Tunnel hazards

Brian Farish (Letters, 22 March) advocates the building of a tunnel rather than the replacement Forth crossing. Maybe Australia has different rules about what can and can't be carried in tunnels but one of the main reasons for the Scottish Government opting for a bridge is that there would be a ban on vehicles carrying what are known as hazardous cargoes in line with the rules on tunnels in the rest of the UK.

Road tankers carrying petrol to Fife would not be allowed to use a tunnel. Bulk whisky would have to travel via Kincardine. Liquid petroleum gas bottles would be banned. Even some supermarket deliveries could be affected. The list doesn't end there. Some vehicles would be allowed but only under escort with the tunnel having been cleared of other traffic for the duration of the crossing.

I have a feeling that Mr Farish and the many other users of the crossing would find this more than a bit of an inconvenience.

As to the possibility of the bridge being closed due to high winds I understand that this possibility has been engineered out of the new design. The second Severn crossing has never had to close because of high winds and I am told that wind speeds are higher there.

GAVIN SCOTT

Head of policy, Scotland

Freight Transport Association,

Melville Terrace

Stirling