The deadline for contributions to the debate on plans
for a new crossing of the Forth passed last Friday, which, following the public exhibitions this summer by
Transport Scotland,
had received 600 contributions as Holyrood went to press.
The responses, which will be fed into the decision-making process on the new crossing, allowing Scottish Government ministers to consider this information alongside the technical reports and reach a decision on the crossing in the autumn, follow on from the more than 4,000 people who attended the public consultations. These included weeklong exhibitions in both Edinburgh and North Queensferry, as well as ten other one day exhibitions across the region affected by the plans for a new crossing.
The exhibitions outlined the process that Transport Scotland had gone through to conclude that the two final options, a bridge or a tunnel to the west of the existing road bridge, in the areas that Transport Scotland refers to as corridor D for a bridge and corridor C and D for a tunnel, were the most feasible.
The crossing option with the highest benefits to cost ratio is a cable stay bridge, followed by a suspension bridge, a bored tunnel in corridor D, an immersed tube tunnel and lastly, a bored tunnel in corridor C.
The option of the cable stay bridge in corridor D was the recommendation of the final report in the Forth Replacement Crossing Study from Jacobs and Faber Maunsell, who were commissioned by Transport Scotland to look into the Forth Crossing as part of the Strategic Transport Projects Review.
Transport Scotland’s Forth Replacement Crossing project director David Anderson said: “We have been extremely encouraged by the turnout at the exhibitions and the time that people have taken to consider the various aspects of the project and weigh up the crossing options. Feedback on the exhibitions has been very positive.”
The passing of the deadline for feedback comes as a Fife MSP calls for heavy rail to be included in the proposal for any new crossing. John Park, a member for Mid-Scotland and Fife, has tabled a parliamentary motion calling for multi modal options to feature more prominently in the options which have been published by Transport Scotland. The motion, which has been supported by fellow Labour MSPs David Whitton, Claire Baker, Jackie Baillie, Iain Gray, Patricia Ferguson, George Foulkes, Trish Godman and Hugh Henry, expresses concern that “a road-only crossing would be short sighted and would not adequately address issues of growing traffic congestion.”
Transport Scotland said that heavy rail is the only multi-modal option that has been ruled out for the crossing, as the Forth rail bridge has enough capacity to meet future demand.
One person has commented on this article. 1. No bridge or tunnel
Cllr Graham Reed, Unregistered NO BRIDGE NO TUNNEL - THINK AHEAD!!!!
URGENTLY CONSIDER A TIDAL BARRIER - ROAD ON TOP, Wind tubines along each side and water turbines to capture some tidal power - install sea lock - use it to keep out the inevitable sea level rise coming this Century!!
It will also serve to extend low-water periods at time of river flooding along the Forth valley and estuary, thus aiding flood prevention.
it will only cost 2 to 3 times a bridge [or Nuclear PS] BUT WILL LAST FOR A CENTURY OR MORE - LONGER THAN THE 50 yr. life of the current road bridge!! In 50 yrs time the Scottish/UK economies may not bear the cost - because of the devestation arising from global warming. THE ICE SHEETS ARE MELTING NOW!!
Graham of Stirling
Related news items:
|
Holyrood news 
