:

Whilst some of the construction works associated with the replacement crossing will require specialist contractors with expertise in this field, there are significant opportunities for local subcontractors, particularly in relation to construction works associated with the connecting roads, although the choice of subcontractors will be a matter for the contractor. It should also be noted that it is normal practice for a principal contractor to use local subcontractors and this can provide benefits in terms of interaction with the local communities.

Ref No. GO93

Comment:

Requests information regarding rights to information.

Response:

Requests for information other than that provided as part of project communications or consultations may be made in accordance with legislation including the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 or The Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Ref No. GO94

Comment:

The council is committed to working with Transport Scotland and other stakeholders.

Response:

Transport Scotland welcomes the opportunities to engage with all organisations regarding the project and has consulted widely in line with the commitments given in the Engaging with Communities document published in September 2008. Consultations will continue throughout the procurement and construction stages of the project.

Ref No. GO95

Comment:

The results of the bridge building activities will be permanent and irrevocable and must therefore be granted the utmost of consideration.

Response:

An environmental impact assessment has been undertaken which has considered potential impacts due to construction of the proposed scheme. The assessment has been used to inform the development of appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts where necessary. The assessment and mitigation measures are described in Chapter 19 (Disruption due to Construction) of the Environmental Statement submitted with the Forth Crossing Bill.

Ref No. GO96

Comment:

Query regarding use of existing bridge by motor cycles.

Response:

The replacement crossing will be a motorway and will cater for all motorway traffic. As part of the managed crossing scheme the Forth Road Bridge will continue to operate, carrying public transport, taxis, motorcycles with engine capacity less than 50cc, pedestrians and cyclists.

Ref No. GO97

Comment:

Query about weighting of contractor’s bids.

Response:

Contractors will have to meet minimum criteria in order to be able to tender for the design and construction of the project. The contractors’ proposals will have to comply with the requirements set out in the tender documents for the design of the proposed scheme in order for financial bids to be considered. The assessment therefore considers both quality and financial criteria.

Ref No. GO98

Comment:

Query raised about how much of the construction cost will be spent in Scotland, the UK or abroad?

Response:

The choice of designers, suppliers, fabricators and subcontractors will be a matter for the contractor. As such, it is not possible to state how much of the construction cost will be spent in Scotland or in other countries.

Contents « Previous

Visit Us On:

Forth Replacement Crossing Public Information Exhibitions: Feedback and Outcomes Report Appendix to the June 2009 Report

C — RESPONSES TO OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS

Areas in this section