IN questioning the number of lanes on the Queensferry Crossing Scott Macintosh (Letters, September 1) says "the time has now come to admit that extreme parsimony by building four lanes has put us in the same traffic position as the old FRB [Forth Road Bridge]'.'
It was not ''parsimony 2 that led to a four-lane crossing, it was a deliberate technical decision.
A couple of weeks ago Audit Scotland gave a glowing report on Transport Scotland's management of this project. I contacted Audit Scotland and raised the question posed by Mr Macintosh.
Its response states: "In Transport Scotland's business case for the project [Transport Scotland] stated that the project was not intended to increase the capacity of the route for traffic and that increased demand for travel across the Forth will need to be met by public transport''. I wonder how many people know that ?
Indeed I understand that the Queensferry Crossing has been designed to cater for the 2007 traffic level across the Forth.
It makes me ask, how much has traffic increased since 2007, and it makes me wonder if this project design philosophy is a continuation of the policy that arose from the "aspiration" adopted by the Labour/Lib-Dem coalition that traffic in Scotland in the year 2021 should not exceed the 2001 level. It was this aspiration that led to the M80 being built on the line of the A80 through Cumbernauld and having to be squeezed through the Castlecary arches, instead of having an additional lane and going through the Kelvin Valley. Are there any other road/bridge projects that are being driven by Transport Scotland's present business case?
Nick Dekker,
1 Nairn Way, Cumbernauld.
I THINK the short and obvious answer to Scott Macintosh's question is there is no "headroom" for traffic growth on the Queensferry Crossing, as things stand at this point in time it already appears to have been under-designed.
Duncan Miller,
38 Middlemuir Road, Lenzie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel