Official Report 366KB pdf
Our second item of business is our inquiry into the potential benefits of high-speed rail services, on which we will hear from several panels.
I will kick off. Such a network would have several benefits. Our members view an effective transport infrastructure in Scotland and the wider United Kingdom as an essential part of doing business. We certainly view high-speed rail as a key step forward for the future. The rail service network is operating at or near its capacity. Unless we do something to improve that capacity, we will end up with a railway system that was designed in the 19th century remaining the major form of public transport in the 21st century.
I agree with everything that Garry Clark said. In addition, the symbolism of a high-speed rail network would be important for retaining Scotland's international competitiveness and ensuring that it is properly perceived as fully connected to the European single market and the great cities elsewhere in Europe. There is a real opportunity to send a powerful message about that.
We represent 2,300 businesses across all sectors and consider the project to be a real opportunity. The committee has heard about the immense congestion that has a huge impact on our connectivity. Scotland is on the periphery of Europe, and it is important that we have access to the important European markets. In financial services—as I am sure Owen Kelly can tell the committee in detail—it is critical that there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between the two centres of Edinburgh and London. From a tourism point of view, our major markets in the south of England find it increasingly difficult to access Scotland as the networks become more congested. Coming by road is now almost impossible for many people because of the congestion.
Even though we envisage that the network would come only to the central belt, there would also be benefits for other parts of Scotland. We would have to improve the other modes of transport, including the existing rail services, to connect to the high-speed network, but that in itself would benefit the rest of Scotland in the ways that have been described. The network is therefore a project for the whole of Scotland. It would shorten the distance between us and our major competitors and other places that we want to get to. All the benefits have been covered.
To a large extent, the case for high-speed rail is being framed in climate change terms—getting traffic out of the skies and on to the rails. However, if it is regarded as an alternative to aviation instead of an addition, is there really such a substantial business benefit?
I do not consider high-speed rail services to be an alternative; I consider them to be an addition. However, they would bring enormous benefits in tackling climate change in a host of ways. They would provide an opportunity to travel from, say, Glasgow to Manchester by rail rather than by car. From a business point of view, there is a benefit from having that uninterrupted time.
The key is complementarity. I do not think that any of us sees it as an either/or situation. We want to increase the people of Scotland's choices when travelling around the country and further afield. Given the capacity constraints on various modes that have been mentioned, we want increased connectivity across all modes. We started by considering any extra capacity that a high-speed rail line would provide, rather than any trade-offs.
So from the point of view of the panel, reducing aviation is not part of the picture.
It is part of the picture. In our airports we have slots. For example, 58 per cent of all flights at Glasgow are to and from Heathrow. Those slots could easily be used for long haul, which is of increasing importance to Scottish business. Although it is not an either/or, aviation is critical.
Does the panel envisage any financial costs or other negative impacts from the development of a new high-speed rail line?
No. The project would create a huge number of jobs and new business opportunities. The WS Atkins report showed a 2:1 benefit from a £31 billion spend, which could be described as a bit of a no-brainer. Everyone else in Europe benefits from high-speed rail. I lived in France and saw the TGV's enormous contribution to not just social and cultural life but business. That is what we want, and we have been denied it up until now, particularly here in Scotland.
Do any other panel members see any negative impacts or disbenefits from the development of a high-speed rail service?
Do you mean separately from the capital costs? Obviously, it would cost a considerable sum of money.
I mean the cost to business, or any physical or economic impacts that might not be wholly positive.
I am happy to accept no as an answer.
There is a letter in The Herald today from the chambers of commerce and others, supporting the third runway at Heathrow. It has been stated that the CO2 produced between Heathrow and Brussels—to use a distance that is roughly the same as the distance between Scotland and London—is 160kg per passenger by air, compared with 18kg for a return journey by rail. What priority does the business sector place on a high-speed rail network? You said that it would be complementary. Does it have more priority than a third runway at Heathrow?
Our priority is to have a strong and effective transport infrastructure in the UK that will help to drive our competitiveness internationally. We see high-speed rail and aviation playing a full part in that picture. Flights between Inverness and Heathrow have been cancelled, so we would want capacity at Heathrow to be expanded to benefit the north of Scotland. Inverness and Aberdeen are obvious examples of cities that will probably continue to have a significant need for air travel to London. Flights from there would utilise Heathrow, and there would be less reliance on the domestic air routes between Heathrow and Glasgow and Edinburgh in the central belt. We would look to the high-speed rail network to maintain connectivity with our existing transport infrastructure, whether that be rail or road.
I agree. Ron Hewitt's point is crucial. If the journey time between Edinburgh or Glasgow and London was sub-3 hours, you would be mad to fly—no one would do it. Aviation now involves extended journey times because of security and so on and it is hard to envisage those journey times diminishing any time soon. Sub-3 hours—as far below 3 hours as we can get—would make it a straightforward choice for many people, and that would free up routes. I am one of the signatories to the letter in The Herald, and the point is this one about complementarity.
The importance of the runway at Heathrow is that it would enable a lot of visitors to arrive from destinations worldwide, many of whom, we hope, would be in transit to Scotland's tourism industry. We need all that complementarity.
There are many supplementary arguments about climate change. Is business changing its behaviour in relation to the amount of travel that is done and whether travel is absolutely necessary? It is difficult to get a straight answer from you. You say that yes, you want to have more options, with a high-speed railway too, but you still want to have as much of the infrastructure for air. In a climate change era, that is not possible. Are you changing your travel habits?
My straight answer to that is yes. However, that in itself will not make the scale of change that is required. Business will still be done and globalisation will still happen. For Scotland to compete internationally, we need to be sure that we can carry out business in that environment. You asked whether companies are changing their behaviour. The companies that I deal with certainly are, but I doubt whether that can ever be enough of a step change to counteract the more sizeable factor of globalisation.
Perhaps with banks becoming public sector bodies we might have more power over changing their functions.
The various studies that are being carried out could sensibly consider whether there is a business case for that. You would have to consider the travel times and whether they would make enough of a difference to cause a shift. Everything that I have read suggests that the main route will be to the central belt. Regardless of whether the high-speed line goes further north, the existing rail and road infrastructure should allow people north of the central belt to link in with the route, so that they can get the benefits of it. It is important that the high-speed line shrinks distance, that we use it as a catalyst to improve intra-Scotland connectivity, too, and that we see what benefits there are. If analysis is done of the demand for the route to go further north and a business case is made for that, we would not be against it. It is just that the analysis that we have seen tends to show that the central belt is as far as the line could sensibly go.
Is that because—
We will have to move on. I call Alex Johnstone.
How do you envisage the structure of high-speed rail in Scotland? Will it prioritise the east coast or the west coast, or will both be prioritised in the long term?
We would envisage high-speed rail initially linking up the key population centres and city regions in the United Kingdom. That would mean linking Glasgow with Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and London. The exact routing, planning considerations and so on are arguments for down the line, but we would want to link up those major cities as an initial spine through the UK.
So you see it as a single high-speed line that links London to both Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Yes.
Yes.
That would be our priority, for the obvious reason that London's financial services are of global importance.
In France and other European countries, high-speed rail initially developed on single routes because of the economics. In France, the first route was Paris to Lyon and the system then developed around that. I presume that similar economics would apply in the UK. The choice is not really whether the line should run to Glasgow or Edinburgh; it is how the line should run from London to the midlands and the north of England. Given that the initial phase of any plan will focus on getting the crucial part of the line into London and its first destination, how should Scotland position itself?
It is clear that the part of the line that goes into London will be the crucial part of the route, but it might also be the most difficult because of planning considerations and so on. It will be important to learn the lessons of the channel tunnel rail link. From a Scottish perspective, we have argued that a sensible approach would be to build the line like a bridge and start at both ends. The initial step north of the border would be to link Glasgow and Edinburgh and the initial step south of the border would be to link London and Birmingham. The crucial spine of high-speed rail within the United Kingdom would then be developed.
In economic terms, does that mean that there would be two projects? Would we have a Scotland-end project and a London-end project? How would that work in financial terms? What would be the respective responsibilities of the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government in that context?
We state in our submission that, although the Scottish Government will fund the project, if it is to get the required equity, it must be regarded as a UK project. We might want to start building multiple sections rather than just starting in Scotland and London, because that would help to get the project built as quickly as possible. It would not be acceptable for Scotland just to wait until it arrives. We want Scotland to get the benefits as early as possible.
I see heads nodding.
On the connectivity between Glasgow and Edinburgh, a great deal of work has been done to encourage collaboration between the two cities. They are only a short distance apart, but the journey takes a ridiculously long time. The real way in which to connect them is to shrink the distance. That would give us a mega-region that could compete globally and attract real investment to Scotland. It is a vital part of the process.
At present, we have three train links between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and when the line via Bathgate is reopened soon, we will have four. Your view is that we should build a fifth line for a high-speed rail link. Do you comprehend that even a very high-speed train would find it difficult to achieve a journey time to London of less than three hours if it called at both Glasgow and Edinburgh on the way?
No. The work that was done on a maglev—magnetic levitation—system showed that the journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh would shrink to 17 minutes and the total journey time to London would be two and a half hours. I am not suggesting that we must have a maglev system—the traditional TGV would do me perfectly well—but I do not think that the journey time would be more than about two and a half hours.
That will bear further investigation, but I seriously hae ma doots that the train could call at Glasgow and Edinburgh and still get to London in less than three hours.
First, such projects take some time to deliver, which is why the link is very much in the equation now. The truth is that none of the projects is mutually exclusive. If a project offers a 2:1 cost benefit ratio, it is a great investment anyway.
The high-speed rail network is a pretty high priority for us. You rightly make the point, "Are you not just asking for more and more?" In one sense, we are not asking for anything; we are offering a business view. However, if we are serious about competing internationally, the rail project is the kind of thing that we will have to do—one only has to look at the situation in many of our competitor locations to see what is required.
I am looking for a hard-nosed business view. There are two alternatives: a third runway at Heathrow or a high-speed rail link between Scotland and London. The question is simple: which is the higher priority?
Your reluctance to embrace the private finance initiative is significant. If we really embraced PFI, we could do all those projects.
I will come on to how we fund the rail project shortly. I wanted to know what your priority is. I will move on, convener.
You were about to get an answer.
Was I indeed? I hope that it was going to be a straight one.
You always get a straight answer from the SFE. This cannot be seen as a matter of either/or. In respect of overall infrastructure investment across the UK, it is probably wrong to see those two transport projects as either/or options; we see them as being complementary.
Perhaps politicians are more hard nosed than business people.
It seems strange that we are sitting here with very few major projects on the go because we have decided not to use PFI. Many different types of public-private partnership project could be used and it is time that we got on with dealing with such major infrastructure projects, which can only be delivered by some form of PPP.
Parliament will debate the Scottish Futures Trust later this week. Do any other witnesses have a view on the matter?
We would expect investment in a project of this nature to be led by the public sector with a significant contribution from the private sector. Private sector funding has gone into projects around the country, such as the Glasgow airport rail link and the Heathrow express. There are potential opportunities for businesses.
Other than the cost, what other barriers to the development of a high-speed rail network exist?
One of the first issues that we must tackle is planning. We must get engagement—we are trying to do that here and I think that people are doing the same in England—and ensure that the benefits for all communities, throughout the country, are properly explained. We want to get through the planning system as efficiently as possible, without upsetting too many people—if that is possible in this day and age. Planning is a big problem, especially in the conurbations.
Can we get the project through the planning system faster than a third runway at Heathrow?
The recent changes to planning law in Scotland give us some hope. I hope that the project would get the public's vote, because of the huge economic benefit that it would provide.
There have been changes to the way in which major infrastructure projects are dealt with both here and in England. The project could be designated as a national project, if it secures the backing of the appropriate Parliaments. We have wanted to see that approach for some time. Once the project is included in the national planning framework and the equivalent structure in England, it can be fast tracked. The appropriate checks and balances should be in place, but the new arrangements should help projects such as this. If projects are delayed, the cost goes up.
The project may get through Parliament faster than the third runway at Heathrow.
I return to the issue of funding. Do you agree that if the £2 billion that we have paid over the odds for many hospital and school projects had been available for public investment in transport, we could have started the project by now?
It is for you to know whether that is the case—I do not. I am not sure which projects you are referring to.
I am talking about PFI projects.
Many public buildings would not be in place if it were not for public-private partnerships. There may be some negatives, but there are a lot of positives.
The issue is, what can Government afford within a sensible timescale, and which partners are appropriate if we are serious about delivering projects within that timescale? In times such as these, big infrastructure projects have a role to play in getting the economy on to the straight and narrow; the public sector should take the lead on such projects. Private sector and other partners will see the benefits that should come from them and will align themselves with Government's objectives. The national planning framework is about aligning objectives so that all of us get the benefits as quickly as possible.
You seemed to suggest that the project's cost benefit ratio was better for Scotland than for the UK as a whole. Can you quantify the difference more clearly?
Atkins's report on high-speed rail identified the economic benefits to Scotland as being in the region of £7.3 billion, against a total construction cost of about £31 billion and a total economic benefit of more than £60 billion. That is the answer to your question in money terms. The figure is made up of time saved, increased productivity and so on.
I do not want to fall into the trap of sounding as though we want everything. The key issue for me is international competitiveness. You gave a list of different projects in Scotland. If your starting point is that by maintaining and enhancing our international competitiveness we can grow the economy and generate further revenues for Government and so on—if you buy into that vision and idea of economic growth—we would favour the high-speed rail link and the Forth bridge ahead of other projects.
I have sat in front of many of these committees over the years and have heard similar questions from Des McNulty about our priorities for big transport projects. The answer is always that we want them all. In the STPR and the national planning framework there was no ranking for projects, but we would like to see something like that. Analysis can be done if projects are considered against economic, environmental and other, social objectives, so that we can try to give them a ranking, and the Scottish transport appraisal guidance is useful in that. There are ways of enabling everyone to have an input—as they had in, say, the STPR—to get a communal ranking, so that it is not just our opinion against others' opinion. That is the best approach, but it is difficult because we do not conduct the analysis on a day-to-day basis.
We need to move on to other questions.
What changes would need to be made to the current Scottish rail network to maximise the business benefits of any high-speed rail network?
Iain Duff made the point that if we are considering a high-speed rail network that, at the Scottish end, links Edinburgh and Glasgow through the central belt, we need to ensure that the rest of Scotland can benefit from the increased capacity as quickly and easily as possible. That means establishing links to Inverness and Aberdeen, at the very least, and ensuring that the Scottish rail network is connected to the high-speed rail network, just as the high-speed rail network should be connected to our air and road infrastructure. In that context, we have also considered whether we should have some kind of linkage somewhere in the middle of Scotland, round about Stirling—
Or Falkirk.
—or Falkirk, to facilitate easy connection to Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee.
In that regard, it is a pity that we lost the link between Edinburgh and the airport, which would have allowed us to complete the link to Aberdeen. There was a great misunderstanding over that. The project was really nothing to do with Edinburgh. The real benefit would have been enjoyed by people much further north than Edinburgh. It is a pity that the opportunity of that link was removed.
Ron Hewitt suggested that the high-speed route could run from Glasgow through to Edinburgh, which is still a possibility. Failing that, if one of those two great cities were to become the terminus, the Edinburgh to Glasgow link would become the number 1 priority for Scotland's rail infrastructure.
I made the point about routes to the north, but the existing east coast and west coast main lines should not be neglected, because they connect to cities and would provide an alternative for people who did not want to use the high-speed line or could not use it for whatever reason. The lines should be on the agenda and should not be regarded as secondary to the high-speed line.
You are suggesting that the high-speed line would be priced at a premium rate.
It ought to be fairly affordable, but we would expect a price differential. However, it would be interesting to see the pricing structure if the line is to compete with low-cost airlines.
The witnesses have made it clear that they think that a high-speed rail link between London and Scotland would be valuable to the Scottish economy. I agree, but from the Government and politicians' perspective there is more to be gained than just the benefit to the economy. Two major benefits are the opportunity to increase modal shift, which you mentioned, and the significant environmental benefit of reducing air travel. You are considering the benefit to the economy overall, but do you accept that the need for a significant environmental impact will be a major part of the Government's decision making?
The forthcoming Scottish climate change bill will contain significant and challenging targets, as the committee has heard. The modal shift that a high-speed line would encourage would help us to meet those challenges. I think that everyone is aware of the challenges that we face—business is certainly aware of them. Everyone must play a part in achieving climate change targets, by changing how they travel and do business. We need to encourage existing modes of transport to be more environmentally friendly, as well as provide more environmentally friendly alternatives. People will see environmental and economic benefits—the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In addition to the economic benefits, the environmental benefits are a fairly major plank of the argument for a high-speed line.
Business takes environmental issues very seriously. We must be careful to avoid giving black balls to particular sectors. Aviation is mistreated in some respects, because an immense amount of technological development is going on, on route planning, engines and fuel. The intention of everyone who operates in the sector is to bring about dramatic improvement, for everyone's benefit. We must remember that businesspeople live in this environment too and want exactly the same things as everyone else wants.
When the witnesses were asked straightforwardly to choose between a third runway at Heathrow airport and high-speed rail links to Scotland, most of you were careful not to suggest that one project was more important than the other. You said that you wanted good connectivity to be the transport priority. However, the environmental commitments that Governments north and south of the border are about to enter into are such that the issue is not so simple. It might come down to a choice between investing in high-speed rail to bring environmental benefits and going ahead with the third runway at Heathrow. Do you accept that Government's priorities are different from those of the business community and that Government might be thinking in terms of an either/or approach, even if you are not doing so?
I hope that its thinking is not so obviously different, as I think that we share those priorities for both environmental and economic reasons.
It is a while since I have heard such optimistic projections for the development of new aircraft technology. Perhaps the business community will support an amendment to the climate change bill to outlaw the existing fleet over a set timescale. That might be helpful.
We may have touched on this already, but the next question is on the possibility of early development of a Scottish leg of the high-speed rail network to link Glasgow and Edinburgh with the current east coast or west coast main lines. We have heard a number of views on that, but I take it from the answer that was given a few moments ago that people favour a brand-new high-speed rail line up the middle of the UK to Scotland's central belt. Are the existing east coast and west coast main lines incapable of adaptation to a high-speed line?
We certainly believe that a new, dedicated line is the solution to high-speed rail in the UK. Such a line would have two benefits, in that it would not only create a dedicated high-speed line linking Scotland to the south-east of England and onwards to Europe but free up capacity on the existing east coast and west coast main lines to allow for increased commuter services and better connectivity between the stations on those lines. Depending on design, a dedicated high-speed line could potentially act as a relief for those lines during engineering works. However, as has been pointed out, the line needs to be commenced both in Scotland and south of the border. That is absolutely what we are after. We see Scotland not as the end of the line for high-speed rail but as very much an integral part of a high-speed rail system within the United Kingdom.
Do panel members have any views on whether the stations for any high-speed rail network should be located in city centres or on so-called parkway stations on city peripheries?
We have certainly looked at the possibilities. Given the desire for multimodal connectivity, we would like to try to ensure that, in so far as possible, any high-speed rail network linked in with the United Kingdom's air transport network and road network.
If, as we discussed earlier, short-haul flights are to be replaced by high-speed ground transport—we have not touched on this yet, but we need not dwell on it too much—we will need to deal with the ancillary connections around London. If people are taking the train and then the plane, they will not want to travel to Kings Cross only to have to schlep out to Heathrow on the underground. There must be connections that make such transfers work if we are to realise the benefits.
As I am sure the panel appreciates, those answers turn the traditional advantages of rail on their head. Most of our major rail termini are in city centres, but most of our airports are, by definition, out of town. Any facility that is located out of town tends to generate more car trips. Might there be potential downsides?
I was not suggesting that you should move away from the notion of city centre to city centre travel for any high-speed link. For the sort of businesses that I deal with, such connections are probably still a priority. However, I agree with the point that was made about how different modes of travel interconnect.
Is there perhaps a slight tension between the views of Mr Clark and Mr Kelly? If the main rail termini are to remain in city centres, but we also want to call at airports, we will hardly have left the city centre and built up high speed before we have to stop at the local airport. That will make the sub-three-hour journey quite challenging.
We will have to consider the siting of railway stations carefully. What was appropriate for the siting of main railway stations in the 19th century may or may not be appropriate in the 21st century.
The answers seem to reflect different interests within the different business communities that are represented here.
We will certainly have the opportunity to explore the issues with future witnesses.
The Scottish and UK construction industries would benefit from the development and construction of a high-speed rail network. However, questions arise to do with expertise and manpower capacity to undertake such a development. If the capacity does not exist, what needs to be done to ensure that a workforce is available?
We have some real skills here in Scotland. Unfortunately, they are not always used, and if we are not careful they could disappear. Many project management skills are required for a project such as the present tram works, and some pretty clever people are involved in that work and are building up their skills.
But developers and major industries are already saying that skills in engineering and planning are in short supply. We might have really good plans, but we might not have the companies and the workforce to implement them. How can we deal with that problem, which we know exists right now?
The answer, of course, is to have a booming economy in which we can afford to employ apprentices and not lay them off because construction has come to a standstill.
That is a key point. We can go back to the national planning framework and consider some of the big projects that we want. In their submissions, all the witnesses have spoken about the crisis in skills, especially on the construction and engineering side. We require a good stream of big infrastructure projects to put certainty into the construction industry and give people who are choosing their career the certainty that a good career is here for them in Scotland.
Last week, we heard from the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and representatives of the water industry that the way in which that industry's processes have been organised, with expenditure of £400 million to £500 million each year over a four-year period and significant advance planning, has delivered major efficiencies in outcomes. I had heard that before. Should we be thinking about such an approach in the transport sector? Is there an equivalent approach? Rather than proceeding on a project-by-project basis and having long lead-in times, is there a better way of managing transport investment? Can we look at the pipeline of delivery in a different way, perhaps along the lines that delivery in the water industry has evolved?
There would certainly be merit in such an approach. For our civil engineering sector members, there is lumpiness and uncertainty about whether projects will go ahead, how they will be delivered and timescales. I return to what I said earlier: there should be a good flow, certainty and a plan. The national planning framework should prioritise projects so that they are properly mapped out in a plan that everyone can buy into and which allows everybody to know, by and large, when and where projects will be delivered. The whole industry could then align itself with that plan to provide the required resources. We have suffered in Scotland and perhaps in the UK as a whole through proceeding on a project-by-project basis with no bigger strategy. However, I think that we are moving towards a bigger strategy, and there are STPR, national planning framework and infrastructure plan documents that can add to that.
I am a non-executive director of Scottish Water Business Stream, so I have a little understanding of Scottish Water. Scottish Water's recent success is due to two things: the right people are now involved in the industry, and the right investment is being made in it.
Such modesty.
I have a final question for the members of the panel, although it is on a subject on which they may not have formed a view yet. If a political decision is made to back the development of a high-speed rail network, which body should be responsible for progressing that project? Should it be the Scottish and UK Governments, Network Rail or a body that is specifically set up for that purpose?
As you rightly predicted, we have not yet given much thought to that. However, if we could address the project as a transformational, visionary project, I think that the UK and Scottish Governments would have to progress it.
I endorse that view.
Absolutely.
Government leadership is important.
It is nice to end with clear answers.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome members back to hear our second panel of witnesses for our inquiry into the potential benefits of high-speed rail services. I welcome Anthony Hughes, who is Glasgow City Council's transport policy and planning manager; Chris Day, who is from the transport section of city development at the City of Edinburgh Council; Ron Culley, who is Strathclyde partnership for transport's chief executive; and Trond Haugen, who is a rail specialist at the south east of Scotland transport partnership.
I suspect that the benefits have been well rehearsed; we were sitting in the public gallery and heard the earlier witnesses. The economic benefits would be substantial, as would be the environmental benefits.
In the SEStran regional transport partnership strategy, we mention the importance of the city region. In order to strengthen the city region and derive maximum economic benefit, there must be exceptionally strong connectivity between Edinburgh and Glasgow and with external areas. In particular, we cannot continue to depend on air travel. High-speed rail transport is an important issue with regard to connections between Edinburgh and Glasgow and between those cities and the rest of the world.
As has already been said, we are, geographically, on the edge of Europe, and we do not want to make the problem of our peripherality any worse. Central Europe is connecting itself rapidly via a high-speed rail network, and I am sure that, if a high-speed network in Britain stops short of Scotland, we will miss out. That is a huge consideration.
I agree with what has been said. However, I add that the capacity of the existing lines between London and Scotland is gradually running out, regardless of the substantial work that has been done on the west coast main line, and it might run out entirely in 10 to 20 years. We must address that issue. One of the ways of overcoming the problem would be to provide high-speed rail to cater for the long-distance market.
That project sounds like it might cost even more than the new Forth road bridge.
Having said that a high-speed rail connection to Leeds could threaten the economy of central Scotland, might it be reasonable to progress that argument by suggesting that, if high-speed rail made it just across the border to Edinburgh and Glasgow, it could have a damaging effect on the rest of the economy in Scotland, rather than the positive effect that was being claimed by the previous panel?
It is fair to say that the engine-room of the Scottish economy is the Edinburgh-Glasgow conurbation; there is not much doubt about that. Anything that can be done to drive that would be of benefit. Right now, the absence of an agglomeration of the economies of Glasgow and Edinburgh is holding us back. If we could bring together the financial services sectors and other knowledge-based industries of those two cities, we would be able to punch above our weight in comparison with the larger conurbations on the European mainland. In an ideal world—I refer you to the evidence that you heard earlier—linkages between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness, Aberdeen and so on would be preferable. However, that would involve a political decision down the line, because the cost would be not inconsiderable.
If we do not get a line to Scotland, Aberdeen and Inverness will suffer in any case. In comparison with what would happen in that situation, they would benefit from high-speed rail coming as far as the central belt.
Do panel members foresee any negative financial or other impacts on the public or private sectors from the development of a high-speed rail network?
We were clear in our submission that the economic benefits are well established, although they might require further work. In the previous parliamentary session, there was discussion of figures provided by WS Atkins that showed a £7.3 billion enhancement to productivity in Scotland and a total benefit of £62 billion across the UK as a whole. Those figures perhaps need fleshing out, but they are well established.
This issue has been partly touched on, but let us expand it a little further. What would be the required extent of any future UK high-speed rail network to maximise the benefits to Scotland? For example, would it be a single east coast or west coast line, would both be required, or is there another model? What cities would need to be served by such a network?
Ideally, the network would have both west and east lines. However, we must be realistic because the resource may not be available for that. From Scotland's point of view, the important aspect is that both Edinburgh and Glasgow are linked with London—that is key. The debate is then about what regional cities should be part of the network in order to benefit Scotland. That will require further discussion and studies. Certainly, the key criterion must be that both Edinburgh and Glasgow are linked to London. There has been talk of a three-hour journey time, which is generally regarded as the standard to aim for in order to make an impact on the airline industry and have more than 50 per cent of the market.
SPT's view is that we must first determine what technology we are talking about. It has been argued that the use of maglev technology would permit far higher speeds and allow all the key cities to be connected by one route, instead of having an east or west line. Therefore, the preferred technology must first be established.
We will have to explore that further at another time. However, we must take into account environmental impacts. In that respect, what priority should be given to the development of a high-speed rail network relative to other necessary transport infrastructure? I think that there is a link.
As far as Glasgow City Council is concerned, we would perhaps put two other projects slightly ahead of a high-speed rail network. The first is the crossrail link, which is a simple link-up of the current network and is our number one priority. Building the crossrail link will cost a lot less than building a new high-speed rail line. Secondly, as I hope members will know, we are keen on a sort of fast-link system or a type of pre-light rapid transit tram or tram/bus arrangement in Glasgow. Those are our local priorities.
It is universally recognised that there has to be investment in the rail industry because we are running out of capacity locally in Scotland's central belt—in Glasgow and Edinburgh—and the same goes for the larger picture in relation to links between Scotland and England. We will shortly run out of capacity, so there must be investment. We need to add a wee bit extra to make the links high speed and thereby increase the benefit to a much greater extent.
The trade-off that Theresa Villiers implies is the option of doing away with a third runway at Heathrow. If we can address inter-city travel by means other than air, we could use those slots for international travel rather than for local air connectedness within the United Kingdom. The savings that would be incurred as a consequence of not building a third runway would be considerable and could offset the cost of the high-speed rail technology.
I hasten to add that such slots could be used for flights to Aberdeen and Inverness because they also need better connectivity. If that cannot be delivered by high-speed rail because of their distance, they must be given better connectivity by air.
Okay. We have a fourth point of view from Chris Day.
I would be loth to get into an exact ranking, with priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4, but the importance of high-speed rail has shot up in the political, transport and academic worlds—I was going to say, "At a remarkable speed"—within the past couple of years, and it is certainly on the agenda now in a way that it was not previously.
Given the constraints of time, I think that we had better move on.
In that case, does the panel have any views on the potential location for high-speed rail stations? Should they be at the edges or in the centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh? You will be aware that that point was discussed in relation to the whole network by a previous panel of witnesses, but I am asking about Glasgow and Edinburgh specifically.
Again, I suspect that the answer would depend on technology. SPT has commissioned three pieces of research that will report in January, unfortunately. I am not sure whether that will be sufficient time to pass the reports to the committee, but we will happily do so.
I presume that the study into maglev that you mentioned is considering the technology's gargantuan energy consumption and how that would look from the perspective of the UK as a whole, rather than just how to get into Glasgow.
It is considering that, but we must compare apples with apples. Maglev travels faster than high-speed rail services and, accordingly, uses greater amounts of electricity.
It also has to lift the vehicle all the way along rather than just pushing it.
Indeed.
SEStran stresses slightly more strongly the importance of the city centre as a trip destination on the outward journey and a trip origin on the return journey. We should try to avoid recreating the situation that we have with air travel, which is that passengers always have a fair distance to go to the city centre. The priority must be to get to the city centre. That is not to say that we should not consider parkways where they are relevant, but the general rule is that we should try to access the city centre. That has been the case in Europe—I cannot think why it should not also be so in Scotland. To have high-speed links all the way into the cities creates more difficulties, but it is not necessary for the last few miles of track to be high speed, as long as the gauge is right to enable the train to access the city centre. That is the crucial part.
I take it that there is general consensus among the witnesses on city-centre locations for the terminals.
We are certainly sold on that. The essential point is that we have had 20 or 30 years of planning in which it has been assumed that the way forward for development in urban areas is to build shopping centres, leisure centres and other developments out of town. We have now realised, and it is generally accepted, that we have neglected our city centres and that we need to enhance their role.
We have received some evidence to suggest that development of a high-speed rail network would remove the supposed need for airport expansion. Comments have been made about capacity expansion at Heathrow, and Glasgow and Edinburgh airports also look to be included in the national planning framework for Scotland, as some people hope they will be. Do the witnesses have views on that, bearing in mind the comments that some of them have made on high-speed rail services being an alternative to aviation rather than an additional mode?
If we had a blank piece of paper, it would be lovely to think that we could connect Glasgow and Edinburgh cities and airports so that they became one terminal rather than two. The conundrum is that we have the Glasgow airport rail link and must accept that we have to live with another intervention that is being planned and built between the centre of Glasgow and the airport, as we speak. The ideal connectivity is unlikely, given the public investment that has already taken place on GARL.
What do you think about the additional runway at Heathrow and the capacity expansion at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports that some are calling for?
I do not want to comment on Heathrow because I do not know to what extent that runway is necessary for international or domestic travel. For domestic travel, we are clear that rail—not air—is the way forward.
Would I be right in thinking that that would be more of an issue at the London end of a Scotland to London high-speed rail link than it would be in Glasgow or Edinburgh?
That is the case. I am sure that second runways at Glasgow or Edinburgh could be put back if there was a high-speed rail link.
Also, the further from Heathrow you get, the less dependent you are on using Heathrow as an interchange. However, many of the proposals include a high-speed rail to link into Heathrow, which will also be a crucial issue in measuring whether there should be a third runway or a high-speed rail link. The high-speed rail link might be part of the solution for Heathrow itself.
Does the panel have any views on other environmental benefits that might be achieved through a high-speed rail link? One example might be a modal shift not only from aviation but from road travel.
I am certain that if we get a high-speed rail system there will be some transfer from car travel, but we also have terrific potential for freight transfer. Assuming that there is new construction and we are not just upgrading the existing line, there will be capacity on three lines between the north and the south. That will mean additional capacity for freight on the existing network, but we should also consider the possibility for the north of England and Scotland of using the high-speed route for freight.
The benefit would be in the physical capacity rather than the journey times.
Yes, principally. Road freight operates using just-in-time delivery. If it operated without having to fit into slots at night between engineering works, the benefit that rail could have for freight is reliability: it runs to a timetable. At the moment, we rely on just-in-time delivery, and we all know that one lorry blowing over on the M6—which happens more often than one might think—closes a whole network and delays a load of goods traffic. That would be unlikely to happen if the freight went by rail, on whichever network.
I suspect that there are two modal shifts in prospect. The first is from air to a high-speed rail link. I understand that 70 per cent of all journeys between London and Brussels are now made on high speed 1, rather than by air.
It should also be remembered that there would be capacity released on the existing network, which is where the transfer from car to local rail will be a crucial factor. That will be especially relevant to the southern part of the UK, but also to Edinburgh and Glasgow, if there are improved rail connections between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
A lot depends on exactly how the network is configured. We often fall into the trap of thinking in terms of lines, which is not necessarily the same as thinking about the services that use those lines for part of, or all, their journeys. If we think of a high-speed network as also providing connectivity between Scotland and the large conurbations in the north of England, there is an argument that it would be of greater advantage to Scotland and northern England and that we should not worry too much about getting to and from London. If we do that we begin to see that the modal shift from car journeys would be much greater than for the London to Scotland connection, on the basis that a larger number of people drive from Manchester and Newcastle to Scotland than drive from London to Scotland. An appealing train service that provided such connectivity would hit the car-use modal share more, whereas a very long-distance service would have a greater impact on the air-travel modal share.
Mr Culley said—perhaps in anticipation of this question—that he will make the results of the academic studies that have been commissioned available to the committee in January.
Happily.
What are your views on the possible early development of a Scottish leg, linking Edinburgh and Glasgow, of a UK high-speed rail network? How might that tie in with the current east or west coast main lines?
I am happy to elaborate on that. Regardless of whether the network comes up on the east or the west, we must ensure that both Glasgow and Edinburgh benefit. If it comes up on the east coast, there must be a continuation to Glasgow; if it comes up on the west coast, one leg must go to Glasgow and one leg must go to Edinburgh. We should try to utilise either of those options to improve the connectivity between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
There will be a significant opportunity if the Glasgow to Edinburgh leg is considered as an early leg—if not the first leg—of the network. If it were the first leg, there would be an advantage in the location being in the central belt, as we could start talking about the headquarters, signalling and other skills being located in Scotland rather than down in the south-east of England where, I repeat, the economy is currently imbalanced.
I agree with Trond Haugen. I am considering the matter completely separately. The idea of the line coming up somewhere in the Carstairs or Motherwell area and branching from there has a lot going for it. To its advantage is that it would allow people to travel separately from both Glasgow and Edinburgh straight down to London and minimise travel time from either city. In such a system, there could be four trains per hour, including one per hour direct from Edinburgh and one per hour direct from Glasgow that would not have to stop anywhere en route. That would be a super-fast service. What we have read suggests that the travel time would be two and a half hours, rather than three, which would make the service even more competitive with air travel.
I want to press Ron Culley on the issue of a possible Edinburgh to Glasgow maglev line. Can you explain the thinking behind your apparent support for such a line, given the recent cancellation, because of cost inflation, of what was to have been Europe's first commercial maglev project, linking Munich to its airport?
There is no question but that using maglev technology would be a bold step. I accept that there are arguments to be had about power consumption. However, there was a time when a man or a woman—a man, I suspect—stood on a beach in Panama, looked at the towering mountains in front of him and said, "Let's build a canal." Sometimes we must be bold about the technologies that we use. In my view, there is a compelling case for maglev; we should at least feel the weight of the case for it. That is the broad consensus of colleagues in SPT. When I attend conferences on these matters, I am concerned that there is conservatism in the rail industry—people understand steel on rail, which works well and has always been used. The United Kingdom in general, and Scotland in particular, should explore the case for maglev. Scotland could have the eyes of the world on it for its brashness in making use of that new technology.
I will liven up the panel by disagreeing. We are significantly sceptical about the claims that have been made for maglev. I will not bore the committee by going over the 11 points that we make in our paper, which are based on research by two respected academics working on the railway industry, called Roger Kemp and Roderick Smith. They raised a number of issues, especially in relation to proposals for maglev.
Do other members of the panel have views on the issue?
SEStran's strategy states that maglev should be considered. It is being considered as part of the Greengauge 21 study, but I would not like to comment beyond that.
How should the development of a high-speed rail network be financed? Should local authorities or regional transport partnerships have a funding role?
We would love to be able to finance it. A recent article by Theresa Villiers suggested that it would cost £20 billion to build a high-speed rail line between London and Leeds. The presumption is that it would cost £30 billion to build a line between London and Scotland. Those figures are borne out by the work of UK Ultraspeed, which has, I understand, made a submission to the committee. They are substantial amounts of money and I, like earlier witnesses, suspect that such plans would be difficult to afford without private sector investment. The figures only relate to the basic London-Glasgow-Edinburgh line; any notion of going beyond that to the north of Scotland would involve another substantial sum.
It is important that local authorities are involved. SPT, SEStran and the City of Edinburgh Council are all contributing to the Greengauge 21 study, but that is perhaps the limit in terms of studies—it is a national strategy, and serious national money will be needed. I also want to emphasise that the existing franchise on the east coast is not receiving any subsidies, and is paying £1.4 billion to the Treasury over the extent of the franchise. That leaves only 20 per cent of the travel market between Edinburgh and London going by rail. With high-speed rail, there might be potential for serious private money to come in.
Mr Culley spoke about the billions of pounds that the project would cost. Do you think that represents best use of transport money, or would you have another use for that money?
Frankly, interconnectivity between London, Glasgow and Edinburgh is paramount. When one adds to that the environmental benefits that would accrue as a consequence in terms of reducing air miles, there is a compelling case. I view it as a very important priority for the UK and Scottish Governments.
I am interested to know whether other panel members share that view.
Yes.
Yes.
As I said earlier, we have to face the fact that the west coast and the east coast main lines—at least at their southern ends, as well as at points further north—will both run out of capacity in the foreseeable future. We then face the problem of how to address that. Do we carry on doing what has been done on the west coast main line and try to upgrade an existing railway? That can be done in certain specific locations on a small scale, but if we are talking about significant lengths of railway, the message is clear: we have to build new railway.
Although the studies that we cited earlier will not be available until January, a verbal account of their progress so far suggests that in conventional terms, the capacity between Glasgow and Edinburgh will suffice until 2022. After that, the probability is that we will be considering a high-speed solution to address the needs of the conurbation.
What changes would need to be made to the existing public transport services to maximise the benefits of any high-speed rail network? Who should be responsible for taking forward such changes?
I confess that I am embarrassed when I go abroad and see the connectivity in the city centres of mainland Europe. I am confounded when I face huge underground caverns that link all sorts of modes of transport while here in Scotland, we do not appear to have the enthusiasm or resources to bring about that kind of connectivity within our city hubs.
That extends to interconnectivity in the rail networks. The network in Scotland is not electrified—to get connectivity, we need more electric railways in Scotland.
I think that this will be my final question for this panel, unless something else crops up. Who should be responsible for progressing high-speed rail networks? Should it be the Scottish and UK Governments, Network Rail or a body that is created for that specific purpose?
The answers to the question about technology lead me to suggest that it should be Government or a specialist body. If maglev technology were to be considered, for example, we would not ask Network Rail to take on the work, because its expertise tends to be on the other side of the equation.
We would probably adopt the model that was used for the channel tunnel rail link, which is the most directly comparable project, although I am a bit hazy on the details. I think the project was initially regarded as a private sector exercise, but it quickly became clear that that was not viable, so in essence there was heavy leadership from the UK Government while project delivery remained clearly in the private sector. I think that the infrastructure has been taken over by Network Rail. The model already exists—perhaps we could regard the channel tunnel rail link as a pilot project.
An important point is that although Network Rail would not instigate the project—Government would do that—it oversees the existing network, and the likely scenario is that there would be building phases, which would link into the existing network. Whether or not Network Rail took the lead, it would need to be heavily involved in order to ensure that we end up with a fully co-ordinated network and not a fragmented network in which different parts are overseen by different parties.
Committee members have no further questions, so I thank the witnesses for taking the time to come and answer our questions. As I said to the previous panel, you will be able to follow our evidence sessions online and we will report in the new year.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the third and final panel—the third all-male panel on railways today. What is it with the railways? I do not know.
Women travel on them; men plan them.
I welcome James King, who is Passengers' View Scotland's convener, and Robert Samson, who is Passenger Focus's passenger link manager. As I said to previous panels, you will know that we are packing rather a lot into today's meeting, so we will proceed straight to questions, if that is okay.
You will have noticed that our two bodies have collaborated to quite a degree in trying to provide a useful response. We will try to add elements that have not been covered in other evidence sessions.
We have not researched new high-speed lines, but passengers have told us that the faster journey times that such lines would deliver would be a benefit. High-speed rail could add substantial capacity—capacity constraints are coming on the west coast and east coast main lines. It could also contribute to modal shift, as high speed 1 shows.
PVS has examined the Cushman & Wakefield research on European cities, which has been updated since we sent in our submission. That research is conducted among 500 very large European businesses on their attitudes to investment in different locations around Europe. More than half the sample classed four factors as essential to deciding where to relocate. The first was the availability of qualified staff; the second was easy access to markets, customers and clients; the third was the quality of telecommunications; and the fourth was transport links with other cities and internationally. Ease of access was the second factor and transport links were the fourth. The report makes it clear that those four factors are the fundamental factors that businesses take into account when seeking to relocate.
What is your perception of passengers' opinions on the importance of improved journey times in comparison to other factors such as price, comfort, reliability, wi-fi availability or whatever else makes people choose a rail journey over other modes?
We carried out research in Scotland on that issue last year—I will leave a copy of the research document with the committee. Journey-time reduction was about 12th on the list, below factors such as value for money, frequency of service, punctuality and reliability. However, some people have taken the research out of context and used it as an argument against high-speed rail. To put it in context, the survey asked people who were travelling between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Shotts what improvements they would like, and high-speed rail is unfortunately not on the agenda there. Improved frequency was at the top of the list for those passengers, who would like their hourly service to move to a 30-minute frequency. If we ask people on a poorly performing route, such as the one between Lanark and Glasgow, on which there is a high rate of cancellations, punctuality and reliability are top of the passenger list. It is apples for apples. We are asking Scottish passengers—95 per cent of the journeys are internal—what they want to see, and journey-time reductions do not come up.
That factor will be pretty common to many of the issues that you examine when you survey existing passengers. Has there been any attempt to canvass specifically the opinion of passengers on the east and west coast main lines that run from Glasgow and Edinburgh?
We do that with our national passenger survey, a copy of which I can leave with the committee. The main concern that comes up in that survey is about value for money and the price of tickets—the cheapest walk-on fare is more than £100. There are concerns about punctuality and reliability. That survey, like the other research, questions existing passengers. We would need to carry out new research on what would attract air passengers or people travelling on the M6 to move out of planes and cars and on to rail.
If the committee wishes, PVS could pick that up in partnership with Passenger Focus. We could conduct specific research if you ask us to do so. We have a call on the Scottish Government's research budget, and it might be worth doing something in that line.
I appreciate your offer of specific research—we will perhaps pursue that with you in writing.
From a passenger perspective, what would be the required extent of any future UK high-speed rail network in order to maximise the benefits to Scotland? Would it involve, for example, a single east or west coast line, or another model?
As we have heard from earlier speakers, case studies and evidence from elsewhere show that what makes high-speed rail work is joining up city regions. We have heard a lot of discussion on the relative merits of city-centre and parkway stations. The stations have to be located where the demand is. Businesses are by and large located around city centres, so it seems to make sense for trains to run from city centre to city centre. Of course, the costs of running in and out of city centres could be extremely prohibitive because of the built infrastructure. That would have to be looked into.
What priority should be given to the development of a high-speed rail network, as opposed to the development of any other necessary transport infrastructure?
To answer that question, it might be better to look at it another way. The existing rail network needs continual investment to keep it fit for purpose. It would be bad for rail use in general if money were taken away from the existing network to be put into high-speed rail. If the network were starved of funds, the attractiveness and connectivity of rail would decline and many environmental benefits would be lost. In our view, the money put into high-speed rail would have to be additional money. The returns from that might come back sooner than people might expect, because of the economic factors that other speakers have mentioned, such as an input of private sector money.
People who live between Glasgow and Edinburgh—in Falkirk, for instance—are concerned that a new high-speed service between Edinburgh and Glasgow would lead to the loss of the Falkirk service. Do passengers in other areas have similar concerns?
There are similar concerns over the west coast main line upgrade. For instance, passengers at Motherwell and Lockerbie will have a reduced service. Currently, seven Virgin services a day stop at Motherwell, but the figure will reduce to two come December. That is happening at the same time as Strathclyde partnership for transport has a business case to invest in Motherwell station; I think that there is a £20 million plan to redevelop the station, including the provision of more car parking. However, what will be the point of that if trains are just hurtling through the station?
And passengers might suffer.
Yes. Passengers might suffer at those intermediate locations.
But if high-speed intercity trains were taken off existing routes, leaving more capacity for suburban or semi-fast services, the Lockerbies of this world could come out of it a lot better.
I was thinking of the Falkirks of this world—
And the Falkirks.
—and of the economic development in the area.
Indeed. Falkirk, like the whole of central Scotland, feeds both Edinburgh and Glasgow. If a high-speed line connected through or from Edinburgh and Glasgow, there could be more capacity on other lines. Journeys would not be being made into the city centre to go out to an airport to go down south.
People talk about faster journeys between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and about city regions, but it is worth remembering that 50 per cent of the journeys between Edinburgh and Glasgow are from intermediate stations. We have to remember the intermediate passengers who are not making end-to-end journeys. In the great debate about reduced journey times, passengers using intermediate stations can be forgotten.
We have heard arguments that the development of a high-speed rail network, taking in Scotland, would remove the need for airport expansion, or at least further undermine the case for it. We have heard some discussion of the proposed third runway at Heathrow and, as the national planning framework is introduced, we will hear more on the question of the airports at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Do you have views on those issues?
Many submissions to the committee have talked about the strength of the Scotland to London air market. Evidence from the experience in France and elsewhere suggests that the market would be reduced by the impact of high-speed rail, thus freeing up slots. In addition, more journeys from Scotland to Paris or Brussels might be taken by rail.
So it seems premature for the UK Government to make a decision on aviation expansion while the possibility of high-speed rail is still being considered.
PVS would concord with that statement.
Are there any other views on whether or how the development of high-speed rail could achieve environmental benefits? You have mentioned noise, which most of us recognise as an environmental issue that affects many people's lives profoundly. Are there other environmental benefits, such as other forms of modal shift, perhaps from road travel, or a reduction in local air pollution?
Air pollution would be reduced. High-speed rail would also introduce significant safety gains compared with road travel. I do not have the figures with me, but trains are significantly safer than any form of road travel, so there would be a benefit in that way.
I know that you have contacts with international counterparts, but have you had any contacts on the involvement of passengers in the development of high-speed rail in other countries? What have we learned from those contacts?
At this stage, I am afraid, PVS has not had any contact with international counterparts, although we are trying to source information on the experience in other parts of Europe. One must only consider the expansion of high-speed rail in Spain and France to see how high the demand for it is. The demand is not just for the expansion of routes but for the development of trains on those routes. A new generation of TGVs is coming in—I think that the new trains are called AGVs—that is more environmentally friendly and offers several other benefits. That points to increased demand.
If you had access to the pot of Government research funding, as you suggested you might, would that be a good area for you to extend into to carry out comparative studies?
It would be sensible for us to extend into that, perhaps in conjunction with colleagues at Passenger Focus, which has a European contractor working for it, who may have studied that.
The work that we are doing at present is to compare the fare structures and strategies in Europe with those in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain. We have not considered the benefits of high-speed lines in Europe.
Can you tell us anything about that?
We can share the report with you. As with the report that I mentioned previously, that one is due in January or February. However, to give a verbal update, Europe seems to be better than Great Britain as far as passengers are concerned.
Now there is a surprise.
So it is attractive to travel by train in Europe because prices are competitive.
Yes.
The Department for Transport has gone public on the fact that it is seeking to increase the price of rail tickets above inflation from two years ago until 2014, as a means of changing the balance of funding between taxpayers and fare payers from 75:25 to 50:50. As the DFT lets the franchises, in effect it controls the fares policy on regulated tickets. That is one reason why fares are going up. Another is simply that, with demand outstripping supply, operators can afford to charge what they like for the unregulated tickets.
We will have to feed in those issues.
There are two ways. One is by using best practice from abroad. We can learn lessons from abroad and from the Channel tunnel rail link. The second is that consumers, when asked for their views, need to have a series of options put in front of them to allow them to form views. Carefully constructed research on options would be the best approach.
We can consider the existing research, from our national passenger survey of National Express and Virgin Trains passengers on the east and west coast main lines. That shows what passengers think of existing services and what their priorities are for the future.
How should we tap into that from the reports that you will leave for us or which are about to be delivered?
They are about to be delivered. We can provide the information in a way that would be beneficial for the committee's work. We are prepared to work with the committee in that regard.
We will have to explore that in more detail later.
We can do that through the clerks.
Mr King has substantially anticipated the questions that I will ask, but Mr Samson might want to add something briefly. First, would a high-speed link be the best use of limited transport funds? Is there something more important that we should spend billions of pounds on? Secondly, I want to ask about the issue of city-centre versus parkway stations—although I am pretty clear about the answer to that.
Our work with passengers tells us that passengers want money to be spent on the local lines that they use day in, day out. They might use a high-speed line once in a while, to go on a trip to London or on holiday, but what would spending billions of pounds on such a line mean for people who use local lines to commute to Glasgow and Edinburgh every day? What would it mean for journey-time improvements in the far north or on the Highland main line? Those are the concerns of the passengers whom we represent, and the high-speed line does not come into the equation. Would the local lines and trains that people use be starved of investment as a consequence of investment in a high-speed line?
What changes would need to be made to the Scottish rail network to maximise the benefits to passengers of a high-speed line?
Benefits would be possible if a high-speed line were built using conventional methods. Connectivity would be needed, so that trains could continue from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness, albeit at a reduced speed, to make overall journey times from Aberdeen and Inverness to London faster. Connectivity and integration have been mentioned. We need warm, enclosed, staffed stations with good lighting. For many a day, people have been talking about the 24-hour, seven-days-a-week railway, which would have earlier starts and later finishes. All those issues must be taken into consideration.
That would keep people in their cars.
Yes. That is an environmental concern.
An important aspect has not been touched on. We need to be clear about where high-speed trains can get to. I say "trains" rather than "line" deliberately, because the high-speed line will have a beginning, a middle and an end—although it might be extended later. Let us say that the end of the line is Edinburgh/Glasgow. We said in our submission that if the line is built in stages from north to south or south to north it would be helpful if the trains that ran on it could connect on to the existing network, to afford connections between the high-speed line and the conventional-speed parts of the network.
That is a useful suggestion.
Yes. Much of our work involves examining the existing rail network and determining what trains and services passengers use and what services they want in the future. We are working on that with Transport Scotland, First ScotRail and Network Rail.
Other witnesses this afternoon have told us that the right way to begin this process would be to go ahead with an early development of a Scottish high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow. What do you think about that proposal?
That is an interesting question. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that passengers are dissatisfied with the journey times between Edinburgh and Glasgow to the extent that would warrant a maglev or a high-speed TGV.
The greatest concern for passengers who travel on the Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk route is car parking. If you ask people on trains whether they want faster journey times, they will tell you that they would rather have a bigger car park at the station. Passengers are concerned about that kind of bread-and-butter issue.
I know; with me, it is getting a seat.
Meeting closed at 17:14.
Previous
Climate Change Bill (Consultation)