 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 12304 in the name of Miles Briggs on improving Edinburgh city bypass. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Miles Briggs to open the debate. Mr Briggs, seven minutes are there abouts, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to thank colleagues from across the chamber for supporting my motion and allowing this debate to take place today. I wanted to start the debate this afternoon with a quote, and it's be warned that city bypass is a nightmare today, being on it for an hour so far. That was the palpable frustration being invented on Twitter yesterday by the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy, Paul Wheelhouse MSP. I'm pleased to report that I spotted Mr Wheelhouse in the chamber yesterday, so I know that he has since managed to escape the congestion our bypass faces. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that the future of the A70 city bypass is important, not just to Edinburgh and the wider Lothian region, but to all of Scotland, and it's a key trunk road serving our capital city. Improving the bypass is an issue that I've been pressing the Scottish Government on since my election. It's something that I'll continue to do so. As a Lothian MSP, I continue on an almost daily basis to be contacted by frustrated constituents and business people who face frequent delays when using the bypass to commute or transport goods, especially but not exclusively at peak times or when there's been an accident on that route. Concerns have also been raised and voiced by the Federation of Small Business over many years here in Lothian. Many drivers tell me their experiences that the tailbacks and traffic jams are becoming more and more regular. Indeed, some drivers tell me they are choosing to drive through the city of Edinburgh rather than risk being stuck on the bypass, something that is obviously adding to the pressures on local roads within the capital itself. The Transport Information Company in Wrex in late 2016 identified the bypass as the most congested trunk road outside of London, with four of the UK's worst bottlenecks located on that route. It suggested that the westbound section near Dreghorn barracks was where drivers faced the worst delays and predicted that the bypass congestion would cost the economy as much as £2.8 billion by 2025. With Scotland's economy already facing such sluggish economic growth over the next five years, this is something that I think the whole Parliament must take extremely seriously and something that we cannot allow to occur. Transport model for Scotland uses 2014 as a base year for the total number of vehicles per day using the trunk road, and it indicated that 78,000 vehicles every day use the city bypass west of Dreghorn junction in 2014. It predicts that this will grow by an extra 10,000 vehicles to 88,000 by 2022 and a further 10,000 vehicles by 2032, with 102,000 vehicles using the bypass each day by 2037. In addition, the percentage of heavy goods vehicles using the bypass will also increase, so around 14,300 lorries and heavy goods vehicles will be using the route each day by 2037, compared with the current figure of 9,400. Constituents and businesses are rightly alarmed about the increased usage predictions and the capacity of the road that is already not being able to cope with the current volume of vehicles using it. The projected increase in vehicles may well be underestimating the number of extra vehicles that will use the route, as Edinburgh, mid, east and west Lothian continue to experience such fast-growing populations and new housing developments along the route, such as the bypass at Shorefair. Edinburgh, Lothian and Lothian are currently the only parts of the Scottish economy that are still growing, and we are now the powerhouse of the Scottish economy. For that growth to be sustained in the future, there must be that infrastructure investment to allow areas to continue to attract business and inward investment in key sectors such as life sciences, with Edinburgh's bioquarter, Queen Margaret University, and now the proposed film studio at Straton, which is located just off the bypass. Gridlock trunk roads create a bad impression for inward investors and those who want to visit our area. Edinburgh is the showcase for the whole country, and we need to have the modern and efficient transport infrastructure to deliver that. The minister will, I am sure, in his contribution at the end of the debate refer to the Scottish Government's investment at the Sheriff Hall roundabout, where the final plans for the much-needed grade separation and fly-over will be revealed sometime this year, and I hope that he will be able to give a firma timetable today on that. Introducing grade separation at this notorious bottleneck is of course very welcome, but this is only one action, and over many years we have been campaigning for further action and for more improvements. Almost a decade, people, commuters, have faced such backlogs, and they want to see real action across the whole bypass. However, it is vital that the Scottish Government receives that message from Lothian residents and businesses that, while Sheriff Hall will be an important improvement, it is only one part of what needs to be done in a far broader, long-term and co-ordinated programme of improvements to the bypass, which will ensure that traffic can be kept moving for the decades ahead. That means looking at innovative solutions, assessing whether extra lanes will be needed, looking at the possibility to use hard shoulders in some situations, and utilising technology so that the bypass could and should become a smart motorway. It also means looking at how genuine and effective public transport options, as an alternative to using cars, can be taken forward as well. I received complaints about bus services in West Lothian again on almost a regular basis, and it is clear that residents in that part of my region do not have the same confidence in their bus services and therefore do not use the public transport that is available to them. That is an issue that I think also needs to be seriously considered. The minister in response to written questions of mine has said that the Scottish Government is looking at further measures to improve traffic flow on the bypass and reduce congestion, but we have never seen any further information beyond that answer. I hope that today we will give us an opportunity to start that debate and look towards how we can improve our bypass. I hope, too, that the minister will also provide very clear assurances that the Scottish Government recognises the strategic importance of the city bypass and considers that improving it is actually a national transport priority and is fully committed in the future to ensuring that this trunk road is actually fit for purpose. What I like to see today and what I am calling for is the Scottish Government to take forward a feasibility study into widening the city bypass and new options to address this growing and unacceptable congestion. That is what Lothian residents and businesses that I represent deserve, and that is what I will continue to press the Scottish Government on. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Briggs. Open debate. I call Colin Beattie to be followed by Jamie Greene. Mr Beattie, please. Let me first thank Miles Briggs for bringing forward this important issue as a member's debate. The Edinburgh city bypass is the most used road in my constituency of Midlothian North and Musselborough. Whether it is used for commuting to work, family or even sports fans travelling to grounds to play or support their team, that means that any time of the day, during any day of the week, there are vehicles using this road, causing delays and queues. The people of Midlothian North and Musselborough meet the queues of traffic heading on to the bypass on the main roads around my constituency even before they are anywhere near the bypass. That causes more congestion and more air pollution around Midlothian and Musselborough. At this point, I would like to note that my colleague in the adjacent constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, is unable to take part in this debate, as she is in the chair. I would wish to put on record her continuing concerns, which she has raised frequently, regarding the proposals for the sheriff hall roundabout, which cyclists call the meat grinder. We would ask what measures will be put in place to give cyclists safe passage in the upgrade. On the early morning radio or traffic news, there are always reports of delays in the Edinburgh city bypass, with either an accident or just sheer volume of traffic. With that happening on a daily basis, it is a clear sign that a change needs to happen and is required to be done as soon as possible. One of the more drastic options that could be considered is the approach that was taken in Bangkok, where the main roads were double stacked, meaning that cars travelled in one direction on one level and the other direction above them. When making those changes, they also raised the level of the cross-city-like train track, so the train and the station that served them were suspended well above ground to make commutes quicker and allow trains to move faster. Following from that thought and continuing consideration of the changes that are required in the Edinburgh city bypass, I think that the real solution is that we need to more carefully examine our public transport services to see if there is any way to improve and extend those services and reduce the amount of cars that are using the bypass. Less cars quite simply mean less congestion. Public transport in Edinburgh and Scotland as a whole is at a very high standard, but there is always room for some improvement. To ease congestion on the city bypass, it may be worth considering extending the route of the Edinburgh city trams to include towns with higher populations, such as Musselborough and Dalkeith. That would give commuters a fast and direct link into Edinburgh without having to sit in traffic on the bypass. It may even be more cost-effective than building new roads, double stacked or not, and putting in place expensive flyovers that will only move traffic more swiftly into the next traffic jam. The bypass currently has two lanes in both directions and has had that configuration for the last 30 years since it was built. If we look at expanding the bypass, for instance, to three lanes, there would be an eye-watering cost of paying for landowners to give up land for allowing the extra lanes to be installed, plus, of course, the actual construction costs. That has taken away some of the scarce arable land currently situated at the side of the bypass and also threatened the already endangered green belt in Midlothian. As we look into making any of the changes required, I think that it is important that we consult with many different agencies, such as Lothian buses, ScotRail and border buses, as well as engaging our constituents that are most affected by the current issues on the bypass. I am pleased that the Government has announced that there is a flyover being installed at the Sheriffhall roundabout. It is often the scene of congestion and significant queuing, particularly as I experienced myself in morning and evening peak times. That will improve road safety and journey times for many people travelling in the bypass every day. More needs to be done to make improvements along the full stretch of the road. Another possible idea that could be introduced is a bypass bus. The bus would serve muscle bread to the guile along the bypass, stopping at the park and rides at Sheriffhall straighten, and then a final stop at Hermeson gate before finishing at the guile. That bus could help to reduce the amount of commuters taking their cars along the bypass and assist people reaching their destination easier without having to change buses. It would, of course, need discussion with many different bus companies and the Government officials who would need to look into that further. With a fast-growing population in Midlothian and Musselbarre, we have to take a serious look at the situation on the bypass and put in train the changes that are required as soon as possible so that the bypass can handle the volume of traffic that seems to be increasing so drastically every year. Presiding Officer, there is a problem in the Edinburgh city bypass, and with growing population and an increase in people using cars, it will only get worse. We have to take a sensible approach to this situation and look at all the ways in which we can improve the current situation on the bypass and help our constituents to travel safely and securely. I understand that, Mr Beattie, you have a constituency meeting. You have to leave the chair early. As I have given the reasons, that is powerfully acceptable. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Colin Smyth. I do not know what to say now, because Miles Briggs has already outlined the problem and Colin Beattie has now outlined the solutions. I am stuck in the middle of perhaps repeating myself slightly. It is a very good opportunity to raise awareness of the issue in the chamber today. Edinburgh is our capital city. It is such a huge focus for businesses, for tourism and, as Miles Briggs said, for inward investment. It is so important that we get this right. The bypass at the moment is, where do you start? I do not know about other members, but the idea that I would leave here at decision time on Thursday and even attempt to go on the bypass is just a no-brainer. It is much better to leave earlier or wait a few hours in town, not that I ever leave early, minister. The reality is that many people are in the same situation. Many businesses, many commuters, many people who rely on this road, not just people who use it or enjoy using it, people who rely on this road are stuck in the situation day in, day out. As the member said on the radio, you hear reports of congestion almost by default as the first line of the script on the radio. The reality is that around nearly 80,000 vehicles a day are using this road, and that is going to increase by around 30 per cent in the next 10 years. It is actually quite a dire situation. We know that Edinburgh is Britain's second most congested city. Guess which one is third? Glasgow. I was surprised by that figure. It is not Birmingham or Manchester, as I would have expected it to be, given the volume of population. It is Edinburgh and Glasgow. As Miles Briggs said, in terms of bottlenecks, Edinburgh has listed four times, and that is not four different roads. It is the same road. It is the A720, a westbound in every single situation. That is before we even think about the situation on the A8 coming into Edinburgh, which is equally a mess. The cost of this is huge. It is costing drivers in the context of around 31 hours a year sitting in traffic on Edinburgh cities. If you were a small business and you took 31 hours off of running your company, that is a tremendous amount of loss of revenue and time wasted sitting in the car. Public transport is an option, and modal shift is important. We, as a Parliament, spend a lot of time talking about how we achieve that shift to public transport. However, the reality is that some people have to spend time in their cars, their vans and their vehicles, and that is simply wasted time. It is costing the economy billions of pounds, nearly £3 billion a year in Edinburgh. I do not think that the answer is simply banning cars. I do not think that the answer is simply widening the road. I do not think that the answer is simply building a flyover or increasing the scale of the roundabout. I think that the answer is a bit of all of the above. I think that there needs to be a real joined-up approach to the measures that we have to take. We do need to look at improving the road. The traffic on the road has grown immensely since it was built. I think that it was built in 1980, the year I was born. It is not a huge surprise that the volumes have increased at the rate that they have. Yes, there needs to be some measures. I think that there should be a feasibility study into widening it, but it also needs to be part of a bigger conversation about how we address the decades to come when traffic volumes are increasing by the hundreds of thousands, but also the nature of what our roads do and what serves their purpose in the future. The idea that they could become smart roads, the idea that we could implement more dynamic lane management systems or variable speed limits or various uses of lines for buses, cars at different times of the day. I know that that happens to a small extent at the moment, but I really get the impression that we as a country across the west of Europe have not been particularly forward thinking in the way that other countries have been, as was demonstrated by the member in parts of Asia, for example. I will not repeat too much of the statistics that we already know about this, but given that the volumes are going to increase and given also that the population of Edinburgh and Midlothian is going to increase so dramatically, we have to have a sensible and frank discussion about how we future proof our transport network to meet the needs of tomorrow. I welcome any opportunity to debate Scotland's transport infrastructure, so I will therefore be grateful to Miles Briggs for tabling his motion on improving Edinburgh's city bypass. The bypass is unquestionably one of the most important trunk roads in Scotland, circling around the south side of Edinburgh, enabling access from one end of our capital to the other, but crucially also linking the city to key routes to the rest of Scotland and the north of England. There have been improvements, such as the Dalkeith bypass and Lane winding in its sheriff hall. It is fair to say that the A720 has remained largely unaltered since its construction in the 1980s. It has not really adapted to either Edinburgh's growing population or its rise in visitor numbers, impacting adversely on the economy of the city and Scotland as a whole. Recent studies imply that the bypass imparts are among the most congested stretches of trunk road anywhere in the UK. The Scottish Government's own figures suggest that that will get worse with an anticipated 20,000 more vehicles using the bypass per day within 20 years. As a result, there have been long-standing calls for major improvements, not least of course at sheriff hall, a place name that sends a shudder down the spine of any commuter into Edinburgh tuning into traffic news first thing in the morning. I hope therefore that when someone up the minister will update the chamber on what progress is being made in moving the planned upgrade at the sheriff hall junction forward from choice of preferred option to an actual timetable for construction and whether there is any option to bring that particular project forward. In doing so, I also hope that the minister will line us as Colin Beattie has requested what improved opportunities there will be for cyclists and indeed pedestrians as a result of the sheriff hall proposals, including whether road segregated cycle routes will be built into approach roads and all six axes of the junction as this is currently unclear. There have also been calls for the use of smart motorway technology, which Jamie Greene mentioned, to allow, for example, the hard shoulder to be used on the bypass at peak times. Again, I hope when someone up maybe the minister will update members on whether there has been any assessment of such a proposal, which would replicate, for example, the use of the smart motorway system on the M42 near Birmingham, both in the base of whether it would actually reduce congestion but also what any safety implications would be if such a scheme were considered. In addition, I know that in the past there have been proposals for an Edinburgh orbital bus route to help to take cars off the bypass. In 2012, feasibility studies were undertaken to ascertain how the route is running from the fourth road bridge to Queen Magg at University via the A720. I will take an intervention from Jamie Greene. I think that the member for taking an intervention makes some very valid points. We would accept that technology is going to play quite a big part of that. The idea that you can in real-time monitor traffic volumes, levels and directions and make instant decisions somewhere centrally to alter that flow could be very useful in Edinburgh. That is why it is important to assess such schemes and look at examples elsewhere in the UK. We of course have to look carefully at any safety implications of, for example, using the hard shoulder during peak times. However, those are options that have to be looked at, because we cannot simply build our way out of congestion. As I said in the past, there have been suggestions of an Edinburgh orbital bus route, and feasibility studies were undertaken. It would be helpful to know what exactly has happened to those particular proposals, because they seem to have been part somewhere since then. That is despite the fact that the increased public transport has to be at the heart of any solution to the current congestion on the bypass. When I travel to Edinburgh, I confess that I do everything that I possibly can to avoid bringing a car. I take the train from Lockerbie. Despite the fact that Lockerbie is only an hour away from Edinburgh on the train and an important commuter route, there is no direct early morning rail service from Lockerbie into Edinburgh. The transport secretary will be pleased or minister pleased to know, for once he is off the hook in that one, because the franchise rests with the UK Government. Maybe Miles Briggs can have a chat with the UK transport minister who handed out that franchise and get it changed. Better still, he could nationalise that particular route as the UK Government has a taste for that particular policy, as we have seen in the east coast's main line. Absolutely, but let us extend that. A key part of tackling congestion on the bypass must be to invest in alternatives to the car, such as a railway system in which passengers and, frankly, not profits are the priority. The border rail link, I have to say, has shown that, when you build railways, passengers will come. Instead of making people drive along the A1 and the A7 to Edinburgh and adding traffic to the bypass, let us extend that rail link to Carlyle through Langham and reach more passengers. Imagine how many cars we could take off at the bypass if, for example, we reopened the pennycook to Edinburgh Waverly rail link or we revived the Edinburgh South Suburban railway. We also need to invest in our bus network and, of course, properly regulate that network. Lothian buses in the city in particular are a good example of what our bus service can do and can be. Let us aim to replicate municipal bus ownership right across Scotland. I have to avoid decisions, such as the recent one from Conservative Front Borders Council to cut funding to the Dumfries to Edinburgh bus service, putting that very service at risk, which would no doubt add more cars to the Edinburgh bypass. Road improvements are badly needed on the bypass. I hope that we will see more than just the proposal at Sheriff's Hall, but we also have to accept that we will not be able to build our way out of congestion. Better buses, trains and improved active travel opportunities also need to be at the heart of any solution. I have been quite liberal, but I do not want to have to continue to debate with emotion without notice if necessary, so I will try to be neater with them with your speeches. Emma Harper, followed by Gordon Lindhurst and Ms Harper, please. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate on improving Edinburgh's city bypass. I thank Miles Briggs for bringing this debate to chamber today. I also remind chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the rural economy and connectivity portfolio. I thank members for their contributions so far this afternoon. I agree with the wording in the motion that good transport links, including the trunk roads, are key to future economic development. Members have mentioned being stuck in traffic. Nabdie wants to be part of congestion or stuck in traffic or delays or part of lengthy tailbacks on any road, especially when we all have places to be, to get to work, to commute and we have business to attend to, or even as visitors or tourists to our country, the region and to our capital city. My previous experience in driving in Los Angeles is a five-lane dump on both sides on the four or five freeway network, but it sometimes took me two and a half hours to drive 18 miles to work. It meant that driving during the rush hour was avoided by me. Sometimes that road was known as a giant car park. On the rush hour lasted many hours. Obviously, I am not suggesting that everybody avoid the rush hour, it was just one way that I was able to achieve a 35-minute commute instead of two and a half hours, so I empathise with people who are stuck in traffic. The motion today is focusing on improving the A720 Edinburgh city's bypass. As an MSP for the South Scotland region, I am frequently on the bypass, depending on which northbound road I use to approach the capital on my way to Parliament. I am often quite familiar with the Sheriff's hall roundabout, although I avoid it. Six entrances and exits are quite challenging to navigate the lanes, and the roundabout is busy, especially at peak times, as the motion mentions. When reading the background from Transport Scotland regarding the Sheriff's hall roundabout improvements, I noted that there has been a consultation on various options starting with eight proposals, which was reduced to three. The agreed option, option B, was to introduce grade separation overpasses and underpasses. The junctions are typically quite space-intensive, complicated and costly, and that might be due to the need for large physical structures such as tunnels, ramps and bridges. The height can be obtrusive, and that, combined with large traffic volumes that grade-separated roads attract, tends to make them unpopular to nearby land owners and residents, hence the need to consult with road users, businesses and residents to ensure that infrastructure proposal is optimal. The proposed grade separation for Sheriff's hall roundabout will consist of two bridges so that bypass traffic is separated from local traffic. From reading the background documents, I note that there are some unique design challenges for this work. The area sits on top of historical mine workings and a geological fault with possible mineral seams, fault zones and mine shafts. Although mining has long ceased in the area, the work that needs to be carried out needs to take into account the ground conditions that are complicated. The border railway, which goes through the South Scotland region, is also very close to the Sheriff's hall roundabout, which is about 300 metres away. In the Scottish Government's programme for government, a commitment was made to review the national transport strategy and strategic transport progress review. That will be an examination of the strategic transport infrastructure interventions that will be required to support the delivery of the national economic strategy. It will continue to deliver a transport network that is fit for the 21st century and future economic development. It is interesting to note that everyone is lobbying the minister, and I am obviously one of them as well. He is quite well aware of the fact that the STPR2 in the South Scotland region is looking at the A75, 76 and 77. We all have infrastructure needs that we are asking for, especially when the roads to Cairnryan and the ferry port near Stranraer, which I warmly welcome the review of the roads in the South Scotland region. In conclusion, I welcome the progress that has been made by the Scottish Government with infrastructure improvement across Scotland. I look forward to hearing the comments from the minister regarding progress on the innovative long-term solutions that will keep traffic moving, especially on the Edinburgh city bypass. I appreciate that members—I want to give later members a fair crack of the whip, so I will require—I have members wishing to speak in today's debate. I am never minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. It is up to 30 minutes. It is not going to be 30 minutes. I ask Miles Briggs if he would move that motion, please. Are you in agreement? No members having disagreed over extending this debate understanding our rule 8.14.3 in a call, Gordon Lindhurst, followed by Neil Findlayne. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am delighted that I now have much longer than the four minutes. I am only joking, of course. The dreaded radio traffic reports are a daily headache for the commuters of Edinburgh and Lothian. Edinburgh city bypass is a standing fixture of those, whether it is congestion at Hermeson gate heading east, a tailback at Dreghorn or Cews at Straiton. Of course, there are lengthy delays at the sheriff's hall roundabout, but a lot of this is almost not newsworthy for those who are familiar with those places. Indeed, one would have to be an uninformed visitor from the moon, perhaps, to be surprised at any of this, sadly. As a Lothian MSP, I am all too familiar with this arterial road and the A720 and how it is crucial to the service of transport links in this area and yet is such a stumbling block for getting anywhere. That has already been referred to by Miles Briggs and other colleagues across the chamber. It is not that surprising because the bypass was built in sections starting in 1980 and completed in 1989. I am not saying that Jamie Greene is old, having been born in 1980 when it started, but, of course, it is ancient in terms of transport and the increase in traffic that we have experienced in Scotland since the 1980s. It is not just the increase in use of cars or transport requirements but also the house building that has taken place. Indeed, there are new houses being built in Frogston, as I speak, and hundreds of new houses. The A720, as it is now, having been constructed at the time that it was, is no longer in a fit state for what is required. The Scottish Government has a number of urgent challenges, first and foremost to deliver the Sheriffhall grade road separation project, which has been referred to. We do not have draft orders published for that yet, but that means even longer queues, more frustration for drivers, for those who have no option but to go through there. We have already heard from Colin Smith about the lack of public transport links even for those who wish to use those. People have to use the A720 and they have to come this way into Edinburgh. Of course, there are other considerations about the Sheriffhall roundabout. There are a number of campaign groups, and I am thinking predominantly of the cycling lobby, who voice concerns about their safety. Of course, cyclists are some of those who are trying to use alternative means of getting to work. I have asked the minister previously, as he will know about this, and I look forward to updating Parliament on how cyclist safety is being incorporated into the favourite option for the Sheriffhall roundabout. There are a few other things that I would like to hear from the minister about. Are there further ideas in the pipeline for increasing capacity to other points in the A720, such as increasing the number of lanes, as has been suggested? Are there any other innovative solutions that might be available in this 21st century? Finally, perhaps, if Scotland is to beat other countries in phasing out petrol and diesel cars, has the minister given thought to how electrical vehicle charging points can be incorporated into road improvement works on or nearby trunk roads, such as the bypass, particularly in circumstances where commuters go on and off those roads at peak times and make that a very lengthy process? Will extra capacity be provided to make that an experience and a possibility? Those are considerations that impact not just on Lothian but the whole of Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, in concluding, the residents of Edinburgh and Lothian want to see improvement to their city bypass. Many of the concerns have been voiced today. I hope that those concerns have been heard and will be taken on board by the Government so that the minister can give us some clues as to how those points will be addressed in the near future. The bypass is, of course, the bane of many people's lives. Tens of thousands of people drive along it each day. Often it becomes one of the biggest traffic jams in the country. That loss of economic productivity, leisure time, family time, the pollution and the frustration and the all-round waste of time that has been stuck on that road is bad for the economy, for the environment, for the health of residents and the well-being and the sanity of drivers. The Lothian area is experienced in significant and has been for some time significant population growth. The demand for goods and services, housing, GP practices and other public services are there for all to see. The roads infrastructure, as it stands, is simply not fit for purpose to serve that growing area. That is the capital city. It is the economic hub of the region and the economic hub for the country. The bypass is an essential link to the south, to markets in the north-east and beyond into the south of England. To the west, to the central belt, Fife and on to the north, a key road for Scotland's economy and for those who work in it and produce the goods and the wealth that we enjoy. We need major investment and a comprehensive approach to tackling what is an absolutely chronic problem. There have been many technical solutions that have been proposed today that have found very interesting and others that have been proposed over the years. However, my appeal to the minister is to make that a national infrastructure priority now. We have had feasibility studies, we have had desktop studies, we have had all sorts of people look at this over the years, but we need action and we need progress. I would rather pull my teeth out with pliers, with no anaesthetic than drive the bypass each day, I have to. I am sure that the minister would volunteer for that. You might be in a queue. However, I have a choice. Many people have no option and have to endure that misery each day. I appeal to the minister to act with real haste in this and help to release my constituents from the misery of the daily commute that many of them have to undertake each day. I thank Miles Briggs for bringing it to the chamber. I thank all the members for their contributions, which have been extremely constructive in their approach. I will try my best to answer a number of the questions in one second. I think that they are worth emphasising one or two points on behalf of the Government, and that is, of course, our investment in major infrastructure since 2007, £20 billion in national infrastructure and transport infrastructure. Of course, the Queensbury crossing being part of that, the MAM73-74 motorway improvements recently, and, of course, the continued investment in Edinburgh Glasgow rail improvement projects. There is a lot of investment going into transport, but clearly the message from everybody around the chamber is that they want to see more of that and to completely understand that. It is worth just touching on a couple of themes and a couple of points that were mentioned. I think that a really good point that was made by Colin Smyth—I just quote him—was that you cannot build your way out of congestion. I think that that is very, very true. Indeed, you have to look at investing in public transport and I will touch upon that in a minute as well. As Jamie Greene and Colin Smyth, and a few others, I think, have said, are looking at technology as well. In November of last year, Transport Scotland published our future intelligent transport systems strategy. That is, of course, looking at how we can use technology in a smarter way, in a smarter motorway. It is absolutely a part of that, and it is very much a part of our thinking. How do we progress ITS and children's transport systems across our infrastructure? We are seeing some of that, of course, across the Queensbury crossing. The ideas that are mentioned here around looking at the A720 are absolutely given undertaking to see how we can look at smart and manage motorways and that technology on the A720 and report back to members on that. A few members mentioned, of course, the south-east-city region deal agreement, the heads of terms, signed. The investment in the sheriff's hall roundabout is worth saying, is not an insignificant investment, it is £120 million for that grade separation, it is quite hefty, but the other part of that that comes alongside that is just worth putting on the record as it is £20 million for improvements to public transport in West Edinburgh. That was again mentioned by a number of people around public transport, so £20 million on top of the £120 million, which has been invested and has been committed, I should say, for that. Let me try to address some of the issues that have been mentioned in relation to the sheriff's hall. If I can, a number of members have asked about cyclists. Indeed, I know that the Deputy Presiding Officer himself has asked me about that, and her position is a backbencher here and as constituency MSP as well. In terms of cyclists, it is fair to say that there was a vocal backlash from the cycling lobby to initial proposals that have been put forward. It was important for the Government, I said this at the time, that we listened to what the cycling lobby, who I have a very good relationship with, we brought them in and listened to them around what their concerns were. We have done that. We have spoken to spokes, to Sustrans, and they are very much part of our conversations and of our engagement. When those final proposals come forward, I would hope that it would be to the satisfaction of those who are cyclists—not just members of spokes and Sustrans but those who cycle perhaps routinely or leisurely as well. We are hearing what cyclists have to say very much about that. In terms of the other theme that was mentioned by a number of members, can you bring forward the construction of that project in particular? We have statutory obligations that we have to go through. People sometimes roll their eyes and say, oh, Jesus, old excuses around statutory obligations and processes and so on. I would say that having challenged my own officials on a number of projects, if we do not go through those statutory processes or if we try to bypass them or shortcut them in any way, we would be susceptible potentially for our legal challenge. That would of course delay the project even further than that. However, I can give an absolute assurance that we will do everything that we can within our power to deliver the scheme as quickly as we possibly can. We expect to publish draft orders in 2019 for a formal comment. Now, because of the size of the scheme, there could be objections and, depending on those objections, there may be a need for a public local inquiry. I do not know, but we will have to wait to see. However, my point is that it is impossible for me to tell you an exact construction date if I do not know if there is going to be a public local inquiry or not. However, what I can do is give you an absolute assurance that there is no need for a delay and there is no intention for a delay. As Nicolle Finlay has requested me and others have requested, it is an infrastructure project of national importance, not just the A720, and I will come on to that in relation to the STPR2. I thought that a number of members have made some good points about reducing the number of cars. I thought that Jamie Greene spoke well that there is not one silver bullet or not one magic solution to this at all. We have to look at improving the A720 and the A4, plus other sections of the bypass, but we can also look at reducing the number of cars. That is something that we are doing in terms of investing in our railways. I think that the points that were made again by other members, such as Colin Smyth and Emma Harper. I think that other members did around buses and public transport. It is hugely important for us to continue to invest in those as well. I think that Gordon Lindhurst made very well around electric vehicles and the uptake of that. I will take away his suggestion on how we can include electric vehicle charging infrastructure on the A720. He knows our commitment for the A9 in that respect. We have to seriously ramp up our infrastructure on electric vehicles if we want to meet that 2032 target, which, of course, we have every intention of doing so, so I will take away that suggestion. On all that being said, and I should have said in relation to some of the suggestions made by Colin Smyth on railways and investing in perhaps future lines, this is a good time to be having that conversation. We are going into control period 6. There is, of course, a pot of funding available there to have discussions around future enhancements. At the point that was made by Miles Briggs on feasibility and widening, there is a lot of work going on at the moment with the Government from a variety of studies, such as the NTS review and, importantly, the strategic transport projects review, which will be the overarching document for infrastructure investment in the future. If he will not mind, I will take away his suggestion on feasibility and I will come back to him. I do not want to duplicate work if there are already a number of studies that are going to be of no point in doing some of that. The message is very clear from him and from every member who has spoken. It is one that I agree with entirely that this is a part of a trunk road network that is of national importance because of its location, because of the economy and, frankly, because of the sanity of people in order to try to commute on their everyday journeys. For our perspective, I will continue to keep Parliament updated and members updated that I have an interest in a lot of work going on. I thank everybody for their very helpful and constructive contributions. Thank you minister. That concludes the debate. Nice to spend this meeting until 2.30.