MSPs WERE yesterday called on to give a commitment to building a new Forth road bridge.

But environmental groups warned the cost would hit £1 billion and said that no decision should be taken until a full feasibility study was carried out.

The Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee heard from a supporter of a second bridge and others urging caution.

Mark Hood, of Lochgelly, Fife, has lodged a petition demanding that a new bridge be built.

He told the committee that in the first year after the bridge opened in 1964 2.3 million northbound journeys were made. By 2003, this figure had risen to 12 million.

He said that journeys had increased by more than 260,000 every year and that it was clear that future demand indicated it would continue to rise.

He said, “The only long-term solution comes in the form of additional capacity and this must come in the form of a new crossing.”

He said that a new bridge should look to get people on to public transport, but said a decision must be made now in order to secure long-term business investment.

He added, “If you were responsible for the location of a new manufacturing plant, given the uncertainty over the current bridge, would you choose Fife or any other location north-east of the Forth estuary?”

He called on the Executive to give a full commitment to a new bridge and produce a road map outlining the development.

However, Chas Booth of Friends of the Earth Scotland told the MSPs that there were many options instead of building a new bridge.

He said, “The cost of a new bridge is likely to be £1 billion to build and it’s not prudent for the Scottish Executive to go down that route at this time.”

He said that the group would support a new bridge as a replacement to the current one if it could not be repaired, but said he thought this was unlikely.

David Spaven of transport group Transform Scotland raised questions over the suggestion that a new bridge would result in an economic boom in the areas directly affected.

He also pointed out that better road links meant that firms could be more inclined to centralise services.

He added, “It makes it easier to service an area from outwith that area. We no longer, for example, have Scottish and Newcastle in Edinburgh.”

The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise and the affected local authorities to seek their views on the matter.