Petition
Transport Infrastructure (Aberdeen) (PE357)
Item 7 is consideration of petition PE357, on investment in transport infrastructure in Aberdeen and the Aberdeenshire areas, which was submitted by Aberdeen City Council. I noted earlier that a number of the members who are present represent constituencies in the area or close to it. They are here because they are interested in the item. In addition to the members whom I welcomed earlier, I welcome Alex Johnstone MSP to the meeting. I note that Brian Adam MSP was also present in anticipation of the item that we are about to consider. I suspect that other commitments mean that he is no longer with us.
Before I invite the minister to make his introductory remarks about PE357, I appeal to members to steer away from speeches and stick to questions when they are given an opportunity to participate. I know that several members who have a direct interest in the area might want to make statements, but I am sure that there will be an opportunity to do so on another occasion. I ask members to be as brief as possible.
I ask the minister for his response to PE357 and his update on Aberdeen transport issues.
Thank you. I will take the convener's general admonition as an encouragement to be as focused as possible. However, it is important to give a sense of where the Executive stands in relation to PE357 and the modern transport system that is proposed by the north-east Scotland transport partnership. I want to indicate where that fits into our national transport priorities.
We acknowledge that, in a number of ways, NESTRANS has given a lead to Scotland. NESTRANS is a voluntary, regional partnership with its origins in the economic development agenda. It began life as the north-east Scotland economic development partnership. It has demonstrated in a practical way the link between economic development and transport, which we discussed under the previous item. The Executive has endorsed at national level the approach that NESTRANS has taken. The involvement of the business community, first in NESEDP and then in NESTRANS, is relevant. That has informed the strategy that the partnership has developed.
The development by partners in the north-east—local authorities and their partners in the business community—of a modern transport strategy has, in some respects, put the region ahead of the game in a national context. The strategy now stands to be examined according to national criteria, but I strongly suspect that the work that local partners have done will assist in carrying out the further assessment that we need to do.
It is fair to say that considerable progress has been made in taking the strategy forward over the months since the committee first considered the petition. On 19 March, Wendy Alexander and I visited Aberdeen to meet NESTRANS representatives and to see the Kingswells park-and-ride facility, which is part of the modern transport strategy. The meeting with NESTRANS was extremely productive and has been followed by a number of meetings between officials. There will be further meetings in the coming months.
Immediate action as a result of the meeting in March included our agreement to provide further matched funding to NESTRANS to help it to develop its strategy. The sum approaches £600,000 and matches the collective contributions of Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. In addition, we have provided a further £600,000 to Aberdeen City Council to enable it to take forward its urban realm proposals. The Executive has also developed a free-standing Aberdeen sub-area transport model in order to apply the mechanisms that were in use in central Scotland to the particular circumstances in the north-east. Wendy Alexander invited NESTRANS to proceed with modelling traffic movements in and around Aberdeen, including the impact of the western peripheral route, by using the model that we have provided. It is precisely because of the work that NESTRANS had done that it was possible for us to ask local partners to continue the work, instead of having to begin at the beginning, as has been the case with the corridor studies in the central belt, for example.
We expect NESTRANS to produce appraisal outputs under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance towards the end of the year. That information will inform further discussions on the western peripheral route and other aspects of the modern transport strategy.
During that week, Wendy Alexander launched the transport delivery report, which identifies transport initiatives that have already been taken or have been committed to and sets out our key objectives for the period ahead. For the first time, as we discussed at some length earlier, we identified tackling urban and inter-urban congestion as the key objective and we identified a number of priorities that we would have to undertake to address our priorities. One of those top 10 priorities was fixing Aberdeen's congestion problems. Again, I believe that that recognition owes a great deal to the work that had been done by NESTRANS and to the constructive approach that it had taken, working in partnership with the Scottish Executive, to achieve shared objectives and present the evidence—with which I am, of course, very familiar—of the link between transport pressures and economic pressures and opportunities in the north-east.
On the issues raised in the petition, we recognise that transport is a major issue for business across Scotland and that transport issues in and around Aberdeen not only affect the city and the north-east region but have an impact on Scotland's economic competitiveness. The petition requests that we acknowledge that that is the case and I assure the committee that we do. That is why tackling Aberdeen's congestion is one of our top priorities.
Before a decision can be made on progressing the western peripheral route, it is essential that we determine the character of traffic in and around the city. That is why the development of the Aberdeen traffic model, to which I referred, is important. It will provide NESTRANS and the Executive with the data that we require.
We are investing in public transport throughout Scotland through the public transport fund, the integrated transport fund and other measures. As part of that, bus priority measures and park-and-ride scheme provision in the north-east have been allocated around £17 million. Investment in those aspects of the modern transport strategy has taken place or is programmed for the near future. The funds are targeted at tackling congestion and promoting modal shift, as we have discussed. Clearly, NESTRANS and its local authority components are entitled to make further proposals for funding through the public transport fund.
Previously we discussed the freight facilities grant. That included an award to BP, which has an impact on the delivery of air fuel to Dyce. That is a good example of the kind of thing that we are doing directly, as well as through the public transport fund and other measures. Both city and shire councils receive dedicated funding for cycling, walking and safer streets projects, to spend at their discretion.
We support travel awareness and have continued to invest in that. The 2002 travel awareness campaign is under way. All councils have been invited to participate actively in that campaign, through TravelWise and the regional transport partnerships, such as NESTRANS.
We have already spoken about our overall investment in transport, and I do not want to go back over that. The transport delivery report, in addition to identifying Aberdeen's congestion as a key national priority, identifies other priorities that will have an impact on traffic and transport issues in the north-east. I have mentioned the proposals for redevelopment of Waverley station, which will have an impact on the east coast main line. As The Press and Journal said yesterday, the decision to seek a 15-year franchise for ScotRail services is good news for Aberdeen as well as for other major centres in Scotland. That is why we identified it as a priority.
I mentioned briefly Aberdeen crossrail as one of the four projects in the Scottish railway system that have suffered delay as a result of Railtrack's being put into administration. We are working hard with others to advance the project. Aberdeen crossrail will be a significant public transport feature of our modern transport system. I am pleased to report that, with the support of the Strategic Rail Authority, we are now making progress on freeing up that project from the delays that it has suffered. We hope to have level 4 costings for Aberdeen crossrail by the autumn. That will allow us to move to the new stage of the project.
We are making real progress nationally—as we discussed earlier—and, in that context, we are making real progress in the north-east and will continue to do so. The transport delivery report indicates the route map for the priorities that we have set and the direction in which we need to move to meet them.
I am happy to discuss aspects of the report with members.
A number of members—Elaine Thomson, Mike Rumbles, Richard Lochhead, Nora Radcliffe, David Davidson and Des McNulty—have indicated that they would like to ask questions. I propose first to take questions from members of the committee. I will then take questions from the members who are attending because they have a local interest in the issues that we are discussing. Nora Radcliffe also has a local interest in those issues, so we will hear her question first.
I will be fairly brief and brutal. The north-east is up with and, in some ways, ahead of the game as regards the current priorities of the Scottish Executive. The transport delivery report indicates that in the 1960s the priority was to create an infrastructure. However, unlike other parts of the country, which benefited from new bypasses and so on, the north and north-east missed out on that objective. There is a clear feeling in the north-east that we are owed from long ago. Does the Executive recognise that that is the case? We are convinced that the missing link that we seek will stack up against the national criteria and appraisal outputs. At some stage we are going to need in the order of £300 million for the road that we feel that we are owed. Are we going to get it?
Have you brought your chequebook, minister?
That was certainly very direct and absolutely fair. Comparing the priorities that we have set out in the transport delivery report with the situation in the 1960s, Nora Radcliffe is right to highlight the fact that 40 years ago, the Government identified the need for effective links between our major centres, but it was not until the 1990s that Aberdeen, in particular, had the benefit of that.
The partial benefit.
In setting out our vision for the next 15 or 20 years, we have begun with the recognition that Aberdeen is part of the agenda. In other words, we have not said that there is an issue of urban and inter-urban congestion and that we will get round to places other than Glasgow and Edinburgh in due course. We have started by saying that Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in particular—although not exclusively—are the urban centres that face the greatest potential traffic growth and therefore that is where the problems must be addressed first. Nora Radcliffe should take some reassurance from that.
The key question is whether the proposals that are introduced to achieve that end stack up and will gain support. We have made it clear in working with NESTRANS, as the body responsible for making proposals, that we will consider all proposals on a level playing field. Many of the things that we have done in the past year are designed to ensure that that level playing field is in place.
I mentioned the extension of what used to be the central Scotland traffic model to become the traffic model for Scotland. That will have a specific Aberdeen sub-area model that will allow the measurement of the character and volume of traffic on a level playing field with other urban centres in Scotland. Similarly, the Strategic Rail Authority used to cover only central Scotland but has now been extended to cover the line from Perth-Dundee-Aberdeen. We have sought to ensure that any unevenness in the playing field is levelled out. That is the basis on which judgments shall be made. We would expect NESTRANS to come forward with an appraisal in the course of the year and on that basis we will sit down and discuss how to carry it forward.
I repeat my appeal to members to make questions and replies as short as possible.
NESTRANS has set a model. Getting the business and political communities to agree on a broad approach and take a longer-term view is highly commendable. I am pleased that we have received the additional information that we asked for when we were in Aberdeen. I have no problem with the vast bulk of the issues that the committee is asked to pick up on or endorse.
There are three questions that we need to ask about the current proposal. First, is the solution the best one? NESTRANS has made its case, but that needs to be subjected to scrutiny. Secondly, would the proposal pay? Last week, Matthew Farrow said that we must consider the net present value of schemes. The schemes that have huge net present values of hundreds of millions of pounds under the criteria used by the roads review are the ones that should come to the top of the queue. On the basis of the evidence that the committee has received, I have no idea—although I am sure that you must, minister—about how the proposal stacks up against other projects in terms of net present value and economic development. Thirdly, will the proposal deliver congestion reduction, which you have said is your key objective? I venture to suggest that the experience in Edinburgh shows that building a motorway ring road does not reduce congestion.
There is a question whether the solution, although it might be good economically, will deliver a reduction in congestion. I believe that the minister should ask his technical experts that question. If he gets the right answer, the solution should be supported, but we must ask questions and ensure that the answers are correct, both in comparative and in absolute terms.
I agree with the thrust of what you say, which is that we must assess proposals that come before us as objectively as we can. That is precisely why, in response to Nora Radcliffe, I identified the ways in which we have sought to ensure a level playing field.
The application of the Scottish transport appraisal guidance to the proposed western peripheral route at Aberdeen is designed to identify its net present value and the economic case for it. A case has been made for the peripheral route, but it has not yet been subjected to detailed scrutiny. That will happen at the next stage. The proposal will be acted on only after it has been measured and has shown its worth.
You asked whether building a ring road solves congestion. That is a fair question but, to be equally fair, NESTRANS has not suggested that building a ring road will alone solve congestion. That is why NESTRANS has produced a comprehensive strategy that encompasses roads and public transport elements. The Executive has sought to respond to both those elements of the proposals. Evidence from throughout Britain and the world indicates that building another road does not, on its own, solve congestion; it simply encourages further traffic growth. Well-targeted road building is only part of the solution; it should not stand alone.
Robin Harper and John Scott have indicated that they want to ask questions. I will give the members who indicated earlier a chance first and will then tag Robin and John on the end.
I must leave soon. I want only one point to be clarified.
I will allow one quick point.
Will the modal study identify clearly and effectively an alternative to building a road if there is a better way of solving the specific traffic problems that have been identified, or will we have to make further progress on that?
The study will examine the range of options that NESTRANS has put on the table, which include some options that are entirely about roads, some that are not about roads at all and everything in-between. NESTRANS's favoured options are those that are in-between, but the study will also consider options that exclude some modes.
The minister has talked a lot about congestion. The people of Aberdeen welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment that existing and projected congestion in Aberdeen will be tackled and the fact that further funding has been given to the development of the modern transport system in the urban realm. However, the minister will recognise that there is a lot of frustration with the slow progress that has been made in improving the infrastructure in the north-east. Does the minister believe that sufficiently rapid progress is being made in developing the modern transport system? Will the transport needs of the north-east form part of the discussions in this summer's spending review?
I will put all my questions together because I know that we are busy. As has been mentioned, the modern transport system is based on a fully integrated transport strategy, an important part of which is that we should not simply build roads to allow for more cars. What importance does the Executive place on the future development of park-and-ride schemes? We already have a successful park-and-ride scheme at the Bridge of Don, which is an area of acute frustration with congestion on roads and bridges. Another scheme has been developed at Kingswells, but we have run into a hiccup with the development of a third scheme near Stoneywood on the A96. What importance do you place on such schemes?
Considerable importance. I mentioned our frustration at the lack of progress on the Aberdeen crossrail proposals, which has been due to circumstances beyond our control. We are anxious to make progress on those proposals, and there are now signs of progress—that is very important.
You will be familiar with the time scale for the western peripheral route proposal. We anticipate that, if it goes ahead, the major spend will be some way down the track. However, we are subjecting the proposal to the kind of scrutiny that has been described. The speed with which that scrutiny will take place is a matter for NESTRANS. As I said in my opening remarks, we made a deliberate decision that, because NESTRANS had shown its initiative and competence in developing the proposal, we would leave it to NESTRANS to subject the proposal to scrutiny using the tools that we provided. It is, therefore, for NESTRANS to do that on whatever time scale it is able to achieve. We expect NESTRANS to undertake the scrutiny as quickly as it can—I am sure that it takes the same view—while protecting the integrity of the process. There is no point in hurrying the matter only to find that the project does not stand up to scrutiny. That would not be acceptable to ministers or the Parliament.
On John Scott's question, on local authority roads, I am not in a position to prejudge the content of the spending review. Suffice it to say that, now that we have set our priorities, each of those priorities will be reflected in our approach to the spending review process.
Your final question, on park-and-ride schemes, is an important one. The debate on transport in Aberdeen and the north-east has been plagued by a false dichotomy between provision of the western peripheral route, on the one hand, and provision of good quality, effective public transport alternatives, on the other. There is no such choice to be made. NESTRANS's strategy is to consider those two things together. I return to the point that was made about the Edinburgh bypass. Anyone who believes that simply building a road will solve the problem of congestion has paid little attention to the evidence in other cities.
When Wendy Alexander visited the park-and-ride facilities at Kingswells, she was immediately struck by the quality of provision—not just the fact that there were regular fast buses to take people into the city, but the fact that they were high-quality buses leaving from a high-quality waiting area. If we and NESTRANS are serious about encouraging commuters and business travellers to use public transport, we must ensure that the public transport that is provided is of a sufficiently high quality and is reliable enough to be an effective alternative to the car. That is an important part of the overall strategy for the north-east, and we support that. We do not view park-and-ride schemes in any way as an alternative to better use of the road network, but as one of the ways in which we can ensure better use of the road network.
There is some good mood music—if I can put it that way—coming from you today, minister, which is good to hear. However, I have two brief points to raise. You mentioned the fact that rail is essential to the whole NESTRANS project. We are not talking just about the western bypass.
First, let us focus on the rail link from Inverurie, in the north, to Stonehaven, in the south. It would be a missed opportunity if we did not reopen Laurencekirk railway station, in the south. It is within a 30-mile radius of Aberdeen and would add to the plans.
Secondly, I have received a letter from Peter Cockhead, the co-ordinator of NESTRANS. He says:
"there is still no agreement by the Scottish Executive to the projects or their funding."
In answer to my question in Parliament last month, you said that you expected to make a decision within 12 months. Today is 1 May 2002. Will we have a decision by 1 May 2003?
I recognise the fact that May day is a significant date every year, no less so next year than any other year, for reasons of which we are all aware.
We have provided some funding for the Aberdeen crossrail project. The Executive invested £500,000 in the initial developmental work at Aberdeen, Stonehaven and Inverurie stations, and at the initial stage of the proposals for the project as a whole. Earlier, I indicated that we expect this autumn to receive level 4 costings from the study. Those costings will form the basis for further discussions on the scope of the project, how it should be developed and how it should be funded. As I said in answer to Elaine Thomson's question, the spending review will be under way shortly. I expect that to address a range of issues that are relevant to the discussions to which I have referred. However, I do not want to anticipate what may be contained in the spending review.
If the member envisages the reopening of Laurencekirk station as part of the Aberdeen crossrail project, he should probably knock first on the door of NESTRANS. The Aberdeen crossrail project is geared specifically towards creating a commuter service, with trains running back and forth between Stonehaven and Inverurie, carrying commuters in and out of Aberdeen. The member may find that there are different views on how far that line should be extended. For every argument for Laurencekirk, there is an argument for Insch. We all know how important it is to get decisions of this sort right. At this stage, Laurencekirk is an issue more for NESTRANS than for the Executive.
Once level 4 costings are achieved and if they stack up—I return to the point that Des McNulty made about the importance of scrutiny and of the economic case for a project being certain—the Aberdeen crossrail project can be developed.
Thank you, convener, for putting up with the cross-party north-east region once again.
I will cut to the chase. A few days ago, the minister published a written answer to a question from me, in which he stated that the average spend per capita on transport improvements in the north-east of Scotland between 1999 and March 2004 will be £75 per head, compared with a national average of £130 per head. That puts the north-east not just bottom, but clearly bottom of the league. There is clear blue water between the region that is last in the league—the north-east—and the region that is second last.
What sort of message does the minister think those figures send out to the north-east of Scotland in the context of this debate? Does the minister agree that they strengthen the case for more transport improvements in the north-east?
My second question, which follows on from what Mike Rumbles said, concerns the time scale for a decision. Will the minister indicate when he will tell Parliament whether the main component of the plan—the western peripheral route—will proceed? I will allow him a three-month margin of error. Many people in the north-east are concerned that, if the minister's answer is negative, it will be held back until after May 2003. They also fear that, if the answer is positive, the good news will be held back until a month or two before the election.
I cannot imagine from where Richard Lochhead obtains such a cynical view of these matters.
The point that the member made about per capita transport spending in the north-east is a fair one. However, it is also fair to point out that the answer to which Richard Lochhead referred indicated that per capita transport spending in Scotland varies widely. At the other end of the range, the northern isles attracted three times the national average figure for transport spending and the Highlands and Islands twice the national average.
We should not read into the figures more than they contain. When determining our transport and budgetary priorities, we examine the evidence and provide funding for the projects and services that we identify as priorities. That means that each project is dealt with on its merits and that, as much as possible, we assess projects according to common criteria. The judgment that we reach on the proposal for a western peripheral route for Aberdeen will be based on the rigorous scrutiny process that we have described, involving a Scottish transport appraisal and the application of guidance on the same basis as it is applied elsewhere. The process will involve the use by NESTRANS of the Aberdeen sub-area traffic model that we have developed with it to enable it to reach conclusions.
One of the underlying features of spend on transport in the north-east over the period described is the fact that NESTRANS has developed a strategy that looks towards long-term expenditure. In that respect, NESTRANS is leading other parts of the country. While it is perfectly possible to highlight shortfalls in short-term expenditure, the real issue is how we address transport priorities and demands across the country and across a longer period of time.
It has been said that one snapshot might show the northern isles with an expenditure that is several times greater than that of the north-east. However, a different snapshot of a different project might show a completely opposite picture. Our job is to balance the competing demands. We have to measure them in an objective way that will stand up to scrutiny. We have to ensure that where we invest is where we will get the best return in terms of improvement to the transport system and in the economic benefits that those improvements will bring.
I assure the minister that, following our discussions about Laurencekirk, I went to NESTRANS with the proposal.
In your earlier evidence on the budget process, you spoke about the economic threat to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. While we may talk about people using public transport as an alternative mode of transport to access employment, the fact is that the north-east economy runs on wheels. We are talking about road use by heavy lorries and so on. Traffic constriction in Aberdeen is affecting economic development north of Aberdeen and towards the Moray coast. If the western peripheral route project meets the Scottish transport appraisal guidelines and the NPVs work out okay, will the Executive fund the route from the public purse, as it has done in the case of other peripheral routes, or will road and congestion charges be inflicted on the north-east?
We will not inflict anything on the north-east. The Executive and NESTRANS will consider the evidence. I imagine that we will then hold fairly full discussions around the conclusions that are reached in the evidence. Last year, a commitment was given that the basis for decision making would reflect the same decision-making process that took place with the M74 in Glasgow. The M74 was developed by a partnership of the Scottish Executive and the local authorities in the area. I suspect that a similar approach will be adopted when we progress the Aberdeen proposals, should they stand up to scrutiny and should the NPVs add up.
At this stage, the Executive is not making any presumptions about the outcomes. It is clear, however, that we have encouraged the work to be developed. We can see that the proposals have a substantial momentum and weight of evidence behind them. However, we will not presume or prejudge the outcome, the discussions that will follow or the views of the various partners.
In the case of the M74, the partners judged that funding should reflect the split between the potential strategic and local traffic flows. We do not know, and I do not wish to prejudge, the split in the case of Aberdeen. The first stage is a necessary preliminary stage. Once we have the information and evidence in front of us, the partners would have to hold further discussion about how each of the aspects of the overall picture should be addressed.
Clearly, it is inevitable that there will be further discussion among local partners as to how local aspects should be addressed. That is a matter for local partners. The Executive will not have a lead in those discussions.
This is a minor point related to Des McNulty's points about the idea of reducing congestion effectively in Aberdeen. The University of Aberdeen has proposed that a system of tunnels might do that. Have you any comment on that?
I shall refine your point a little. The proposal came from a professor of geology, who may well be interested in what lies underneath Aberdeen, and a professor of engineering, who may see opportunities in an innovative approach. I jest, although I do not scoff at the general principle.
In addressing the congestion problems of Aberdeen or any other city, it is entirely right that people should make a range of proposals. In the modern transport strategy, NESTRANS has produced a range of options. The appraisal to which NESTRANS is currently subjecting those options will give us a clear steer as to which the best options are and which are most likely to be productive. My guess is that a tunnel from the Dee to the Don is unlikely to feature at the end of that process. However, far be it from me to preclude anything that NESTRANS may consider worth its attention.
We will take a final question from Alex Johnstone.
I, too, am interested in the written answer that you gave to Richard Lochhead's recent question. I am sure that the minister will join me in expressing gratitude to Richard for not suggesting that, in an independent Scotland, every region would receive above average expenditure.
Last night, the Finance Bill was voted on at Westminster. Once again, a disproportionate level of taxation will fall on the north-east of Scotland—specifically on Aberdeen and the industries that are located there. Given the fact that the Grampian region appears to have significantly the lowest per capita spend on transport in Scotland, there is some injustice in that. Is the minister concerned that, by failing to address that issue—and we all know that it is a question not just of congestion, but of economic activity—ultimately, we may strangle the goose that is laying the golden eggs?
Far from failing to address the issue, the process in which the Executive has been engaged with transport partners in north-east Scotland recognises the need to produce a coherent, effective strategy that will address the transport needs of Aberdeen. The snapshot to which you refer is a specific period of time and does not include, for example, probably the single largest capital project in the north-east—the Fochabers-Mosstodloch bypass, which lies just beyond March 2004. One or two major projects can change completely the way the picture appears.
The Executive is committed to investing in the transport infrastructure to improve our economic competitiveness. I refute entirely your suggestion that we are failing to do that. On the contrary, we are seeking to implement the strategic approach that we have discussed and make those investments in a way that produces the best return to the regional economies and to the Scottish and UK economies. Aberdeen's economic performance clearly has an impact on the wider economy as well as on the regional economy.
That brings us to the end of members' questions. Thank you for your attendance and the evidence that you have given, minister. I also thank Karen Watson, Jonathan Pryce and Keith Main for their attendance and, in his absence, David Reid.
Let us turn to the way in which we should deal with the petition. As we have reached the end of a very long meeting, I propose that we do not enter into a debate on the issue now, but that we schedule a discussion on our response to the petition for our next two meetings. The clerks can draft a series of options for us and members can reflect on the evidence that we have heard today.
As there is cross-party interest in the issue in the north-east, I would appreciate a copy of the clerks' list of options and notification of when discussion of the petition might appear on the agenda, so that I can attend the committee. I am sure that other members would appreciate that, too.
I am sure that that will be possible, if not essential, given the obvious interest in the matter that has been expressed by all the political representatives of the north-east.
At the end of the document that NESTRANS gave us, there are six bullet points indicating the way in which NESTRANS would like the matter to be dealt with. We should perhaps consider how we might address those six bullet points.
Okay. Are we agreed on that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you all for your attendance. I am thankful that the committee is not so big every week.
Meeting closed at 13:34.