Unanswered questions on new Forth crossing

We should at least be thankful that a decision has been reached on a new crossing of the Forth (your report, 20 December), although it will be too late to avoid disruption as restrictions are introduced on the existing bridge.

Those who believe the answer lies simply in repairing the existing bridge should realise it cannot be repaired completely without first being closed.

But now the question of funding has to be resolved. The sheer stupidity of the policy of abolishing tolls on the Forth and other bridges is now apparent. Bridges had tolls because they replaced ferries on which fares were charged. A bridge is better than a ferry – after all, no "last bridge" and no mal de mer – so why not continue charging? It is not just the capital cost that has to be covered, but maintenance as well.

This is typical of the lack of thought and poor planning by our elected leaders. The close proximity of the northern landfall of the new bridge to the existing structure means that construction traffic will add to the heavy congestion already existing on the Fife side of the Forth. A submerged tube tunnel further upstream would have avoided this. There is also the intention that the new bridge will be able to carry light railway traffic – but no plans exist for lines on either side.

Do members of the Scottish Parliament and the directors of Transport Scotland leave their brains behind when they leave home in the morning,

DAVID WRAGG

Stoneyflatts

South Queensferry, West Lothian

We are told a new Forth bridge will cost between 3.2 and 4.2 billion (your report, 20 December). Back when the estimate was 2.5 billion (in June) I thought it was high. The previous road bridge cost 19.5 million, which converts today to 314 million. Why have costs, after inflation, gone up ten to 13 times? It would seem amazing if this was purely government regulations, but the alternative would seem more sinister.

A third crossing was initially sold on the threat that the current bridge was about to fall down because the cables were ageing. However, it seems ever more likely that it can be reroped at a cost of about 10 million. This is, after all, what the rest of the world does. Anybody want to bet on whether, as soon as all the expensive contracts have been signed, we will be told that reroping can proceed apace?

NEIL CRAIG

Woodlands Road

Glasgow