FORTH CROSSING BILL

OBJECTION 25 – LINLITHGOW CYCLING ACTION GROUP

This objection is on behalf of Linlithgow Cycling Action Group, which comprises about a dozen active cyclists, differing in type, age, and gender, resident in Linlithgow. The Chair of the Group is Matthew Ball. My role in the Group is to keep an eye on Planning Applications and the like, to ensure that cyclists’ needs are not overlooked. The general nature of this Objection was agreed at the meeting of the Group on 25 Nov 09, but the wording of this letter was left for me to finalise.

We have not taken a position for or against the new bridge, and therefore our objection is not against the whole Forth Crossing Bill (as Introduced). The objection concerns the arrangements for maintaining safe and clearly-defined routes for cyclists during the 5-year period of construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing. The Forth Crossing Bill itself does not attempt to define these arrangements. Sections 67 and 68 of the Bill merely say that the works must be carried out in accordance with the Code of Construction Practice (which is an Appendix to the Bill), and that the Ministers may amend the Code of Construction Practice. What we object to, and wish to amend, is the wording of one section of the Code of Construction Practice, namely section 4 Public Access and Traffic Management.

We object to the existing wording of section 4 because we believe it is not adequate to ensure that safe and clearly-defined routes for cyclists will be maintained throughout the 5- year period of construction. We have proposed some additional provisions (below). At various times during the period 2007-2009, many of us attempted to cycle through the construction zone on the southern approaches to the new Bridge, where we were exposed to unacceptable levels of traffic risk or obstruction (details below). The Forth Replacement Crossing scheme is in many ways analogous to the scheme, and in particular will be managed by the same organisation, namely Transport . We suspect that the Code of Construction Practice for the Forth Replacement Crossing may have been derived from that used for the Clackmannanshire Bridge scheme. Certainly the provisions of the proposed Code of Construction Practice would not prevent a repetition of the problems that cyclists met during the construction of the approaches to the Clackmannanshire Bridge.

The interests of all cyclists would be adversely affected for a period of 5 years if similar problems recurred during the construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing. This would include not only cyclists from Linlithgow, but all those living within a 20-30 mile radius of the new bridge, including parts of West Lothian, , and . These include a substantial number of cycle commuters. They would experience an increased risk of death or injury, unreasonable increases in travel distance, and delays due to getting lost, while some journeys might become impossible by cycle. Some cyclists might decide to drive instead, increasing CO2 emissions. Cycle journeys affected would not be confined to those which cross the , but would include all those which pass through the construction zone e.g. from Linlithgow through the proposed Queensferry Junction to , Dalmeny, Cramond or Leith.

In order to persuade the Scottish Parliament of the serious nature of the problems which may occur, I provide below an account of the defects in the arrangements for cyclists

1 which occurred during the re-construction of the western approaches to the old and the construction of the new Clackmannanshire Bridge, consisting of a summary followed by the detailed evidence. This leads to a statement of the provisions which must be added to section 4 of Code of Construction Practice if these defects are to be avoided in future, and then a suggestion of where they can be incorporated into section 4.

This Objection consists of 4 pages of text, and one additional page containing two sketch maps. The sketch maps appear only in the paper copy sent by Royal Mail. I am also sending the text pages as an Email attachment in .rtf format, but some parts of the text will be difficult to understand without the maps.

DEFECTS IN THE PROVISION FOR CYCLISTS DURING THE RE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROACHES TO THE KINCARDINE BRIDGE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLACKMANNANSHIRE BRIDGE

SUMMARY

During about 11 months, a restriction placed on a turning movement to improve the safety of motor vehicles would have forced cyclists to follow a route which was seriously hazardous for cyclists and involved a deviation which was unreasonably lengthy for cyclists.

For about 18 months, the direction signing along the National Cycle Route was severed where the national cycle route crossed the construction site.

For about 12 months, cyclists were exposed to severe danger, by having to use the same narrow coned-off lanes as motor vehicles for at least 2 km, in both directions.

For at least 6 months the National Cycle Route was physically severed by the central barrier of the dual carriageway. No deviation for cyclists was indicated and the only practicable deviation was dangerous for cyclists.

For about 6 months, it was impossible to travel by bicycle between certain points because of the construction work.

There was a period of about 6 months during which the construction of cycleway/footways was nearing completion, when most of these could be used, but there was no comprehensive set of signs to indicate to cyclists where these were ready for use, and where cyclists should remain on the dangerous carriageways.

It appears that the authorities forgot to erect permanent signs indicating the recommended cycleways and carriageway crossings for cyclists seeking to cross the Kincardine Bridge or Clackmannanshire Bridge, until about 12 months after the permanent signs for motor vehicles had been erected.

DETAILED EVIDENCE

The attached sketch maps show the situation before and after the construction. The Kincardine Bridge(s) provides the only way a cyclist can cross the between and the Forth Bridge, so the western approach road, the A876, is an important

2 route for cyclists, e.g. to travel from the area to Fife. The A876 was originally a wide single carriageway (about 30 feet wide), marked as 2 lanes, and tolerably safe for cycling. The other important cycling route in this area is National Cycle Route 76 (NCR76), which runs roughly perpendicular to the A876, from the direction of Grangemouth towards Stirling. NCR76 crosses the western approach road, A876, roughly in the middle, at Haughs of Airth (National grid reference 912962). Here there was a crossroads where the minor roads followed by NCR76 crossed the A876 at grade, so that cyclists could turn between A876 and NCR76 without restriction.

The detailed evidence for the statements in the Summary above is derived from my own cycle trips through the area on about 8 occasions between Sept 2007 and Dec 2009. On all these trips, I approached by NCR76 from the direction of Grangemouth, as far as Haughs of Airth. On some trips I intended to continue on NCR76 towards Stirling, while on others I intended to turn right onto A876, to cross the Kincardine Bridge.

On 19 Sept 2007 I following NCR76, which is clearly signposted all the way to Haughs of Airth. There, I intended to turn right on the A876 to reach a cafe with a toilet in Kincardine village. I found that roadworks had begun on A876, the two lanes were separated by a line of cones, there was a steady stream of traffic in both directions, and I was faced by a sign ‘No right turn’, with no explicit exception for cyclists.

There was no positive guidance on how cyclists heading for Kincardine Bridge should continue. Presumably the authorities did not seriously think it would be safer for cyclists to turn left, cycle a km along a coned-off lane, go round a large roundabout, and cycle a similar km back again to reach the other side of the road. I crossed the road as a pedestrian, turned right, and tried to cycle on the footway towards Kincardine, but this proved impractical because much of the footway was coned off or blocked by signs intended for drivers. A temporary 30mph speed limit was posted, but the coned-off lane was only about 10feet wide and I can only cycle at about 10mph, so I felt a serious obstruction to motor traffic and was worried that a driver would become so impatient that he would try to squeeze past me, make an error of a few inches, and wipe me out. I had a hair-raising kilometre of riding on the carriageway before reaching the safety of the dedicated foot/cycleway across the Kincardine Bridge. I had another hair-raising km of narrow coned-off lane on the return route. And I was not the only cyclist risking my life in the road-works at that time.

Nor was there any positive guidance for cyclists trying to follow NCR76 towards Stirling, though at that time probably they could have crossed A876 cautiously and continued straight ahead on the minor road if they already knew that was where NCR76 went.

I cycled to Haughs of Airth on 4 other occasions between Sept 2007 and Oct 2008. On the first of these visits I wished to continue on NCR76 towards Stirling, but there were still no signs to indicate which way to go. The construction of the central reservation of the new dual carriageway had begun, but I found a place where I could cross to the north-west side. The minor road which was formerly the NCR76 seemed to be blocked to vehicles but I was still able to get through on my cycle.

On the second of these trips I again wished to continue on NCR76 towards Stirling, and there was still no indication of which way to go. The steel central barrier of the dual carriageway was now completed, and I was unable to cross it, so I had no alternative but to turn left and cycle a km through the road works on A876, and around the Bowtrees roundabout, which at that time had no overpass and was the terminus of the M876. I had

3 to risk cycling across the lanes entering and exiting from the motorway, and followed A 905 northwards until it met the NCR76. Here the signs resumed.

On the third of these visits I was aiming to cross the Kincardine Bridge, but there was still no sign at Haughs of Airth to say how cyclists were supposed to get there. As the A876 is not a motorway, I would presumably be entitled to cycle on the eastbound carriageway if I was prepared to take the risk. But there was no gap in the central barrier of the dual carriageway so I could not reach the eastbound carriageway. It would have been illegal and extremely hazardous to cycle eastwards on the westbound carriageway. I really felt unwelcome, as I would have felt if someone had put up a sign in a restaurant saying “blacks and cyclists not served here”. I then noticed a small sign saying ‘Pedestrians this way’ pointing to a temporary path made of coarse crushed stone running eastwards, towards Kincardine Bridge, but parallel to the westbound carriageway. Did ‘pedestrians’ include cyclists? Apparently not, because the stones were too coarse to cycle over. In the end I had to push my cycle over various mounds of construction materials most of the km to the Kincardine Bridge.

By the time of the fourth of these trips, in early October 2008, a bridge over the dual carriageway just east of Haughs of Airth, apparently intended for farm traffic, cyclists and pedestrians, was partially completed. There were still no signs saying which way cyclists heading for Stirling or Kincardine Bridge were supposed to go, nor whether the bridge was safe to use. But I wheeled my bike over it and found a new way to rejoin the NCR76 towards Stirling by following a farm road. (On a later trip this was marked as Private).

I did not visit the area again until late January 2009. By then the Clackmannanshire Bridge was open to motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. I noted that it has a cycleway/footway on one side, and that the western approach road (A876) has what appeared to be cycleway/footways on both sides. A complete set of signs to direct motor vehicles over the Clackmannanshire Bridge and Kincardine Bridge in both directions was in place, some of them involving the expense of overhead gantries, but the same cannot be said for signs intended for cyclists. The new alignment of the NCR76 on the south side of the Forth was now well signposted, crossing the A876 by the new overbridge. Signs also made fairly clear the routes for cyclists onto the Clackmannanshire Bridge and Kincardine Bridge from the north and east. But the safest routes for cyclists on the western approach road was not made clear by signs. It seemed likely that eastbound cyclists approaching these bridges for the first time would end up riding on the vehicle carriageway in places where a traffic-free cycleway/footway has been provided, or a parallel minor road carrying negligible traffic can be used; or might decide to risk joining motor traffic on the new roundabout even though this can be avoided by an underpass or by making the correct decision about whether to cross the overbridge or not. A westbound cyclist who had dismounted to cross the Kincardine Bridge westbound using the footway was met at the west end of the bridge by a sign saying CYCLISTS RETURN TO MAIN CARRIAGEWAY. This directed the cyclist into the hazard of the new roundabout, when there already existed an almost perfect cycleway/footway which by-passes the roundabout. There was no sign to tell the cyclist where to return to the cycleway/footway, and he would most likely remain on the hazardous dual carriageway of the A876.

It might be thought that the above defects in signing occurred because the erection of signs was still in progress at the time of my visit, but this appears not to be the case, because no change had occurred at the time of my next visit in early June 2009, except that the sign CYCLISTS RETURN TO MAIN CARRIAGEWAY had been removed. I therefore made further attempts to determine which authority was responsible and to draw

4 this deficiency to its attention. It appears that the signs for which is responsible had been erected, but the ones for which Transport Scotland is responsible had not.

I am pleased that on my most recent visit in December 2009, it appeared that the missing signs had been provided, but this is more than a year after the cycleway/footways had been completed, and the signs for motor vehicles erected.

PROVISIONS TO BE INCORPORATED IN A REVISED CODE OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE FOR THE FORTH REPLACEMENT CROSSING

A. Where the Traffic Management Plan involves the alteration or diversion of any road or path or the restriction of turning movements at a junction, the Traffic Management Working Group (TMWG) and the Traffic Safety and Control Officer and the contractor will consider the safety and appropriateness of the proposed alteration, diversion or restriction separately for each of the four main types of traffic involved, namely pedestrians, cyclists, buses, and other motor vehicles. They will ensure that a safe and appropriate path for each of these four groups exists at all times (except for short-term closures to all traffic), and is clearly signposted in such a way that each group is clear which diversion route it is intended to follow. For example, if there is no separate route for cyclists, should cyclists follow the motor vehicle route or the pedestrian route? This could be achieved by using four small pictorial symbols to represent pedestrians, cyclists, buses, and other motor vehicles, and including one, several, or all of these symbols on each directional sign. On a motorway or a path, provision need only be made for the types of traffic which are legally permitted to use it.

B. The TMWG and the Traffic Safety and Control Officer and the contractor will ensure that the continuity of directional signing on National Cycle Routes and other existing routes signposted for cyclists is maintained at all times through areas affected by the construction.

C. Where a new cycleway or cycleway/footway is being constructed, the TMWG and the Traffic Safety and Control Officer and the contractor will signpost it for use by cyclists as soon as its use would, on balance, be safer for cycling than the route currently signed for cyclists, even if the cycleway is not yet completed in every detail.

D. The Traffic Management Plan must provide for a seamless transition from the set of signs used to indicate temporary routes for cyclists and pedestrians to the permanent directional signs for them, so that there is no period when these signs are absent. The TMWG is responsible for ensuring that this transition takes place.

INCORPORATING THESE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

These provisions require to be incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice, section 4 Public Access and Traffic Management, but they do not fit neatly into the existing subdivisons of that section. Provision A relates to all types of traffic so clearly must be inserted in section 4.2 Traffic Management Requirements and Plan, preferably between sections 4.2.6 and 4.2.7. We would prefer provisions B, C and D to immediately follow provision A within the mainstream of the Traffic Management Requirements and not to be

5 relegated to section 4.5 Public Transport, Pedestrian, Equestrian or Cycle Routes, where they may be overlooked by the TMWG.

Some other changes to the wording of section 4 are then required, for compatibility with these added provisions:

In section 4.1.1, amend “to mitigate disruption to road, footpath, waterway and other users” to read “to mitigate disruption to buses, other motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, waterway and other users”.

Under the heading 4.2 insert: “The word ‘traffic’ in the whole of section 4 includes all forms of traffic which are legally entitled to use the road or path. On most roads this will include buses, other motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.”

In section 4.2.2 amend “public roads and footpaths” to read “public roads and paths”.

At the end of section 4.2.2 insert “, unless these manuals and regulations fail to provide adequately for the needs of cyclists and pedestrians.”

In section 4.2.3, amend “A Traffic Management Working Group (TMWG) has been formed for the Project which includes representatives from roads authorities and the emergency services.” to read “A Traffic Management Working Group (TMWG) will been formed for the Project which includes representatives from roads authorities, the emergency services, and Cycling Scotland.”

In section 4.3.9, add Sustrans to the list of authorities to be consulted.

Also, one might reconsider the wording of sections 4.4.1, 4.5.3, and 4.5.4, to avoid duplication with provision A.

6