Forth crossing

Gavin Scott (Letters, 26 March) wrongly assumes, without knowledge of my background in transport, that I "have no concept of the regulations governing the conveyance of hazardous goods". Nor did I suggest the structural design engineers were "lying" or that all such goods should be rail-borne.

I was, however, correcting his erroneous comparisons between the second Severn crossing and any proposed new Forth bridge, the designs of which are totally different. He also chose to ignore my valid suggestion of using the existing Forth Road Bridge for the conveyance of hazardous goods.

He dismissed the sound reasoning made for a causeway by TA Davidson of Linlithgow (Letters, 24 March), something which I had not hitherto considered, but which could well have been the long-term solution. Mr Scott appears to give the impression that it must be a bridge or nothing. I wonder why.

BRIAN A FARISH

Baird Grove

Edinburgh