Integrated Transport (Aberdeen Area)
We now come to the substantive part of this morning's business: our consideration of Aberdeen transport issues. The purpose of this evidence-taking session is to better inform us of the specific transport issues affecting Aberdeen and the surrounding areas.
I warmly welcome the representatives of the north-east Scotland transport partnership—NESTRANS. They are Councillor Len Ironside, leader of Aberdeen City Council, Councillor Alison McInnes, chair of the council's infrastructure services committee, Ed Gillespie, chief executive of Scottish Enterprise Grampian and Amanda Harvie, chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for your submission. The evidence that we have received from the Executive has also been circulated to members. In keeping with our traditional practice, I invite our witnesses to make some opening remarks.
Councillor Len Ironside (Aberdeen City Council):
Good morning, and a very warm welcome to Aberdeen at the end of our summer. As you will be aware, transport in the north-east is a highly charged topic. It is widely felt that Governments over the years have failed the north-east by not investing in our transport infrastructure. The topic generates a lot of strong emotions, but today we want to go beyond emotions and focus on the facts about the area's infrastructure and how it affects the local and national economy.
The four partners in NESTRANS share a vision of a modern transport system for the area, and we have developed detailed transport strategies to achieve that, in line with the Government's guidance. We are determined to work together to bring it about. Aberdeen City Council's petition, PE357, which was referred to you by the Public Petitions Committee, also represents a cross-party concern within the council about the level of national investment in transport infrastructure in the city, particularly in our road networks.
For years, the north-east has been making do with a totally inadequate trunk road network. The southern approach to Aberdeen is across the medieval Bridge of Dee. Anderson Drive and the Parkway are interrupted by 16 sets of traffic signals, in sharp contrast to the dual carriageway network south of the Bridge of Dee. Dualling does not extend to the Balmedie-Tipperty section of the A90, despite its dreadful safety record. West towards Inverness, the A96 is also poor. The route is characterised by a railway bridge at Inveramsay, which is signal controlled since it cannot take two large vehicles at once: it must surely be the only single-track section of the trans-European road network. All those points—and the majority of congestion points in the north-east—are on trunk roads. They are a major constraint to the movement of goods and people.
Members of the committee may be aware of the traffic problems that were caused earlier this year by the closure of the small, private bridge over the River Don at Grandholm. The bridge carried about 3,000 vehicles per day, until it was closed by the owners in late December after a survey found it to be unsafe. The impact of 600 additional cars in the peak hour being displaced on to the existing road network was horrific. The congestion that followed was symptomatic of a transport system that is bursting at the seams, and showed the need for a cash injection. The congestion led to a public outcry; 2,500 members of the public attended a meeting at the exhibition centre.
I turn to what we envisage as a modern transport system for the north-east. The two local authorities, the enterprise company and the chamber of commerce have worked together through NESTRANS to develop a transport vision and strategy for the north-east. In many ways, our vision could be seen as a forerunner of what is now being promoted through the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which includes proposals for local transport strategies and regional transport partnerships.
A modern transport system requires to be developed, with a 16-year integrated programme, for the whole of the north-east. We had consultancy support from Oscar Faber and Halcrow Fox and the chosen strategy emerged from detailed testing of the alternatives. The Scottish Executive's recent involvement with NESTRANS is welcomed. The broad support of both the First Minister and the Minister for Transport and Planning, and the final financial backing that we have received for certain elements have marked a major step forward.
Our proposal constitutes a balanced and integrated strategy, which seeks to reverse the decline in use of public transport and to encourage the use of rail, bus, community transport, park-and-ride systems and pedestrian-friendly centres and cycle networks. Those measures must be balanced with the need to provide adequate roads for strategic traffic and to improve access around the city to enable the efficient movement of freight and business traffic, which is crucial to our economy. A western peripheral route, including a new crossing over both the Dee and the Don, forms a key element of the modern transport system. It is a baseline package that is needed to sustain the local economy.
The western peripheral route could operate as a bypass, a strategic route for freight and business traffic, a distributor and a link to park-and-ride sites. It will enable reprioritisation of road space to favour pedestrians and bus users in the city centre. It will remove inappropriate levels of traffic from unsuitable roads, in both urban and rural areas. It is a strategic road, which will help to overcome many of the deficiencies of the existing trunk road network by improving accessibility to and across the city. It will assist the movement of goods to and from markets in the UK and into Europe. We believe that the route should be funded by the Scottish Executive. It is difficult to believe that once such a road was built it would not immediately be trunked, and that should be recognised now in its funding.
Some detractors ask why a road is needed. I ask them to consider Edinburgh without its bypass. Would anyone advocate the closure of that road? Would it be beneficial to have lorries passing along Princes Street or acceptable to have traffic going south through Colinton village? That is the situation that we have in Scotland's third city—Europe's oil capital—with heavy traffic crossing through the city centre because the trunk road network is not fit for purpose and does not serve its strategic role.
We have welcomed the financial support that has been forthcoming from the Scottish Executive towards improving travel choices, in particular the public transport fund for park-and-ride services, both for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. Those are significant improvements, but because of the absence of parallel investment in the road network, the public perceive their implementation as imbalanced and anti-car. What is needed is a clear commitment to the whole strategy and a more balanced programme of implementation.
We now seek a commitment to developing the £247 million modern transport system strategy as a whole. Although that is not a massive amount of money, it is beyond the combined capabilities of local authorities and their partners.
The Executive's approval of Glasgow's £250 million M74 extension was no doubt considered vital to Scotland's future economic development. However, it is equally important—and just as vital to Scotland's economy—to invest in the north-east. This area has led the way in Scotland in developing an integrated transport strategy that is supported by all sides, including the business community and the public. The area has developed partnerships, demonstrated integration and sought to work with the Executive to draw up solutions to trunk road issues. Ironically, the Glasgow decision allocated to a single road scheme almost exactly the same amount of money that would be required to develop the whole of the north-east's modern transport system through a 16-year integrated programme of schemes.
The north-east has made a huge contribution to the wealth of the nation in the past three decades. For example, the area contributes the highest gross domestic product per capita outside London. However, such strength seems to be used as a reason not to invest instead of a reason to recognise and nurture that strength. We recognise the need to diversify from our current strength instead of waiting for decline. If we are to be an attractive and competitive destination for private investment, we must be supported by fair priority for public infrastructure investment.
We believe that we have a good case for the active support of the Scottish Executive to contribute to Scotland's future prosperity. Many north-east companies now serve markets worldwide and could operate elsewhere. We need to anchor those companies in the area as well as attract continued investment, which will require evidence of an improving transport infrastructure. Failure to do so could have a significant negative impact on Scotland's economy.
We have been encouraged by recent support from the First Minister and the Minister for Transport and Planning to work with us in developing our transport agenda and by the Executive's apparent willingness to fund the strategic aspects of our transport proposals. Work is now under way to determine the technical case and relative strategic local split. We appreciate the opportunity to raise those matters with the committee, and will suggest a number of areas where your support would greatly assist us.
First, we must acknowledge the transport problems of Aberdeen and the north-east and the need for them to be addressed in the national economic interest. Secondly, we must recognise the need for upgrading the strategic road network in the north-east and the Executive's responsibility for doing so. Thirdly, we must indicate support for the regional transport strategy as set out in the NESTRANS proposals for the modern transport system and detailed in the councils' local transport strategies. Fourthly, we must encourage the Executive to continue and enhance its national travel awareness campaigns by working closely with regional interests such as NESTRANS. Finally, we must call for significantly increased funding for transport in Scotland to meet the needs of regional transport strategies as demonstrated in Aberdeen and the north-east. We are certainly seeking a larger financial cake for transport in Scotland and a larger slice of that cake for the north-east.
Thank you for hearing our case. My colleagues and I are happy to take any questions that the committee might have.
Thank you, Councillor Ironside. Your case was well argued and supports your previous written submissions. I concur with your point that it is important to Scotland's interests that the north-east's economy remains vital, and recognise the absolute need to improve that vitality, sustain growth and anchor many of the remaining companies in the area. I will not say too much now, because I know that members have a very clear interest in this matter.
On behalf of the other north-east MSPs, I welcome the Transport and the Environment Committee on its first visit to Aberdeen. The committee has shown its commitment to hearing the case by finally meeting in the city after its previous attempts to do so were postponed because of the weather and general elections.
Councillor Ironside has made a very good case for investment in the transport infrastructure in the north-east, and I concur with many of his comments. Do the witnesses agree that partnerships are one of the key things that we have to build to advance the case for further investment in the transport infrastructure in Aberdeen? Do they agree that those partnerships must be not only between the different local authorities and agencies, building on the work of NESTRANS, but with the Scottish Executive?
I know that a civil servant from the Scottish Executive is liaising regularly with NESTRANS and that Aberdeen has now been plugged in to the transport model for Scotland to help to build the strategic case for investment in Aberdeen and the north-east's transport infrastructure.
Do the witnesses agree with my comments? How are partnerships beginning to work out and what benefits are showing?
Amanda Harvie (Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce):
I am very pleased to comment on that from the business perspective. The great strides that we have taken over the past year in building a relationship with the Scottish Executive have been welcomed. We welcome the fact that our partnership has regular meetings with senior officials in the Executive. The study that you mentioned will be important in helping to underpin our case for support and funding from the Scottish Executive for the modern transport system.
Partnership is important, but I would like to give the business community's perspective. I confirm that, although our recent surveys have shown that there is huge support from the business community for the modern transport system, that support is fragile because we have not seen a balanced delivery of our integrated modern transport system strategy. That is a result of the way in which funding is being implemented.
At the moment, businesses feel that there are constraints on the transport system in the north-east. Businesses perceive that the packages that have been put in place so far constrain further the movements of goods and freight. It is critical that the partnership is integrated and that the Executive implements its funding of our initiatives in an integrated way so that we can deliver some of the major schemes that will enable freight and goods to move around the area effectively.
I recognise the needs of businesses in Aberdeen and the north-east, which is one of the most economically vibrant parts of Scotland. Do you agree that all modes of transport are as important as road transport in aiding and supporting business? Do you agree that air, sea and rail links are equally crucial and that we must support all those different modes?
Business needs are obviously important. However, one third of the population of Aberdeen does not have access to car transport. I would be interested to hear how the strategy that is being rolled out will support the needs of those people as well as the needs of car users. I understand that innovative measures for bus transport are being introduced.
Councillor Alison McInnes (Aberdeenshire Council):
I will respond first to your point about partnership. NESTRANS is a unique public-private partnership, which follows on from the success of the north-east of Scotland economic development partnership. The connections go very deep. We have a web of interconnectivity between Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce and Scottish Enterprise Grampian. We take those interconnections seriously; we take them through into other policies.
We have recently jointly produced and formalised a structure plan, which implements the ideas that are in the transport strategy and starts to see them coming through in terms of land use. The partnership is successful and shows that we mean business in trying to deliver.
As Ms Thomson said, we need the extra member of the partnership; we need the Scottish Executive alongside us. Although we welcome the tentative steps that the Executive has taken towards joining us at the table, we really need increased funding. So far, the Executive has given us kind words of support on our approach. We need money to follow that up. We have been held up as an example to the rest of Scotland as a way to work. We have done all the right things; we have produced an integrated transport strategy; we have met and talked; and we have researched what we are asking for. We need the commitment behind that.
As a result of the inherent difficulties that are caused by the fact that we do not have an adequate rail network on which to build, our transport strategy might fairly be perceived as road based, but it is not car based. Our strategy allows us to recognise that 30 per cent of the population does not have access to that form of transport. The western peripheral route will enable us to prioritise road use in the city centre and encourage better use of public transport and more pedestrian access.
As well as our partnerships with NESTRANS and the Scottish Executive, we have partnerships with hospitals, universities and business groups to deliver travel plans. We have a bus quality partnership that has operated since 1998. It has led to the establishment of many of the park-and-ride schemes that you have seen and to real-time transport facilities. There is also a freight quality partnership. We appreciate that the strategy should not simply be car based—that is why we are approaching the £247 million modern transportation strategy as we are. We also appreciate that, unless we can secure funding, we will meet difficulties.
We have had some successes. The Bridge of Don park-and-ride scheme has carried more than 1 million passengers since October 1994 and the new park-and-ride scheme that was opened at Kingswells is attracting around 1,000 passengers a week. That is great news. Such schemes are taking around 800 cars per day off the road.
I welcome the fact that you are approaching the strategy in terms of partnerships and the fact that you are emphasising the importance of having an integrated system.
You said that you are seeking significant central funding. Given the history of the project and the funding mechanisms, what part of the funding do you think is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and what part is the responsibility of the other partners? I am asking that question in the context of issues such as the bypass and the congestion charging, which is not applied anywhere else in the country.
What will be the impact of the western peripheral route on access to and the availability of commercial and industrial land?
As I pointed out earlier, it is unfair to the people in this area to compare our proposals to something like the Glasgow single road network, which was introduced for around £250 million. For slightly less than that, the north-east could introduce the modern transportation strategy. It is unfair to expect people in one part of the country to pay for the kind of scheme that people in another part of the country are not paying for.
It is difficult to attract alternative funding to this area in this atmosphere of underfunding. The balance has to be right before we can find other ways of funding the strategy. The partners would all want to contribute but the sum of money involved is beyond their reach.
The western peripheral route would immediately be trunked, which would mean that congestion charging could not be operated on it anyway. There is an element of unfairness there.
Ed Gillespie (Scottish Enterprise Grampian):
This community has done everything that has been asked of it in relation to partnership. Partnerships here are strong, strategic and integrated. They have worked. We did not reach that position easily, but that is where we are. In relation to partnership, we have done everything that has been asked of us and now it is payback time.
The latest figures that we have are two years out of date, but the current congestion is costing businesses at least £100 million a year. That is based on traffic models: we have studied the time lost and the number of vehicles travelling through the city. It has a significant economic impact on an area that, as Councillor Ironside suggests, develops a large slug of the GDP of Scotland and the United Kingdom. If we had the western peripheral route, it would open up economic development opportunities. There is a desperate shortage of land in this part of the world.
As an economic development agency, we would hope to have a year to a year-and-a-half's supply of developable land in hand, but let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that we have less than three months' worth. The road-based system and the surrounding integrated transport network would make a huge contribution to the on-going need to keep our economy vibrant, as the key industry—oil and gas—goes into decline.
I was the only member of the Transport and the Environment Committee who actually made it here in that blizzard. I got a phone call somewhere between Elgin and Aberdeen to say that the committee meeting had been cancelled, which meant that I had to wait three quarters of an hour at Aberdeen railway station for a train to take me down to Edinburgh, having started the day in Inverness. I am very pleased to be here—and to be in the warm.
I want to ask about traffic flows in and around the city. We have received submissions from people who do not think that the western peripheral road is a good idea. I have to say that my feeling is that people come to Aberdeen—they do not want to bypass it. Perhaps you can tell me otherwise. I wonder whether the congestion is caused by people who are coming into the city, rather than by people who want to go round the city. We were at the harbour this morning where we talked about the need for freight traffic to come into the city and the harbour and how that would be managed.
What is the balance between passenger cars and freight and between private cars and public transport in and around the city? Who is causing the congestion? There are other steps that can be taken—freight can be transferred to rail or sea and people can be encouraged to take a bus rather than a car for short journeys.
You make some valid points. We need links into the city, the harbour and city-based industry. That is part of the modelling that we are doing to substantiate the integrated programme. However, it would be wrong to forget the indigenous key industries that surround the city and are part of the economic environment of the north-east of Scotland. Farming and fishing are good examples, as are oil production facilities outwith the city. Many of the industries in the north-east are increasingly globalising. The tricks that we have learned—the intellectual property that has come out of the hard work that has been done in the North sea—are now being sent to other parts of the globe. It does not all leave from Aberdeen harbour. Much of it comes from the north and has to go through the city to get to the south. That causes congestion. That explains why, as I said, businesses are losing £100 million a year.
There is freight—food and fish—congestion, as the traffic comes from the north on its way down south to supply markets in middle England and London. There is international congestion—containers going to Azerbaijan and other oil centres, produced, engineered and manufactured in Aberdeen. Some of that work is done in the north of the city. People are losing 45 or 50 minutes going through the city, which costs £15 or £20 a tonne. That is significant in cost-constrained world markets.
Maureen Macmillan is right to say that traffic into the city is a problem, but it is also traffic wanting to go round the city. It would be wrong to give the committee the impression that we are proposing a road-based system: we want an integrated transport system that caters for the needs of the city and the important economic hinterland of the city.
Ed Gillespie has mentioned the international connections of our economy and the critical importance of ensuring that we root businesses here and give them a base through which they can serve new, growing and diversifying international markets. That is critical for the future of oil and gas, the whole of the economy here and the contribution that we make to the Scottish economy.
Distance to market is an issue. We must ensure that we have as many strategic international connections as possible, but do not restrict business from moving around the area. The cost to business is real and we are hearing from a growing number of businesses—footloose businesses that had the opportunity to locate elsewhere—that they are seriously concerned about the cost base of being located here.
Transport is therefore a strategic issue not just in and around Aberdeen, but for the wider area and for the whole Scottish economy. We do not want the income generators of the future, which will power the Scottish economy and build on oil and gas and other successes, to feel that they must move elsewhere—out of this region and out of Scotland—because of the cost of distance to market and local constraints. That is a critical issue.
I want to comment on whether £247 million is a fair share for the area. Taking into account the £180 billion spend for England over 10 years, some rough calculations show that £247 million is much less than half of an equitable rate of spend and that aspiring to a £1 billion spend here over 15 years would be realistic and proportionate. We regard the £247 million as a baseline and have aspirations to do more. As a basic minimum—if we are to root our businesses here and ensure the strength of the economy for the future—we must be able to demonstrate that the funding to deliver the strategy is in place.
A lot of members wish to ask questions. After inviting Councillor McInnes to speak, I will move on to another member.
I would like to bring an Aberdeenshire perspective to Maureen Macmillan's question.
Not all the transport is moving into the city and staying there. There is definitely a significant movement, particularly of freight, around the city. Transport would like to go around the city, but at the moment it must go right through it. There is congestion all day. If you travel on the trunk routes within the city, you will notice that freight transport is the main cause of the congestion. That is an unfair disadvantage for our businesses—particularly those in Peterhead, in the north-east, where the largest fish ports are. A great volume of traffic moves from there and has to funnel through the city.
Although people will want to access transport nodes within the city—the railway, the airport and the harbour—a lot of traffic has no real need to be within the city and could go round it. I stress that the western peripheral route is not only to be a bypass—it is to be a distributor road and to serve all the park-and-rides. The map that we have presented shows that we intend to arrange park-and-rides strategically, all around the city. That will encourage more sustainable transport for those who want to come into the city.
I hope that that answers some of your concerns.
Len Ironside said that successive Governments have failed to invest in transport infrastructure in the north-east, which is simply not fit for its purpose. The make-up of the team before us is indicative of the partnership approach that is taken by everybody in the north-east. Ed Gillespie said, "We have done everything that has been asked of us."
Do you believe that it is time to put up—that it is now time for action—and that the Transport and the Environment Committee should resist the temptation just to utter warm words on the subject? Do you agree that the committee has a real opportunity and that it should progress the issue in the Scottish Parliament by producing a report that backs the petition—which is from everybody in the north-east, it would seem—and calls for a full debate in the Parliament? That would raise support for the transport infrastructure project from across Scotland, not just from the north-east. That is one of the committee's options.
Another option—which is a dangerous temptation for the committee—is not to comment on a specific funding project. After you have given evidence, the committee will decide on that. Does the team feel that it is now time to put up and that the committee should produce a report for the Parliament?
Thanks for your steer, Mr Rumbles. Who wants to take that one?
That was not exactly subtle.
"Yes" is our one-word answer—please.
I urge the committee to recognise that this is a strategic issue for Scotland, not a little local problem.
I think that you will have heard that view from my prerecords for the media this morning, even before you gave evidence. You have made a good case and we have taken an interest in the matter. We will take on board the points that Mike Rumbles and others have made about how we should develop the matter. My goodness, who is next? I invite Bristow Muldoon to speak.
I congratulate all the partners on their presentation and on much of the literature that they have given us today and in advance of the meeting. The way in which you are trying to gain support for the transport initiatives that you have developed is a model for people in other areas who are pressing for additional investment.
I endorse the comments made by the convener and others. The committee recognises the broader strategic importance of ensuring that all our cities continue to develop economically. We recognise the success that Aberdeen has enjoyed and the need for the city to diversify for the future. That is taken as read.
I will return to some funding issues. The case for funding is well made, but you must be aware that the Executive and the Parliament receive many funding demands, many of which are supported by well-made cases. I want to tease out from you the extent to which the Executive and the Parliament must support the overall £247 million package. I note that a contribution of £70 million will be made from existing budgets.
From Brian Adam's comments, I note that no other city in Britain has congestion charges. However, as you know, several cities are investigating the idea, including Edinburgh, which will adopt charges shortly. I also note that people who have been surveyed have shown some support for the investigation of such charges. I know that they are not part of your present proposals, but what work has been done on such an approach and the contribution that it could make to the overall funding package?
We say that the success of our area and its contribution to the economy should be recognised. If you take that on board, you must invest in success and not let the situation deteriorate. Aberdeen's traffic problems are not comparable with those in Edinburgh or Glasgow. For example, we have a medieval bridge that vehicles must cross to reach the city. In this day and age, that is nonsense. An articulated vehicle cannot use it: it must go round and make all sorts of turns.
The partners involved are prepared to put money into the initiatives. We have already put much money into them and the Scottish Executive has recognised the case and put money towards the transport strategy, but a huge amount that goes beyond the means of the partners is required. We are prepared to consider any other funding that we can obtain, but it is difficult to do that in an atmosphere of total underfunding from the start. The Scottish Executive does not appear to back the proposed schemes, and we want to win it over.
We must repeat that the base case for us is that we need £247 million to take us where we need to be. After that, we can become aspirational about where we might be in the future. As Councillor Ironside said, people should consider Edinburgh without its bypass or Glasgow without its appropriate road system. Would either city then consider charging for what it had as distinct from what it did not have? The baseline is £247 million—an easy number to remember. Send the cheque to any of the four partners and we will get on with it.
The benefit to members of being on a committee is that, although we try our best, we do not have control of a cheque book.
I take the point, convener. My key point is that the partners are willing to look to the future in a more aspirational way and to be more creative. We start from a position that is way behind the eight ball, if I may use an Americanism.
Bristow Muldoon mentioned the constraints on the Scottish Executive's budget. We would like more money to be prioritised strategically and spent on transport in Scotland. Top of the list should be investment in the north-east because of the substantial contribution that it makes to the economy of Scotland. Our GDP is far greater than the average in Scotland and, in relation to UK per capita figures, we are second only to the south-east of England. That demonstrates how critical it is for the Scottish economy that the economy of the north-east is able to grow.
Businesses in the north-east are aware of transport developments that are taking place outwith the UK in Europe. They compare Aberdeen with cities of a comparable size in which developments are taking place. For example, many European cities are developing light rail systems that have been constructed, no doubt, with government funding. Such systems seem to be attractive to the travelling public and make those destinations business friendly. We have an international economy and our footloose businesses are looking elsewhere because we do not compare well with other areas.
It is very important that we prioritise budget investment in this area. The M74 was, strategically, of critical importance to Scotland. We now need to look at our main economic generator. The north-east, which is the economic engine of Scotland, must be next.
As a point of interest, we are discussing with the minister how she decides her spending priorities. We have taken evidence from her on the budget process and she is to come back to us in order to allow us to examine more closely how she allocates resources in relation to priorities versus spend.
I will add to the response to Bristow Muldoon's question. Although we do not have detailed figures on the financial aspects with us, we could provide them by the end of the meeting. Those figures have been submitted to the Scottish Executive and show the various levels of funding and the balance that must be found elsewhere.
The other question that I wanted to ask was on an issue that I believe Councillor Ironside referred to in his introduction. Could you elaborate on the degree of success that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have had in relation to the public transport fund and whether the projects that have been successful are part of the £247 million plan?
We have addressed that issue and are working on a revised bid to the PTF for local rail services between Aberdeen, Stonehaven and Inverurie. Progress on that bid has been delayed by the problems with the rail industry, but we are taking it seriously because it is an important factor in the transportation strategy.
That bid must fit in with another part of the service that must be improved: the Aberdeen-Inverness line. A detailed study into the costs and benefits of an improved local rail service is being undertaken, so we should also have facts and figures on that line.
Aberdeenshire has also been successful with PTF bids. We have opened Scotland's first inter-urban park-and-ride scheme, in Ellon, which is about 20 miles outside Aberdeen. The use of that facility is beginning to grow.
All the investment that we are making in the north-east reflects the local transport strategy which, in turn, reflects our aspirations for a modern transport system. All our work builds towards that strategy. When we submit bids, we try to reflect where we are trying to go. The issue for us is the imbalance—we are being successful with some of our projects, but they are based on public transport and we must recognise that Government spending cuts across the board. We want the Government to support an entire modern transport system, not just one side of such a system.
Councillor McInnes started to make the point that I wanted to make. The committee should address the issue of challenge funding. It is hard for us to deliver our project in an integrated way if we have to apply for piecemeal funding for individual projects and if there is no overall commitment to the big capital projects that will deliver that integration. It is also hard to demonstrate locally that we have an integrated strategy—there is a transport imbalance in the north-east.
I echo Elaine Thomson's comments and welcome the committee to Aberdeen. The meeting is a case of third time lucky. I congratulate the witnesses on their presentation. Many local regional MSPs have seen the partnership working during the past couple of years. It is successful and the witnesses put their case across well. More and more people have contacted local regional MSPs about transport in north-east Scotland. People from businesses and members of the public find spending an hour trying to get across a relatively small city to get to work extremely frustrating. The issue is increasingly important and it is of public concern.
I emphasise the importance of the wider regional issue of agricultural and fishing traffic that passes through Aberdeen. For example, fish must be transported from Peterhead and Fraserburgh to the market south of the border on time and while it is fresh. That is an important business issue.
There is a feeling of injustice in the region. The oil and gas industry—which is the reason for the region's economic success—is a primary reason for the congestion. To generate wealth, the region makes the sacrifice of having a transport system that is cracking at the seams.
My question is about population growth in the region. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the population has grown, particularly in Aberdeenshire. What are the implications of the population changes in Grampian during the past 10 or 20 years for the subject that we are discussing today? I think that the transport infrastructure has not increased at the same rate as the population, which is one reason why the problems are so difficult.
The population of the north-east is around 500,000 and increasing—people come for the quality of life and the jobs that are created here. That is spoiled by the fact that the transport infrastructure is difficult. The success of the area means that we not only need a transport system that is the same as that anywhere else, but one that is better. The location demands that.
We continue to invest in success locally. We hope that that success will be encouraged nationally and that more people and jobs will come to the area. We must address the difficulties of the transportation structure, which are a barrier or inhibitor to people coming to, and investing in, the area.
I am thinking about money and the issues that Richard Lochhead rightly raised. From a hard-nosed point of view, we are behind. We have made that case adequately. We sit before the committee as a partnership and we are discussing matters in an integrated, strategic way. We want to move from being behind to being ahead. We contribute significantly to the gross national product and we need some help.
At one level, the witnesses are right to talk about an integrated policy, which is critical if we want to bring every issue into play, but real politics is about spending priorities. It is not clear from their evidence what their priorities are in the different aspects of the strategy. Will they set out those priorities a bit more clearly?
I want to hear from the councils, given that they have a statutory responsibility for managing, maintaining and upgrading the transport infrastructure. What has the pattern of their expenditure been relative to other priorities in the past five years? Have they put their money where their mouths are and what is the evidence for that? What have their priorities been within that?
Will the witnesses give some comparative information on traffic flows? They said that there is a lot of congestion in Aberdeen. I have no doubt that they could show us lots of traffic jams, but I could show them a lot of traffic jams in west central Scotland. Is there objective information that shows relative congestion and where the pinchpoints are? How is that information fed into the witnesses' priorities?
In the past two years, we have completed a number of traffic flow study models. They are available to the committee—that is not a problem—and answer its questions on traffic flow in detail. In addition, as Scottish Executive funding has supported us, we have started to model from a strategic point of view, using the national model. That work is on-going.
There is historical data funded by the partners and national data, upon which work funded by the Executive is being done. I should be happy to deliver to the committee information that deals in detail with the question that was asked. That would be better than covering the issue at this meeting.
I have a copy of the document on priorities that we sent to the committee. Option 1 is maintenance of the status quo, which the partnership does not think is the way forward. The document then sets out the priorities for what needs to happen. If the committee wants to consider the 10 priorities in detail, I am sure that the partners will be happy to provide the committee with information later.
I looked at the documents and the related local transport strategy, but found difficulty in identifying where the priorities lie. The different elements of road, rail or other strategic funding projects must be put into a clear, priority order for us.
Ed Gillespie made the point that we cannot discuss that as we do not have enough time; however, further correspondence on the issue would be useful.
We can give a list of short-term, medium-term and long-term projects to the committee.
Do we put our money where our mouth is? Wherever possible, we certainly do. All significant congestion problems are on the trunk roads, but we cannot fund improvements to deal with such problems.
Each element of our integrated strategy has a time line, but it is hard to progress major infrastructure projects unless we know that we have funding commitments to deliver them. We can supply information to the committee on how and when projects will be delivered—the critical path, if you like. To meet a critical path for an integrated strategy requires integrated funding—we put that issue before the committee.
Clear information on the outcome and particular benefit of a specific investment will be increasingly important in validating bids for transport funding. Information that clearly identifies the outcomes that can be expected from a specific investment would strengthen your case for projects relative to those in other parts of the country.
The then First Minister made funding available to us to start the modelling process. We got on with that work immediately. It is not complete, but it soon will be. We can give the committee information on that.
I have a point on strategy and mindsets. In Scotland, we must aim to deliver an exemplary 21st century transport infrastructure across the board to make all Scotland globally competitive. We must prioritise in the area in question because of our international connections and the fragile balance in respect of the future growth of our economy.
Transportation consistently polls as the top issue that affects businesses throughout north-east Scotland. The issue is on the radar screen and we must address it. We must get into a mindset that aims for exemplary status for Scotland and for the north-east in particular.
We talk about investment in this part of the world not just for the sake of local jobs. Such investment affects the whole UK economy. A large number of jobs in the central belt and the north of England depend on the oil and gas sector and on people who come to work offshore, for example. Investment is crucial and transport is the biggest issue for us.
The modern transport strategy that we have outlined, at £247 million, is a well-researched and well thought-through project. We have already carried out two studies—the Oscar Faber study, which was undertaken jointly with the Scottish Executive, and the Halcrow Fox study. There is some sound research behind the project and, as Ed Gillespie has pointed out, we are continuing to progress the technical case. Perhaps we could forward that information to you.
We are pressed for time. I ask the witnesses to take Nora Radcliffe's and John Scott's questions together.
I say at the outset that you have an unassailable case. I have argued that there has been under-investment in the north-east for years. Having said that, I shall play devil's advocate and give you the chance to address a couple of the criticisms of the western peripheral route.
The first is the concern about the loss of green belt within the line of the route. The second is the argument that building roads generates traffic. To counter that argument, can you talk a little about the displacement of heavy traffic on to inadequate country roads that is currently taking place? Near the city, traffic is being directed across Kingswells and, slightly further out, through Netherley, across the Milltimber bridge and through Culter, on totally unsuitable country roads.
Can you expand on how the modern transport system will promote better travel options for the hinterland that feeds into and supports the city?
I also think that you have made the case well for this project, and I welcome the intentions behind it. There is, to use Nora Radcliffe's word, an unassailable case for the development of business in the area. My question was going to be about the loss of green belt, too. What consideration have you given to that?
Who will lead on that issue?
There are many issues there. I advise Alison McInnes to comment on them first, and I shall add my comments afterwards.
Our structure plan identifies the line of the western peripheral route as a way forward; however, it does not regard it as an excuse to free up all the land around that route. We have striven hard to develop sustainable communities throughout the north-east. The structure plan relates to the city of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and we have tried to encourage industrial development in all our communities in the north-east rather than focus purely on the city. As a long-term way of tackling congestion problems, there will be some loss of green-belt land as the new road is built. That issue will have to be tackled as we go through the planning process. The case will be given adequate consideration as the plan undergoes a public inquiry.
Everybody wants to comment, as those two questions raise many issues; therefore, I shall comment only on the point that Nora Radcliffe made about the displacement of heavy traffic on to inadequate country roads. That is what is happening. Some committee members live in areas where the use of rail is an option; however, we do not have a rail infrastructure in our hinterland. I invite you to take a look at the rail map when you leave today's meeting—you will see what I mean. We do not have a fallback position.
It is because freight traffic has to use those completely inadequate back roads that we need a western peripheral road around Aberdeen. We also need it to enable strategic development, to attract further investment to the area. I would argue that the concept of green belt being destroyed is simply not on the cards; we are talking about strategic development for the whole region, which will attract investment to the area. A road is an important part of that, and we cannot constrain the future development of the area and of the whole of the Scottish economy because of concern about the building of that road. The approach to it will be strategic; its development will be prioritised and strategic; and the sort of business that we have in the area is hi-tech, rather than heavy industry.
I have a quick comment to make on the green-belt issue. What we have been trying to project this morning is an integrated, strategic plan. That means that we will have to adhere to all the democratic constraints when we consider the land that we would consume for the road. This is not a one-off plan for a road; it is a strategic integrated plan.
When we get the road—and note my positive language; I might be on a Zimmer by the time I can drive round it, but I am confident that I will get the road some day—it will be a release for city traffic and will give people other options, such as cycling or walking, which are just not safe at the moment. We have to be strategic and we have to integrate our plans. The plan is formulated and nothing will be done unless it is done on the basis of community plans and the appropriate democratic processes.
We consulted widely on our modern transport strategy last year. We had a good response. Perhaps surprisingly, 75 per cent of those who responded approved of the construction plans for the western peripheral route in particular. It is unusual to gain such support for a road scheme. That underlines the fact that the people of the north-east understand the strategic significance of the route and do not regard it as just another road.
Among businesses, support was 85 per cent. Aberdeen and Grampian is an area that wants to grow; it does not want to be constrained and to decline. We have to invest in infrastructure, otherwise the success scenario will not be delivered. We are in a position of resurrection economics, and 85 per cent of businesses acknowledge that we need improved infrastructure. I repeat, 85 per cent of businesses support the western peripheral road.
Colleagues, clearly we will receive new information on the matter. Detailed questions will arise out of our discussions this morning, and we will get detailed responses from Ed Gillespie and others to the questions that we have put to them. We will have to assimilate that information and study the Official Report of this meeting. I suggest that we await that further information. Callum Thomson will get that information to members, after which we can discuss the matter further. I understand that people want instant answers, but I would rather reflect at leisure than repent at leisure. Do members agree that we should not discuss our options on the petition just now, but await further information?
Members indicated agreement.
Mike Rumbles wants to comment. Will it be as subtle as your previous juggernaut on a single-track road?
Would you ask the clerks to give notice to non-members of the committee of when the committee will discuss its options, so that we can attend?
Certainly.
I would like to thank the witnesses very much. There has been passion, logic, sense and good submissions and discussions—although subtlety sometimes went amiss. The witnesses were quite correct to represent the views of their communities so strongly. I have certainly enjoyed this session.