by John R T Carson
Since November 2007 I have been waiting with baited breath for Audit Scotland to answer a simple question: Was the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA), the quango that administers the Forth Road Bridge, operating outwith its statutory powers when it spent taxpayers money contriving a case for a new Forth bridge?
Audit Scotland was established in May 2000 to ensure that public money in Scotland was used "properly, efficiently and effectively". It was partly intended to counterbalance the public's realisation that that quangos waste large sums and are accountable to no one.
But getting them to exercise their their considerable powers in the public interest is, in my experience, nigh-on impossible.
In my own case, Audit Scotland agreed to form a view on the apparent abuse of powers vested in FETA. I asked one quango to investigate another. As the scandal of the National Audit Office has shown, this is a fruitless exercise.
Ten months of excuses from Audit Scotland have satisfied me that the audit process in Scotland is not worth its cost to the taxpayer.
In my view Audit Scotland is little more than the establishment's in-house painter-decorator, tasked with whitewashing other quangos' incompetences and abuses.
My own complaint asked whether or not FETA had powers to commission a report on the need for a second road crossing of the Forth at Queensferry.
This matters, because the report they produced was the basis for Transport Scotland's later ruling - erroneous in the view of tunnel supporters like myself - that the new crossing should be another road bridge.
Because Transport Scotland used FETA's biased report for its own outsourced "study", that desk-top document unsurprisingly backed a bridge, and a bridge that in capacity terms is a near-replica of the existing bridge. Transport Scotland's recommendation effectively slammed the door on future trans-Forth high speed rail links, a decision indicative of that body's "strategic" intelligence.
But Transport Scotland should have been working with a blank slate. There should have been no FETA "study" for them to plagiarise.
The consultation documents that led to the establishment of FETA in 2002 clearly state the Scottish Executive did not favour a second Forth road crossing, which, it said "would be incompatible with an integrated transport policy, would have detrimental effect on the environment, would be very expensive and could only be funded through charges very much higher than current tolls."
The FETA consultation documents also limit the quango's powers as "[to fund] from its [toll] revenues transport improvements related to the existing Forth Road Bridge, above and beyond the power to spend on the management and maintenance of the bridge."
So, prospecting for a new bridge (a tunnel was never properly considered) was clearly outside the powers vested in FETA, and contrary to the stated intentions of the government of the day.
In response to my enquiry on this issue, Audit Scotland asserts, without supplying any evidence, that FETA DID have a wider power to order a report on the second Forth crossing.
I waited ten months for what I had hoped would be a thorough investigation of my complaint that would examine the consultation process that gave birth to FETA, and which would take legal advice on the content of those orders.
Like many others dealing with Audit Scotland, I was to be disappointed.
The sum total of their activities in that 10-month period amounted to one of their auditors knocking on FETA's door and asking them if they had powers to order the report.
FETA's unsurprising reply was "yes", which seems to have been enough to satisfy the auditor.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the full extent of Audit Scotland's investigatory diligence. They did not appear to read, let alone address the consultation documents, which left no doubt that FETA were acting outwith their legal powers. Why not?
I sense a growing realisation that Audit Scotland is worse than useless as a watchdog of Scotland's fat-salaried quango state.
It is time that we looked at the evidence of their eight years of existence and asked the only question that matters: whose interests does Audit Scotland actually serve?
The Forth Crossing: Time for a Review
by John R T Carson
The Danes are building the Fehmarn Bridge. It is a four-track road
and two-track rail bridge from Denmark to Germany, 19.5 km across
the Baltic. It has three spans that are larger than those of the
proposed Forth Road Bridge. It is Denmark‘s connection to the
European Trans European Network (TEN) and it comes with an
additional £ 1 billion for approach infrastructure including 70 km of
high speed railway (HSR). Fehmarn‘s total cost is £3.2 billion.
The design of this bridge is substantially complete; it has been through all its enquiry stages. Construction is due to start in 2011 with completion in 2018. The Danish Government also considered a 19 km Immersed Tube Tunnel at a price of £4.2 billion (also including the £1.0 bn for approach infrastructure.)
The proposed Forth Road Bridge (with a somewhat nebulous public transport capability: a bus way probably, if we're lucky maybe a tram) is by contrast a paltry 3 km long. Costs? We start counting at £4 billion. All that has actually been published on the project is the five sheets of A4 which John Swinney used to justify his decision.
With the Scottish Government's Futures Trust in trouble, and as yet no timely prospect of a new funding regime to replace the Private Finance Initiative of the Conservatives or Public Private Partnership of the current UK government, such a comparison counsels us to take stock.
Recently, Audit Scotland informed me that the work commissioned by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) on a second crossing back in 2004 was ultra vires (Beyond the powers). This report was (perhaps naturally) biased towards a bridge solution, and claimed a new bridge could be built for £230m. (The cost of the Road Bridge in 1964 was £11 million, so even this showed hyperinflation).
This in itself was not unpredictable. Uncontrolled quangoes regularly waste tax payer's money, but the 2004 report was heavily relied on by Transport Scotland (TS) for the four further reports that were all, in 2007, to justify a decision to build a second bridge. TS is currently spending £100m on consultants and a site investigation, but there is a list of important facts that shouldn't be swept under the table,. These make a Judicial Review or some similar procedure the only trustworthy way to achieve an unbiased opinion.
The so called ‘peer review' that TS took such great comfort from, regarded the main risk to the project as a ‘Judicial Review'. Its fear of this bogey was due in the main to the total lack of consultation carried out by TS in its determination to proceed with a road-only bridge. The same report also states that Scottish Natural Heritage first preference was for a tunnel.
When transport minister Stewart Stevenson was forced in August 2007 to mount exhibitions to explain to those affected by the future crossing, he was at pains to explain that this was not a consultation. Unfortunately TS's notion of fairness involved thirty or so boards showing Bridge solutions and three (misleading and inadequate) covering tunnel solutions. This was not enough to sway the public who voted 47% in favour of a tunnel compared with only 24% for a bridge.
The Scottish Government have since concluded their “National Planning Framework for Scotland” consultations. Within this document there are three projects of national importance within the Forth Special Protected Area (SPA): two container terminals planned one for Rosyth and Grangemouth and the Replacement Crossing of the Forth. These projects are all to be built in the period 2010 to 2115. TS are aware that this is actually impossible to build all three projects at the same time because of the SPA status and strictly-controlled impact on the areas concerned. Yet they still promise (as they always do) to deliver the bridge by 2016. Should we expect miracles?
First: all of the economic calculations for the bridge assumed a “replacement” crossing. What happens if there is a real chance that the existing bridge could be saved? FETA announced this year that the existing bridge is in better condition than they originally predicted and that heavy goods will not now by restricted till 2017 at the earliest. As usual this announcement came with caveats: “We will not know about the anchorages and the dehumidification until 2012 at the earliest”. Yet if TS put as much effort into finding out about the state of the current bridge as they have on consultants for a new one there would be no doubt about the state of the bridge. For instance the anchorage problem, apparent since the bridge was commissioned, was complicated when the last Bridgemaster filled the voids around the anchorages with tons of concrete to get rid of a wet area, thus aggravating the problem of investigation.
Put simply, without knowing the condition of the existing bridge, TS's economic calculations simply do not add up. Keeping the existing bridge makes the case for a second road-only bridge nonexistent.
TS is also silent on the time needed to deliver the design for a bridge. It must be obvious to them by now that there is insufficient time from now till the contract- placing date in 2010 to design and fully price a bridge. What then? Will they attempt to offload risk on to contractors? Does this sound familiar? Another Scottish Parliament? Going ahead with a project this size without a costed finalised design underwritten by a contractor group literally means giving the future-build consortium a blank cheque. This will further compound the funding problem; banks during a period of economic turmoil are not looking for more risk.
And for what sort of bridge? We return to the totally inadequate provision for public transport. Economists have for some years been predicting oil to rise to £200 per barrel by the end of this decade. It hit £146 per barrel this week and could easily be at £200 by the end of this year. A plan for a road-only bridge was already “yesterday's solution for tomorrows problems” when first mooted in the FETA report back in 2004. Armed with today's knowledge it looks positively prehistoric. Trams will only carry 2500 passengers per hour, rail capacity on the ‘old' bridge, according to a SESTRAN report, will only increase by another few thousand between now and 2026. There are 37,500 vehicle movements each way on the bridge, most of which are commuters who could leave their cars and travel by good quality public transport.
Why do you think the future-minded Danes want to connect to Europe's TEN? Answer: fast, cheap, reliable high speed rail that connects to every part of Europe – except Scotland. Is this to be denied to the people north of the Forth for the next 120 years, the period the new bridge will be designed to last?
f this project is to be funded by PFI the cost to Scotland could be in excess of £32 billion over a thirty year period (or 2-3 times a high-speed rail route to London). The necessary tolls could be above £80 in each direction for a car.
TS is patently ‘out of its depth, and not waving but drowning'. Against this disastrous scenario a Judicial Inquiry seems necessary, but these are intermediate measures. Audit Scotland could be asked to calculate the impact of Peak Oil on this, and other road projects. European transport undertakings with experience of such projects could give an opinion on the costs and benefits of the technologies envisaged; and the optimal uses of the funding allocated. I am quite confident that a new and more rational solution will be prescribed.
The Government have the
wind up them on the Replacement Forth Crossing
by John R T Carson
I have just travelled out from Edinburgh to find that the Forth Road Bridge is closed yet again to anything other than cars.
This is the fifteenth time this year and we have just seen February out!
The recent figures published by FETA for 2007 show that closures to high winds have gone up by over 200% in that year compared with the long term average. Could this be global warming?
John Swinney under pressure from the Transport lobby and the Chamber of Commerce plumped for a bridge despite the finding of the Public Exhibitions where 47% of the public expressed the desire for a tunnel compared to 24% in favour of a bridge.
John Swinney, in making the announcement declared that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) supported a bridge. The document actually recommended a bored tunnel and also the SNH recognised that they were particularly unknowledgeable about the effects any dredging for an immersed tube tunnel would have on the wild life.
The other report that he made reference to is from Transport Scotland on Wind Shielding (WS). The much vaunted Severn Bridge is used as an example of the uses of WS but the report on the Forth clearly points out that the winds on the Forth are much stronger than those on the Severn. The 3m high wind shielding used on the Severn would add too much load to the new Forth Crossing. It goes on to say that it will only reduce to incidence. These reports were all commissioned before the 2007 figures on wind effects on the FRB.
Why did the Road Haulage lobby want a bridge? The answer given by John Swinney was that dangerous loads would be a problem. When challenged about the number of these loads he announces a figure of 200 loads per year could be affected. As a for instance, the day the lorry blew over on the bridge, the road haulage members diverted over 3000 HGV's over the Kincardine Bridge effectively grid locking the whole area. This one day loss represents fifteen years of operating a tunnel.
The Chamber of Commerce must be regretting hitching their wagon to such a weak argument, the damage done so far this year to the economy of Scotland is sizable.
Think again Mr Swinney before you destroy the economy of Scotland.
Click on the link below to read a further detailed article called
Political Myopia – A Bridge at Any Cost
Sticking Plaster over Commuter Hell
We are in the middle of presentations from Transport Scotland on the next Forth Crossing and there is nothing in them that relates to where we will be when a new crossing is likely to open. By this time the shortage of oil and the drive to reduce our carbon footprint will have altered our lives forever. Businesses will have large numbers of their employees working from home to reduce the costs of their business overheads and the cost of commuting to offices. Petrol driven cars will become a real luxury item. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany and Spain are investing heavily in public Transport and most of this investment is directed to Heavy rail. Despite these inevitable
facts, Transport Scotland are recommending a uni-modal bridge that is only designed to take road traffic and the odd cyclist and pedestrian. The countries that have taken the bull by the horns are still investing heavily in public transport, to expand their existing networks and further facilitate the change in modal shift in their rapidly expanding economies. This is the reality of what we are facing but where does the recent report issued by Transport Scotland take any recognition of these?
The facts are there in reports like the one produced by SESTRAN on “Integrated Transport Corridor Studies on the Queensferry Forth Corridor Report” this report states that the next Forth Crossing should be multi-modal, and that if another road bridge is built, with the current growth in traffic it to will be congested by 2031. The report highlights the investment made in Stockholm, a conurbation not to dissimilar to that of Edinburgh and it surrounding dormitory towns. Here they have ploughed most of their funds into heavy rail, recognising that this is the only method of transport that can move large volumes of commuters who want fast, high quality, reliable public transport. The Swedes are subsidising their fare structure to encourage rail usage during peak rush hours, whereas here we have intentionally raised fares to disincentive the public during similar periods. Transport Scotland's answer to this is to state that there is the possibility of increasing the number of trains during the rush hour, but when you look into what SESTRAN say in their report you find that these would be taken up by trains destined for the airport via the now defunct EARL project.
Hence the biased nature of the exhibition they are staging throughout the region claimed to be used as a means of engendering discussion. But where is it mentioned that their own report says that a tunnel will be less environmentally damaging than any bridge solution? Where does it mention that their “sticking plaster” approach will deny us the opportunity to solve any of the commuter problems that are highlighted in their reports and detailed in the SESTRAN reports?
What is needed is a “future proofed “crossing, one where redundancies could be built in from the start, where fast electric heavy rail can run on new lines to Dundee, Aberdeen and onto Inverness. A bridge is not the answer to this, no bridge in the world of the designs outlined by Transport Scotland can take heavy rail, and even if one could be designed it would be prohibitively expensive. Transport Scotland have come up with all sorts of reasons for not an “Immersed Tube Tunnel” (ITT) that could facilitate such a crossing, but the environmental issues they would lead you to think are exclusive to such a crossing are equally applicable to a bridge solution. An ITT connected on the south side to bored tunnels from the Glasgow Edinburgh line and the M9 would require a temporary connection to be made on the south foreshore by way of a reception pit, this would be reinstated and over a short period the environment and ecology would quickly regenerate. On the North foreshore the entrance to the ITT could be extended inland, here also the foreshore would quite quickly re-establish its balance with nature. This is in sharp contrast to a bridge that will permanently destroy areas protected by international and European legislation.
Transport Scotland are in agreement that an Immersed Tube Tunnel” could be built for £0.5 BN. It is therefore difficult to see where the remaining £1.7 BN would be taken up especially when you consider that the proposed bridge crossing is estimated at such a sum.
The facts are clear if we are rapidly approach the “Peak Oil” period where the future needs for oil will outstrips the world's reserves. American economists have determined that the at this point oil will quickly rise to $300 a barrel and at this level petrol will cost £12 per gallon in today's prices. As a country we are surrounded by cheap energy from tidal, wind and wave power and we have abundance of coal. We also have large oil reserves that if used wisely should give us the opportunity to build a fund similar to that of Norway that could see us through the rest of this centenary and beyond.
This could all still come about by taking an integrated approach to our current transportation projects such as EARL, the Edinburgh trams and the second Forth crossing, which are all related. Trams are a good idea but the reality is that Edinburgh has chosen the wrong options; on-road trams are too limiting in their capacity to meet the needs of commuters. Dublin has learnt from their mistakes and are planning to put their next expansion to their tram systems underground, by doing this they will instantly raise the carrying capacity by three times and still have the capability to take more. It is still not too late to do this; a dedicated underground system would be adequate to handle commuter needs including the airport requirement and do away with the need for the over-engineered solution called EARL. With a Hub to the west of Edinburgh somewhere between Haymarket and Edinburgh Park the trams could connect with mainline railways and shuttle services that could take you anywhere in Scotland. A vision that has fast electric TGV-style mainline services connecting Edinburgh to Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness by means of a new line north under the Forth through an Immersed Tube Tunnel. Fast train services connecting Edinburgh to Glasgow and onto the Clyde ports to hubs that connect to the western isles and Ireland. A service run on the cheap electricity that is uniquely Scottish: current estimates would suggest that by 2020 we will be a net exporter of electricity and with immediate investment we could stop depleting our reserves in North Sea Oil and be well on our way to building cash reserves that will see our nation flourish.
Public transport needs sizable investments and subsidised fare structures but these would cost a small fraction of what we currently spend on cars and roads. Small countries like Portugal are investing heavily in public transport with plans to connect to the Trans European Network (TEN) of fast intercontinental trains through Spain to the rest of Europe, with high speed rail connecting the Algarve to Lisbon and Oporto. Lisbon too has made a huge investment in its underground tram network. They too are involved in a question of whether to go under or over the Tagus River in their drive south to the Algarve.
Do our politicians lack the vision to see a country that has high speed railways connecting our major cities with transportation hubs that connect to suburban rail systems that use fast reliable super trams carrying up to 10,000 passengers per hour? These hubs would integrate with ferries and airports and railheads for the fast efficient transport of freight and car transporters. A reality in most of the countries we aspire to emulate!