Forth Crossing Consultation response from Willie Rennie MP

12.34.21pm BST (GMT +0100) Fri 7th Sep 2007

I have always taken the view that I, as a politician, should study the viable options presented by the experts before making up my mind. Opting for a tunnel or a bridge or any other option before knowing the costs, environmental impact or build time would be irresponsible.

However, now that the experts have set out the options in an excellent exhibition I feel sufficiently informed to state a preference.

I have listened to hundreds of people express their views and there are three main sections of opinion: those who favour a tunnel; those who favour a bridge and those who just want the job done as quickly as possible.

There are many factors to consider but for me the three most important are as follows:

• Build time so that it is ready before the current bridge goes out of service

• Cost to the taxpayer

• Environmental impact both when building and afterwards

It is clear from the information presented that the Cable Stayed Bridge is the best option as at £1.5billion is £800million less expensive than a tunnel, it can be built two years faster and the environmental impacts from a bridge are no greater.

The Cable Stayed Bridge can also include more lanes than a tunnel and therefore can feature dedicated lanes for public transport. It can also be used by cyclists and pedestrians. There seems to be a lot of unknown risks for a tunnel e.g. geology which increases the risk of a longer build time and greater costs. The Cable Stayed Bridge also includes wind shielding which will allow the bridge to remain open more frequently in high winds.

So to me it is clear from the information presented that the Cabled Stayed Bridge is the one to choose.