With bridge facts all to hand, why did U-turn take so long?

The apparent U-turn followed a massive campaign by The Scotsman and the business community demanding a new crossing. But as the Executive last night insisted the decision had been based on new evidence supporting the case for a new crossing, business leaders questioned what was known now that was not evident in previous reports.

The Executive announced late on Friday night that Jack McConnell, the First Minister, and his senior ministers had been persuaded of the need for the project after receiving "emerging findings" from work by Transport Scotland.

A spokeswoman for the Executive agency insisted last night it had provided Tavish Scott, the transport minister, with new information, but she refused to give details.

The ministerial briefing last week was based on the first of five studies commissioned by the agency, an assessment of the "existing and forecast future transport network". This is understood to relate to current and future traffic levels on roads around the Forth Road Bridge.

A report will now go the Cabinet seeking formal approval for a new crossing, which may be as early as this week. The Executive has previously insisted it would not be possible to take a decision before the final study was completed at the end of May - after the Holyrood election.

The chief executive of SESTRAN (South East Scotland Transport Partnership), the statutory body charged with setting transport policy for an area covering Tayside, Fife, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, the Lothians and the Borders, said that there was "nothing new" in the confidential briefing about the ongoing study that he and other consultees received from the consultant Jacobs Babtie last week about the progress of the group.

The Executive insisted last night there was a significant new finding about the "transport network within the vicinity of the Forth" that had caused the U-turn, but that it could not be made public until it had been reported to Cabinet, possibly as early as Wednesday.

The Executive and Transport Scotland's refusal to explain the position leaves the Executive vulnerable to the accusation made by proponents of an early decision, such as former Linlithgow MP Tam Dalyell and the economist Professor Sir Donald Mackay, that the Forth Replacement Crossing Study (FRCS), part of Transport Scotland's 4 million strategic projects review, was a politically inspired device to avoid making a decision before the election.

The cost of a new Forth crossing is estimated at between 500 million and 1 billion, which cannot be met out of the existing transport budget without dropping previous infrastructure commitments.

Businesses north of the Forth reliant on the bridge, such as Diageo, Havelock Europa, Donaldson's Timber and Forth Ports supported The Scotsman's campaign for an early decision on a new crossing.

This followed conclusions by bridge technicians that the loss of strength from corrosion of its main cables would mean that lorries might be banned from the existing bridge by the end of 2013.

Business argued that the lack of certainty on the issue was already causing potential investors to defer plans to locate in the hinterland of the bridge.

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA), which runs the Forth Road Bridge, said ministers' decision to back a new crossing effectively endorsed the conclusions of major previous studies.

A spokesman said: "The transport minister's decision is in line with FETA's long-standing position. An Executive-sponsored 700,000 study by SESTRAN made the case for a second crossing in mid-2005, and subsequent reports about corrosion in the bridge's suspension cables only added urgency to that."

A spokeswoman for Transport Scotland said yesterday that the new facts about the bridge "can't be given out until the matter has been brought before Cabinet".

She added: "We have received the first report of the FCRS. Transport Scotland briefed the transport minister on the findings of that report and he will brief the Cabinet. We expect to publish the first report in the new year."

Business groups yesterday praised the apparent breakthrough. Liz Cameron, director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which, with the Fife and Edinburgh Chambers, led the business lobby for an early decision, said: "We are delighted by the findings of the reports to the minister confirming what we have long been saying.

"We want a quick announcement and immediate positioning of an additional crossing in the transport plan.

"Our congratulations go to the officers and consultants for expediting this work, to enable ministers to make this forward-thinking decision to invest in Scotland's future."

Phil Flanders, the Scotland director of the Road Haulage Association, said: "It's about bloody time. This is good news for all those who were thinking of moving premises because of the Executive's indecision."

Russell Imrie, the chairman of the South East Scotland Transport Partnership, said: "It's The Scotsman's campaign that has turned this around.

"It would have been easy to go down the easy route, the environmentalist route, and say we don't want that, and when the bridge falls down, that's tough. We have to be sensible and look for alternatives.

"I hope this statement is not just hot air; I hope it is a final decision that something is going to go ahead."

Graham Birse, the deputy chief executive of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, said: "We are relieved that our concerns about the threat to the economy of not just Edinburgh, but Scotland will be to be addressed by ministers, our thanks go to The Scotsman for supporting businesses on this issue."

Five corridor options pose access dilemma for planners

FIVE "corridor" options for the site of a new crossing are being examined by Transport Scotland-commissioned experts.

They cover separate sections of the Forth between the Kincardine Bridge and Hound Point, east of South Queensferry.

However, Faber Maunsell, which is involved in the study, has already recommended to the Forth Estuary Transport Authority that the crossing be sited just west of the Forth Road Bridge. This option was also favoured under plans a decade ago.

A presentation to Transport Scotland last week said there were a "long list of options" within the five corridors. The issue of whether the crossing will be a bridge or tunnel has also still to be addressed, along with new access roads. A report on the options is due within two weeks. The five corridors are labelled as A - which covers Kincardine Bridge to Bo'ness/Torry Bay, B - Bo'ness/Torry Bay to west of Blackness/Ironmill Bay, C - east of Blackness/Charlestown to Hopetoun House/Rosyth, D - Hopetoun House/Rosyth to the Forth Road Bridge, and E - the Forth Bridge to Hound Point/Dalgety Bay.

When plans for a new crossing were being considered in the 1990s, a short list of five options included tunnels corresponding approximately to corridors B and C, in addition to a bridge west of the Forth Road Bridge (D). The other two options were on either side of the Kincardine Bridge, where a second bridge is now under construction.

If the new crossing was built adjacent to the current one, traffic could feed directly into the A90 to the north, but new road connections would be required to the A80 and M9 to the south.

More extensive approach roads are likely to be required if the crossing is elsewhere, such as upgrading the A985 Kincardine-Rosyth road to the north.

Two-thirds of southbound Forth Road Bridge traffic is bound for Edinburgh or the city bypass - which may favour the adjacent crossing option. Just one quarter is heading for the M8 and Livingston, and 9 per cent for the M9 and Falkirk.

Questions remain on crossing timescale

APPROVAL of a new Forth crossing may be only weeks away, but it could be months until a clear picture of the project's timescale emerges.

The third of five studies ordered by Transport Scotland is due by Hogmanay, but the final two are not expected until the end of April and end of May respectively.

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA), which runs the Forth Road Bridge, has estimated a new crossing would take ten or 11 years to build - effectively meaning a completion date of 2017-18. But Tavish Scott, the transport minister, said in March the "time frame for replacing the crossing is around 2014 if the work starts now".

The key variable is the length of the planning process. That could be influenced by whether it could be fast-tracked and whether an Act of Parliament would be required rather than a normal planning consent.

Other factors could include the length of the tendering process to select contractors, which FETA said might take three years.

It is also unclear how such timescales fit with the threat of the existing bridge closing to lorries because of corrosion sapping the strength of its main cables. FETA's consultants believe this could be required by the end of 2013. But another firm of consultants has has put the timescale at between 2013 and 2018.

ALASTAIR DALTON