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 Clackmannanshire 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 Clackmannanshire Bridge scheme, and in particular will be managed by the same organisation, namely Transport Scotland. 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, Edinburgh, and Fife. 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 Forth Bridge, but would include all those which pass through the construction zone e.g. from Linlithgow through the proposed Queensferry Junction to South Queensferry, 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 Kincardine Bridge 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 Firth of Forth between Stirling and the Forth Bridge, so the western approach road, the A876, is an important 2 route for cyclists, e.g. to travel from the Larbert 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.