Official Report 392KB pdf
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. I remind everyone in the room to switch off mobile phones and pagers because they interfere with the sound system. On behalf of the committee, I thank Renfrewshire Council for all its help in ensuring that we could meet here today.
Good morning. In their submissions, the witnesses state that GARL has the potential to reduce road traffic emissions. However, is it not the case that, even with GARL, road traffic emissions will continue to rise as ever more passengers arrive at Glasgow airport from the M8?
SEPA believes that the way in which passengers get to Glasgow airport is a matter of choice. Obviously, airports are part of Government strategies. Rail is a sustainable method of transport, and SEPA supports it.
As no one else wishes to respond, I will move on.
We are happy that the environmental statement covers matters that concern us. The promoter assessed options and alternatives and tried to come up with the best situation possible at this stage, although it recognises that more work needs to be done. It is engaging actively with us at present to ensure that any additional work is done as the project progresses. In that way, the environmental issues live with the life of the programme. We regard that as good practice.
Do you think that the environmental impact of the scheme is relatively slight compared with other major construction projects?
We have not compared the scheme with other projects; we have looked at it on its own merits.
Do you intend to carry out such a comparison?
No. We look at the project that is presented to us. The decision on land use is left to other people. [Interruption.]
I will stop you, because someone obviously still has their mobile phone switched on. I ask them to switch it off.
Would you like me to repeat my comments?
Are you essentially saying that you consider projects individually and do not do comparisons?
Yes. That is because the land-use decision is made by another party. We examine the environmental impacts of a project and whether the promoter has taken reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of what it intends to do.
Do you have any outstanding concerns about the Glasgow airport fuel farm being relocated immediately adjacent to Paisley Moss local nature reserve?
We identified potential problems, some of which will need to be addressed on the ground prior to work commencing. The promoter has agreed that that will be done and that it will keep us involved. We like to work with a project as it happens, rather than the work being done in advance and perhaps placed on a shelf.
Would one of the witnesses from SNH like to comment?
In an ideal situation, we would have preferred the fuel farm to have been located elsewhere rather than immediately adjacent to Paisley Moss local nature reserve. However, when we considered the impacts of the development on the local nature reserve and the mitigation that was proposed, we felt that the impacts did not justify our objection and that the mitigation should be able to deal with our concerns.
Do you have any outstanding concerns about the M8 site of importance for nature conservation and the Boghead pool site of special scientific interest?
No.
We accept the SNH lead.
Your organisations are both mandatory consultees, which means that you have a right to comment to the committee on the consultation undertaken by the promoter. Do you have any concerns about the consultation that was undertaken?
No.
We are very content with it.
Thank you.
My questions are mainly for the SNH witnesses, as they are based on SNH's submission.
Our concerns include disturbance of people's usage of the nature reserve and the long-term impacts on access to the nature reserve. There could be long-term impacts on water levels in the nature reserve, although we feel that that issue should be addressed by the proposed mitigation.
You expressed concern about the water level. How would the project affect the water level?
Through the construction of the fuel depot. The excavations might cause lowering of the level, but we feel that the issue is being addressed by the promoter through the proposed mitigation.
Your submission notes that
The survey work should be carried out before construction work commences. The promoter has intimated that it will be carried out before construction starts.
As a follow-up to that, why should the whole route be surveyed—most of it already exists, right up to Paisley—rather than just the new section?
On the section from Glasgow to Paisley, we understand that the new track will be placed between two existing tracks, so the construction impact should be minimal because the area has already been developed. There might be an impact from the access that is necessary to carry out the work. However, it is not the same as putting in a new line parallel to an existing line, so the amount of disruption should be much less, and there will be less need to survey the Glasgow to Paisley corridor for any impact. However, from Paisley to the airport will be new construction.
There will be less need to survey the route between Glasgow and Paisley, but you feel that a survey will still be required.
We have asked for a survey of protected species, particularly otters, water voles, bats and badgers. We are not requesting a full survey of all ecological interests on the line between Glasgow and Paisley. We suggest a survey only of those interests that could be affected by the construction works on the new line.
You made a specific point about protected mammals. Can you give us an idea of how long a survey of those would take? In addition, if a survey uncovered badger setts or places where bats roosted, how would that affect the rail project's timescale?
It is rather difficult for me to say how long a survey would take or what effect it would have on the project's timescale. Following such a survey, the promoter would have to consider what had been found and what its impact might be. For example, the development would not necessarily impact on a badger sett. There would need to be an assessment of whether there would be impacts on the badgers and of the mitigation that would be necessary to reduce any impacts.
What is your estimate of how long the initial survey would take?
I would have thought that it could be done in a few days or a week. It would not be a very technical survey, so it would not require much technical input.
I may be accused of playing to the gallery with this question, as the promoter's witnesses are present, but how can the promoter ensure that the designs for the bridge, viaduct and station at Glasgow airport are of as high a quality as possible, from an environmental point of view?
I would suggest that the promoter could do that by employing, as it will do, high-quality architects to produce a good design that takes into account all aspects of the development and tries to unify them in the design.
I have questions for SEPA. Your submission states that the bill "requires to be reviewed" in light of the new Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/348). Have you discussed that issue with the promoter?
The new regulations came into force only on 1 April and are still developing. The promoter is aware of them and we will make progress with it. Some aspects of the regulations are new to Scotland, so they will be dealt with over a transition period.
Are you confident that you will be able to work with the promoter to ensure its compliance with the regulations?
Yes.
You welcome the promoter's commitment to produce an environmental management system for the construction phase of the proposal. What are the essential ingredients of such a system, and will you definitely be consulted on it?
From our point of view, one of the biggest risks arises during the construction phase. SEPA has already received a draft construction method statement for comment. The promoter must consider, for example, run-off from the site and the use of concrete. We have pollution prevention guidelines on our website that the promoter can use. The promoter must also consider what it actually does on the ground. These issues are being dealt with at the moment, and we are working with the promoter. It is a big project of which the general public are aware, and they will alert us to any problems.
Will you also monitor the construction phase throughout in order to ensure compliance?
It will not be close monitoring, but there will be some ad hoc monitoring. The general public will quickly alert us to any problems.
As there are no further questions for panel 1, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
I wish to put some questions to Strathclyders Against Detrimental Development. Your objection primarily comments on a study that was carried out on the promoter's behalf by the consultant Faber Maunsell. Now that the bill and the accompanying documents have been submitted to the Parliament, do you still have such strong misgivings about the economic case for the project?
Yes.
Will you explain why?
In my opinion, nothing has really changed. There is the damage that could occur to a grade A listed building—Glasgow Central station—due to lack of preparation, lack of survey work, lack of engineering drawings and lack of knowledge, and there is a lack of identification of costs that might result. There is the economic disruption that could arise, should Central station have to close, and the cost of any subsidence that may be caused nearby. There is the economic disruption and the lack of identification of costs resulting from putting a bridge across the M8. It took many months of repeated questioning before I got a method statement via the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. The construction method that it intends to use indicates that its estimate of 12 hours to achieve the bridge crossing is patent nonsense. The construction method would lead to the M8 being closed for days. Again, the damage has not been costed nor the impact assessed.
You state that
There will always be subsidy for public transport. However, on this occasion, given that the proposal is for 2km of line, the amount proposed seems excessive and will not give the Scottish taxpayer value for money.
You also state that
The reason for the airport rail link is primarily to take passengers to the airport. Any documentation that SPT has produced for public usage states merely that 1.4 million passengers will use the line between Glasgow, Paisley and the airport. To my knowledge, it has never stated specifically the number of passengers who would use the link between Paisley and the airport, and yet that is the reason for the link being built.
My next question is for the representatives of Paisley North community council. You state that the project is
I refer the member to SADD's objection and to what Don Marshall has just said. We are thinking of things such as the undercroft in Central station. Most of the examples that Don Marshall gave are also in our objection.
Having spoken to BAA and gone through its master plan for the airport, I understand that the new rail line will mean that a new road bridge will need to be built across the Cart. That will be another great cost of God knows how many millions.
My next question is for Alan Hopkirk. You stated that the bill
Speaking as a member of the public, I do not think that SPT inspires confidence. It seems to be incapable of joined-up thinking, which is a pity, given that it is supposed to be responsible for joined-up journeys. For example—and I do not blame SPT alone for this—it justifies some of what it proposes by saying that it is constrained by what it has been told to do.
What are your concerns about how the promoter conducted the consultation?
The consultation was questionable from the beginning, as far as we are concerned. At the first public meeting we were promised a copy of the verbatim minutes. SPT recorded the meeting, but we were then told that there was something wrong with the recording and that it was poor, so nothing came of that. We were not happy about that and we considered the explanation just an excuse.
When was your community council first informed of the promoter's specific project?
Our community council was formed in December 2004 and the issue was brought up then.
Would any other witnesses like to raise concerns about the consultation?
I want to back up what Mae Marshall said and to make some particular points. I objected to the bill and I received a letter from SPT on 13 April. It was two paragraphs long—not very detailed. On page 3 of paper GARL/S2/06/6/1, SPT says:
I want to stick to the general process, instead of going into any detail on the line itself.
The promoter's initial publicity contained various statements and comments about alternative routes. However, those options were dismissed early on with fairly asinine comments such as that the soil conditions were not good or the crossing of the river Cart was technically questionable. However, the promoter provided no back-up evidence as to why certain options had been dismissed or why they could not have been developed, even at a given cost. After all, as I said at the time, if the Dutch are able to tunnel through reclaimed land, why should the bog in St James park prove such a problem for SPT?
Are there any alternative routes that would avoid St James park?
Yes, and they would not cause as much damage. Indeed, the preferred route itself has hidden costs, because, as Mae Marshall pointed out, there are mine workings under the park, as a map dated 1914 makes clear. If any subsidence came about through piling, the viaduct would be rendered totally useless or would cost a prohibitive amount of money to repair. That problem could be avoided by using an alternative route or a different mode of transport, not heavy rail.
What is your preferred alternative route?
We could take the existing solum and simply run the route into Renfrew. I realise that that would involve the compulsory purchase of several houses in the town; however, it would mean that the train would be used not only by people from the airport but by people in Renfrew and still allow access to Glasgow. As the passenger figures show, with the preferred route, a limited number of people will be able to access the train; after all, anyone from the south side of Paisley will have no alternative but to take a taxi, a bus or their own car to the airport.
The evidence from both Paisley North community council and Alan Hopkirk suggests that a route that accessed Braehead shopping centre or Renfrew would be of greater benefit to the west of Scotland in general. What evidence is there for believing that?
At the first pre-consultation meeting, Councillor Watson stated that the Braehead shopping development was the main cause of congestion on the M8. If we do not address that, we can have as many GARLs as we like but they will have no impact on M8 congestion. It is disingenuous that SPT uses pictures of the M8 being clogged up when GARL would not address that congestion. Its impact, if it has any impact of significance, would be slight.
Do other members of the panel want to comment?
I attended four consultation meetings but none of them discussed where the link would be. The route was always to be through Paisley. As my colleague has said, the only discussion was on whether the link should have a viaduct or an embankment. I was very disappointed.
To wrap up on the question of consultation, I suggest that it is worth while looking at the equivalent brochure that was produced for the Edinburgh airport rail link. That is an ideal example of how a consultation should use open and full questioning and provide respondents with the chance to comment. Obviously, such a document would mean that it would be much more difficult to analyse the responses—I do not know what the responses were or how they were analysed—but I suggest that, if SPT had carried out the consultation properly in that way, it would have had a much more substantial document to hand over to the committee. It would have been able to say that it had carried out a proper consultation.
Further to Alan Hopkirk's comments on the consultation, on 3 April I received an acknowledgement from SPT that it had received my objection and would respond shortly. As of this morning, I am still waiting.
That is helpful. Thank you.
Do members have any other questions?
I have a follow-up question for Mary Gildea. She mentioned the play area but, with the viaduct, it appears to us to be a trade-off between the loss of two pitches and the improvement of the changing area. Does that not count as satisfactory?
If the rail link is built, it will take a number of years and half of the pitches will be closed off at a significant time, when Scotland is bidding for the commonwealth games. That is an awful long time. I am cynical about two pitches being lost. I see many young men walking past my door to the football park; if the pitches are put elsewhere, how will they get to them?
Paisley North community council has had the important experience of going through such a process when the slip road was put in. All sorts of promises were made to us about landscaping. The day before the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Committee came to see where the bridge would be, the stays that had been there for 12 years were taken off the trees—they had been strangling the trees—so we do not have great faith in landscaping. We were shown lovely brochures of shrubs, but committee members will have seen no evidence of shrubs because they all died and were not replaced. We were also promised that the park would be drained adequately. I think that £100,000 was spent on the park but, if you go down there on a wet day, you will see that the drainage does not work.
Mr Berry, I am conscious that you have not had an opportunity to say anything. Is there anything that you want to add?
Yes. On the loss of two football pitches, those who know the area know full well that SPT's proposed layout will not mean that we will have usable football pitches. All the pitches that will be laid around the boundary of St James park will be unplayable for the majority of the playing season. They will be useable during the summer, when no one plays football but, during the rest of the year, it is so wet that it is just a marsh around there. That is why there are no pitches there currently.
On the consultation process, most of us on the panel attended the pre-consultation meeting that I mentioned. SPT has made a great deal of extending the consultation process. Sometimes we feel that we are paranoid, but other organisations that objected have told the committee in evidence that they do not feel that they have been consulted, although SPT thinks that they have been. A letter does not represent consultation; it is not dialogue.
I thank the witnesses of panels 2 and 3 for their evidence. We will have a short suspension to consider whether to take some evidence from the promoter this morning rather than in the afternoon. I ask the promoter to be prepared for that arrangement, which we will discuss in the short suspension.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome the fifth panel of witnesses. We hope to ask most of the questions for this panel before lunch. If we manage to do that, we will do some tidying up after the minister has given evidence. If not, we will continue with questions after we hear from the minister.
It certainly does. We had those regulations in mind when we carried out the environmental impact assessment.
With whom will you work on that?
I take it that you mean in the next stages of the project. We have had much consultation of the statutory consultees—as witnesses from SNH and SEPA confirmed earlier in the meeting—who provided considerable input. We have taken on board as much as possible of the mitigation that those organisations suggested. In the next phase, through the detailed design and the development of a code of construction practice, we will continue to consult the statutory consultees. SNH and SEPA told the committee that they were satisfied with the consultation so far; we hope to continue in the same vein.
We have mentioned the statutory obligations. How will SPT disseminate information among the public? As we heard this morning, there are significant concerns about consultation. When agreement on mitigation is reached, will there be a process whereby people can understand what the mitigation will mean?
Yes. We have tried to set up a series of community and business liaison groups, which were mentioned earlier in the meeting. The groups are the principal means whereby we can communicate directly with affected parties and we intend that that process should continue throughout the construction stage and for a period after the works are completed.
Why was no health impact assessment included in the environmental statement?
A health impact assessment is not a requirement of the EIA regulations.
Did you not think that a health impact assessment would be helpful?
I suppose that it could have been helpful. Obviously I cannot speak about a health impact assessment, because we did not carry out such an assessment. However, I think that the main health issue relates to the cholera graves in St James park in Paisley. It is difficult to think of other health impacts.
We have today heard from representatives of community organisations, who made significant comments on the impact of the construction on football pitches and children's safety. There are questions about how people would access St James park and what would happen if children were playing on various pitches. Such matters have health impacts. Can the promoter undertake a health impact assessment at this stage?
We are certainly willing to consider doing so. A health impact assessment could be worth while because it could identify the health benefits of public transport, which encourages people to walk more, and it could identify environmental benefits to do with air quality. I do not know exactly what would be involved in such work, but I will be happy to come back to the committee on the matter and perhaps to provide an appropriate timescale.
Does the ES give an accurate account of the working hours that are likely to be required for the construction of GARL?
Information on construction hours is included in the code of construction practice, which is based on discussions with Renfrewshire Council and Glasgow City Council.
The Arches theatre objected to the conclusions in the ES on noise and vibration. Do the witnesses stand by those conclusions?
I think that The Arches objects to GARL's impact on the theatre. As part of work to deal with objections, which was not part of the ES, we carried out additional noise and vibration monitoring at the theatre and found that the level of noise and vibration there is already high—it is probably unacceptably high. There is a busy railway station directly above the theatre. GARL will add slightly, but not significantly, to the problem. However, there are proposals for mitigation through some kind of track isolation, so that at least GARL trains at Glasgow Central station will not contribute significantly to the environmental issues at The Arches.
Does The Arches theatre suffer from excessive noise and vibration from other railway lines?
Yes.
We accept that The Arches theatre is a sensitive receptor—that is the terminology that is used. We have met the company. It might not like the report that we gave it, but that report is factually based: our consultant prepared it as part of its noise monitoring work. We are committed to developing the noise mitigation that we have identified, both through the construction phase—which is anchored in the construction code of practice—and the design. We have scheduled another meeting with The Arches, which will take place shortly. We will discuss all matters of detail with the company at that time.
Okay. Broadly speaking, the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill provided that the promoter would uphold the standards of mitigation that were set out in the environmental statement, code of construction practice and noise and vibration policy. In brief, do you envisage that you may take a similar approach? We have discussed the impact on The Arches, but other organisations and businesses will be similarly affected.
Yes. First, we are applying the principles of the relevant noise insulation regulations, even though the statutory requirement to do so does not apply in Scotland. We are in discussion with Transport Scotland and Network Rail because the scheme will have implications for both organisations. The construction code of practice embodies our approach to the scheme; certainly, that is the case for the construction phase. We are comfortable with the potential to incorporate that and the noise and vibration policy into the scheme that is set out in the bill.
The written evidence that we have received from Mr George Baillie highlights a number of factors that he claims are missing from the accompanying documents; for example, the location of taxi and bus ranks at Glasgow airport. Will you confirm that, in general, some of the matters that he raises will be dealt with at a later design stage or are not part of the GARL scheme?
That is correct. John Halliday may want to give a more detailed response.
Our strategy is for the bill to deal with the principle of the project. We are working closely with BAA, which is developing proposals for its entire surface access. There is huge potential for us to work with BAA to develop an interchange hub at the airport station. Clearly, BAA will have to manage the safety and circulation of vehicles. We want to work with it on its proposals.
My first question is on European convention on human rights issues. The bill will amend the general body of law on compulsory purchase to enable the promoter to take possession of land before compensation has been assessed and paid. How is that compatible with article 1 of protocol 1 and article 6 of the ECHR?
Under section 48 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, the landowner can get advance payment of compensation. He can serve a notice on the promoter to require advance payment to be made. The bill also provides for interest to be payable until compensation is paid. For those reasons, we believe that the bill is not inconsistent with the ECHR.
Okay. So, it is compatible.
That might be possible, although it will depend on the nature of the plot. However, it is not necessary to do that; we can, with the landowner, draw up a legally binding agreement that the powers would not be exercised over the plot. If one wanted to amend the bill, it may be possible to do so, although the process may involve more than a simple amendment.
Thank you for that. The Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill was amended so that, if the authorised undertaker compulsorily acquires land that is subsequently found to be surplus to requirements, the authorised undertaker shall apply the Crichel Down rules. What is the promoter's view on such an amendment?
We have no objection in principle to an amendment of that sort.
So it is something that you would consider.
Yes.
Should the promoter have the authority to acquire land compulsorily not for the railway, but to allow the relocation of businesses that will be affected by the railway?
There are difficulties in that. On the face of it, that would interfere with the rights of another landowner in order to benefit the first landowner. The question then arises about the human rights of the landowner whose land is being acquired. In order to justify that, there would have to be a compelling public interest in the acquisition of such land. There is one case in which we have provided for that, in relation to the fuel farm. In recognition of the fact that the airport cannot function without the fuel farm, we have provided for the acquisition of land to relocate the fuel farm. An individual landowner will receive compensation for the acquisition of their land, which they could use to acquire premises elsewhere. The same justification would not, therefore, be present.
I want to ask about time limits. When will the rail link project be completed, bearing in mind the possible blight on landowners?
We intend to complete the project by late 2009 or early 2010. We are doing everything within our powers to achieve that, not only through all the various agreements that we require, but through the design and the lead-up to that. Clearly, however, things can happen to trouble that smooth path. We believe that the provisions in the bill are required to enable us to deliver the project as it is set out in the bill.
In a speech that the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications gave on 16 March 2006, he stated:
We have said from the outset that late 2009 is an achievable opening date, and we have a project plan that takes us to that date. Nevertheless, we accept that it requires that everything go well. The minister was simply saying that there is always the possibility that something along the way will delay the process. His comment is consistent with our statement that 2009 is an achievable target.
Can we look at some specifics? Apart from possible difficulties in resiting the fuel depot, what factors could contribute to a delay in project completion?
We are talking about one of the busiest lines on the Scottish rail network; therefore, managing the transfer and inserting a complex piece of new railway infrastructure into the main line will, no doubt, prove to be a challenge. Network Rail's ability to work with all the train, freight and passenger operators to deliver the infrastructure must be considered, and all such factors must be timed into the process.
It is worth highlighting that there may be seasonal issues to do with the playing fields. It is clear that we will need to work with Renfrewshire Council. I think that it made it clear last week that replacement pitches need to be in place before we take over the construction compound at St James park. Issues could potentially arise in that respect, depending on the season in which the work falls. That is another issue to do with the branch line that will need to be considered.
Our saying now that the project's finish date could be 2010 is the surest way of having a 2010 finish date. If we are not driven to have a finish date of 2009, all those factors will start to be built into the process. We accept the possibility that there will be a later finish date, but we still aim to deliver the project by the end of 2009.
Okay. Earlier, SADD talked about closing the M8 for 12 hours, which seems to be a relatively short time. What is your view on the need to close the M8 for finishing off the bridge section? To what extent would any delay impact on completion of the overall project?
The major crossing on the M8 is clearly an issue. We have employed and been given advice by one of the best civil engineering consultants—Faber Maunsell—which is internationally renowned, and we believe that the project is feasible. However, there are matters of detail. The detailed planning of bridge launches is complex, but the proposals are feasible. Bridge launches are not new.
Speaking of closures of sections of the M8, it should be remembered that significant work was done on the Kingston bridge in previous years, but the bridge was mainly kept open. Will there be a spin-off from the experience that was gained in that project, perhaps with the same people being involved? Are there any lessons to be learned from that?
As I said, we have pulled in a major consultant who has experience of bridge design. As we move on to consider the detailed design and construction methodology, we will consider construction method statements, which are a standard way to assess how the project will be delivered locally. We would expect all the available experience to be brought to bear on the busy M8 corridor.
There has been quite a lot of discussion with the chief bridge engineer from the trunk roads team that maintains the motorway. That team now resides in Transport Scotland. Faber Maunsell has spoken to it in some detail about the technique that will be applied.
The compulsory purchase powers in the bill will expire after 10 years if a notice to treat is not served or a general vesting declaration is not made within that period. If a notice to treat is served, we understand that the promoter has three more years in which to exercise the powers to take possession of the land. Does that mean that the promoter could have 13 years to exercise its compulsory purchase powers?
Service of a notice to treat is the first step in exercising the compulsory purchase powers. At that stage, the promoter makes a commitment to purchase the property. It can withdraw the notice to treat only in specific circumstances and it has to pay compensation if it does so. One would not normally seek to serve notices to treat until one was certain that one was in a position to proceed. One would not serve notices to treat three years in advance just because it was thought that the project would start in three years' time.
So it is possible for the promoter to have 13 years.
It is.
It is unlikely, but it is possible.
It might not be desirable, but it is possible.
The promoter intends that the time limits for compulsory purchase powers and deemed planning permission should both be 10 years. However, is not it the case that the promoter will be able to commence development only after it has acquired the necessary land? Therefore, would it be helpful for the period for deemed planning permission to be slightly longer than the period for compulsory purchase?
I do not think so. The point about planning permission is that the development has to be commenced within 10 years. Once any part of the route is commenced, planning permission is kept alive. It may well be that preliminary work will start at a particular place on the route before all the land has been acquired for the whole route. Therefore, there might well be circumstances in which one would want to exercise the compulsory purchase powers after development had started at a particular point on the route.
What effect would a reduction of the time limits have on the project?
We have debated that long and hard. We believe that it would constrain us unnecessarily. The 10-year period is necessary if we are to complete the project. It gives us the ability to start and deliver the project.
Why is the period 10 years? Earlier, we were talking about 2009 and 2010.
It is an assessed prudence, if you like. We understand and are experienced in such projects. It is not desirable to have that length of time, but there are practical issues that we have to bring to bear on the project.
To give an example, we promoted the Larkhall railway line in the 1990s. The legislative process was different, but provision was made for a 10-year limit for that project too. We never for a moment thought that we would need 10 years for that project but, between getting the powers and building the line, rail privatisation took place, with all the issues around that, and it did indeed turn out to be 10 years before the project was started. There could be unknowns, and a 10-year limit was chosen simply to provide for such contingencies.
We have been talking about compulsory purchase, but I would like to move on, as we examine the legal entrails, to the voluntary purchase scheme. How would that work? What would the cost implications of such a scheme be?
There are two aspects to this. There are the advance and voluntary purchase schemes, on which we have provided written evidence. They relate to circumstances in which we were going to acquire land anyway. We have been actively considering an advance purchase scheme, and the Scottish Executive is considering it now. Any such scheme would be based on market value for properties. The bill is not yet approved, so it might be a bit premature to discuss that today, but provision for the purchase of land has been made in the estimate of expense.
You indicated that you are considering having an advance purchase scheme, even though the bill is still being scrutinised. What is the scale of the properties that you are considering for advance purchase?
As John Halliday has outlined, the advance purchase scheme relates to the properties that are affected anyway. The properties that we would have to acquire—in fact, in most cases, it is parts of properties—are generally the ones in the Murray Street industrial area for which we would not be able to reach an agreement otherwise and for which we would have to rely on a compulsory purchase order. We are actively considering whether there are some areas to which that applies. We are in discussions with some landowners about the affected properties.
But you will require Scottish Executive approval before proceeding in that way.
In effect, it is a matter of bringing forward funding. The implementation of the policy would require the approval of the Executive, as one of our key funders.
I will move on to the subject of compensation. Can you assure us that your funding estimate takes full account of any compensation that will require to be paid?
I will outline the two basic headings covering such compensation. First, there is compensation to train operators operating on the line between Glasgow and Paisley. There is a regulatory framework according to which that compensation is calculated. That has been included within the costs. For example, if we require the track at the weekend, those operators will be compensated.
Would that include underground mining works in the viaduct area?
That is quite different. There has been a very detailed desktop examination of the mine workings in the viaduct area and it was supplemented with boreholes from previous investigations and some that we undertook. That examination has concluded that the mining will have very little effect because it is somewhere between 100m and 150m below ground, which is approximately 50m to 100m below where our foundations will be. We have done a specialist geotechnical and mining investigation of that so we expect minimal impact.
When the bill was introduced, the promoter was the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. What was the basis of its power to promote a private bill? Was it a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons? That is a bit of a legal question and they all seem to be passing it over to you, Paul.
It was a body corporate that was set up under section 9 of the Transport Act 1968. As for its power to promote a private bill, the company relied on its general power under section 10(1)(xxxii)
When you were undertaking the consultation, did you consult on other possible routes for the railway line?
We took the ministerial decision on the airport rail link as the basis for our decision. The route that has been selected is the one on which we have consulted. There are undoubtedly elements within the route that were the subject of consultation. We made it clear when we went to the public that we were talking about the route as shown, although there were some options at the Paisley St James end. Four alternative routes were considered and we talked about whether the route that we have chosen was the correct one; we confirmed that it was. We said all along that we were consulting on whether the route was the right one or not.
You said that the ministerial decision was the basis on which you started to move ahead. Can we clarify to which ministerial statement or decision you are referring?
Perhaps I can come in on that point. John Halliday is referring to the fact that at the conclusion of the Sinclair Knight Merz study, the minister made a decision on the routes that were to be promoted for the rail links to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. My recollection is that the decision was made in early 2003. At that point, SPT was awarded funding to promote that route through this process. The clear message that we gave during the consultation—we recognise that it has not gone down favourably—was that it would be misleading for us to consult on other routes that in effect had not been taken forward. Therefore, the consultation was based on the route that emerged from the SKM study.
Can you clarify which minister it was? Are you stating that the route as it stands in the bill was supported by the minister?
It was the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning in early 2003. The route that was chosen was the route from Glasgow Central to Glasgow airport via Paisley St James. We have progressed that route in the bill.
Did the route include the St James park viaduct?
It included the crossing of St James park.
That is helpful.
We believe that that is not the case. In fact, Mr Forbes has sent in many pieces of correspondence to which we have responded. In general, he sent those in as an individual and we have responded to him. Forbes Developments Ltd has been invited to various meetings. Our evidence outlines the various advertisements that we placed and the letters that were sent out to all those affected. We do not agree with that statement.
Great North Eastern Railway states in its evidence that
We would not support that view. A specific focus group was convened for the transport operators, to which I understand—I will double-check this—both Virgin and GNER were invited. We also had an exhibition stand in Glasgow Central station. We followed those efforts up through correspondence, as required, with the train operators.
Was the focus group that involves the different stakeholders established prior to the publication of your proposed route or afterwards?
The focus groups were established as part of the public consultation; the public consultation leaflet that was issued had the route on it. We followed that up with the focus groups, to which the stakeholders were invited. The route was known at that point.
At last week's committee meeting, it became apparent that there had been a serious failure to consult in detail the emergency services on some of the implications of the proposal. Can you update the committee on what progress has been made to remedy that mistake?
I have personally telephoned and written to all those services. I am in the process of setting up meetings to address the point—well, address is perhaps not the right word. We appreciate what the committee has heard in evidence but, in essence, from our perspective, this is an acceleration of the consultation process. The transport security and contingencies directorate—TRANSEC—is the statutory body for safety on transport and it is fair to say that we dealt with the specific services on matters of detail and not on strategy. In writing to them, I have opened up that dialogue. I have got a number of potential dates in my diary, and we will meet them.
That is helpful. In the evidence that we received from Paisley North community council, it was alleged that there was some double-counting and that some of those who submitted views were counted as being in support of the route when what they really supported was the idea of a railway line. How would you address that allegation?
We made it clear in the consultation leaflet that we were consulting on only one route and that we were asking whether people supported the Glasgow airport rail link as per that route. The earlier witnesses alluded to the fact that we consulted on a specific detail on that route—the crossing of St James park either by a viaduct or by an embankment. We also asked for any other views that people had on mitigation measures for St James park and the playing fields. That was the consultation that was undertaken, and the percentages were based on an analysis of the responses to the questions that were asked.
Let us clarify how you gathered the information together. If someone asked me, "Do you support a Glasgow airport railway line?" I might say yes without knowing the detail of it. When you consulted people, did they have the option of agreeing in principle with the railway line but not with this particular route?
No. We believe that we have been very clear about this. The consultation was not about the principle of having a rail link between Glasgow airport and Glasgow; we were specific in putting the route and the question together. We do not believe that there is any ambiguity in the consultation. The questionnaire that was sent out was accompanied by a plan of the route, so we do not believe that there was ambiguity in the question that we asked on whether people supported the Glasgow airport rail link.
People had the option to say that they did not support it. It was not just about whether they wanted a viaduct or an embankment; people had a clear option to say that they did not think that a rail link to Glasgow airport should be provided. We felt that that was the honest option to put in front of people, given the ministerial decision to which Charlie Hoskins referred earlier. There were clear options either to have a rail link along the lines outlined in the consultation or not to have a connection to Glasgow airport at all. People had the chance to vote on those options, and only a small percentage of people chose the latter option.
The earlier witnesses mentioned some postcard responses. We did not ignore those, but we could not feature them in the percentages because we were not asking about a different route. There were about 500 postcard responses, and our consultation report clearly states that we received those. Those who sent the postcards stated that they supported the idea of a rail link to Glasgow airport but not one that went across St James park.
Sorry, can you clarify that last point? What was on the postcards?
As I recollect—one of my colleagues can perhaps assist me—the postcards stated that those people supported a Glasgow airport rail link but not one that went across St James park.
But those responses are not included in the overall figures.
They are not included in the percentage calculations; they are logged separately because we were asking whether people supported the route across St James park.
Our consultation report makes it clear that the question asked whether people supported the project—not a general project, but this one. The figure of 82 per cent was the response to that question. We replicated the postcard in our consultation report and stated how many responses we received in that way.
Surely it concerns you that although you might think there has been no ambiguity in consulting people on whether they support the project, it appears that some of the groups that represent local communities believe that there has been. Some people did not realise that when they responded that they supported the line in principle, it was interpreted that they supported this particular project.
We are concerned about that. SPT in its current form reports to an elected accountable body, as did the former Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. We were clearly instructed that the consultation was to be carried out in an inclusive, open, appropriate and honest way. We feel that we did that throughout the process.
It is clear from this morning's evidence that the community groups with which you engaged were still promoting an alternative route. If it was as clear as you made out that the only route that was being considered went across the football pitches and that no other route, particularly the Renfrew one that was alluded to this morning, was being considered, how did all those people get it so wrong and you got it so right?
Although we did not consult on those alternative routes, we provided information about them as part of the consultation. We tried to explain why those routes were rejected during the work carried out by SKM that led to the minister's decision. It is clear that we did not convince everyone of that.
Given the comments made by some of the community groups this morning, is it appropriate that you review your consultation? In trying to be honest, could you have given people the wrong impression that the community could influence where the rail link went?
I am happy to look back over our consultation to see whether the impression was given to people that other options were to be considered.
I have one other question before handing back to Michael Matheson. We were told this morning that community groups asked for the minutes of the meetings. It was alleged that some of the recordings could not be transcribed. What process is in place to ensure that the minutes are available timeously rather than after nine weeks?
It was very disappointing that it took nine weeks for the minutes to appear. We checked the matter this morning, and they are very late. We apologise for that. We will ensure that the position is corrected. It has been our intention throughout that, whenever the minutes of meetings are completed, they should be produced and made available. The only explanation for the delay—it is not an excuse—is that the meeting in question occurred at the busiest time for us. It has been our intention to maintain the community liaison groups throughout the bill process. A great deal is going on at the same time. As the promoter, we try to set up meetings in such a way as to be able to provide input to them from the bill process. We also try to put the minutes of meetings on to our website, so that they are available. We take the criticism that has been made on the chin, as this time we did not get it right. We will rectify that.
I want to ask about another issue that was raised by panels 2 and 3 this morning. In your supplementary submission to the committee, you state:
The note that was provided referred specifically to the statutory undertakers. That is made clear in the heading. We have responded to all the statutory undertakers. We are in the process of responding to the other objectors. Charlie Hoskins will say more about that.
There is a lot of detail in the objections, but we believe that we have answered some of the questions in responding to them. Mr Hopkirk was correct when he said that we provided an initial response. When I double-checked, I found that we had provided a detailed response to a couple of members of this morning's panels. The issue is one of timing. Mr Hopkirk, SADD and Paisley North community council will receive detailed responses in a matter of days.
That is helpful.
Yes. A question was asked about that during the consultation process, and I indicated that the cost of the two proposals was broadly similar. We were therefore genuinely concerned to ask in the consultation which was the preferred option. There was a clear preference for the viaduct.
If costings were available at consultation stage, how robust and accurate could those costings be? To be confident that the costs for the viaduct option that you are considering are accurate, you would need to work up detailed plans for both options.
The committee may wish to note the process that we have undertaken since the consultation period. We have conducted a review and, through our consultants, we have double-checked the matter. We have also obtained Network Rail's view on the costs of the project. The projections are robust. They are slightly in excess of £160 million, but they are within the margin of error that we have built in. We believe that the costs are all robust. At this stage, that gives us a large degree of comfort. As we look at the project in greater detail, we find that its costs are hardly changing.
So SPT is confident that the figures are as accurate as they can be.
Yes, we are. The fact is that, as one goes forward in any project and the detail emerges, one expects more and more information to come in. I have been gladdened by the depth of work that has been done. It is notable that the project's costs are fairly stable across the board and have been that way for a considerable time. I put that down to a robust approach to addressing all the issues and questions that are being raised about the project, such as whether our foundation design is right. The answer is coming back that the project's costs are robust.
Will you confirm whether the replacement pitches at St James park are provided for within the bill?
The reconfiguration of St James park is in the bill and the plans that accompany the bill show the limits of the land that will be temporarily used to reconfigure the pitches. As you heard last week from Renfrewshire Council, we are in the final stages of a legal agreement with the council to replace the two pitches that we cannot accommodate at St James park at nearby Ferguslie. The pitches at Ferguslie are not in the plans with the bill, but the costs are in the cost estimate.
The committee will understand that, during the construction phase of the project, we will occupy all the pitches to the east of the viaduct as a construction compound. We realise that we need to be able to provide the pitches for the whole time that the project is under way, so we have been in dialogue with Renfrewshire Council on the temporary location of those pitches. We have identified specific locations and will, within the plan, replace those to league standard. They are also all subject to the agreement to which Charlie Hoskins referred.
This morning, the playability of some of those pitches at certain times of the year was mentioned. Will you confirm that, when the reconfigured pitches are put in place, they will be playable throughout the year without the drainage problems that they have just now?
We have been in dialogue not only with Renfrewshire Council, but with the National Playing Field Association. It is very clear that, when we put the pitches back, the current ground will be poor because it will have been a construction compound with heavy materials, so an ideal opportunity will present itself to reconfigure all the ground and the associated drainage when we put it back. Therefore, the answer is yes.
You explained how the pitches to the east of the viaduct would be used during the construction phase. Would it be possible to improve the drainage on the pitches on the west prior to that so that all of them are available during the time that you occupy those on the east side?
We have discussed that specific point with Renfrewshire Council. Earlier witnesses mentioned that there are areas around the periphery of the park that are not well drained so, to ensure that the pitches on the west side are playable, there will undoubtedly have to be local improvements to the drainage. We have allowed for that in the discussions with the council.
I will take you back to questions on the viaduct. We have received some evidence from Network Rail to supplement the response to previous questioning about the availability of the station and route outside the times that we expect the GARL to operate.
Network Rail was addressing the question about 24-hour operation and making the point that there must be a safe place for men who are maintaining the track that is not being used, which is why a 10ft gap is needed. There would probably also be a fence between the tracks if there was to be maintenance work on one track while trains were running on the other.
We are trying to get a handle on the costs and benefits of extending the operation of GARL.
We can give the committee assurances about notification. The GARL project has benefited from lessons that have been learned from problems with previous schemes and from the guidance, which has been tightened up and is clearer to everyone.
Is there any possibility of late objections? I am still concerned that the project could be scuppered on the basis of environmental considerations in respect of the cholera graves near or on St James park. Have you undertaken any further investigation into whether the graves are in the park, and if so where?
Part of the aim of the archaeological search at St James park was to identify where those graves are. In figure 8.1 in the environmental statement, which I will pass round, you can see various features marked out in orange. Those are items of cultural heritage interest. The alignment is a dotted red line and A6 is a field—field 14 on the Ordnance Survey maps. Paisley had a cholera epidemic in 1832 and more than 400 souls are laid in that field. Council records clearly state that the bodies were laid at the extreme western end of field 14. That area is shaded on the plan. As you can see, the area of the graves is not within the alignment at all; in fact, it is under the M8.
Your answer on the precise location is very interesting. When the committee asked Renfrewshire Council about that it was unable to clarify the position.
The field was in the original information from the council, which was in the form of geographical information systems data. Our cultural heritage experts did further, detailed research of written records and found that the graves were described as being at the extreme western end of the field.
Thank you.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I thank everyone for returning to the meeting. I welcome Tavish Scott MSP, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. We have a number of questions for you, minister. Before we move to our questioning, I understand that you have an opening statement to make.
Yes. Thank you for the invitation to attend your meeting this afternoon, convener. I will do my best to answer members' questions.
Thank you very much. I forgot to welcome from Transport Scotland Bill Reeve, who is the director of rail delivery, and Damian Sharp, who is the head of major projects in rail delivery. If either of you wants to follow up the minister's comments, just let us know.
Damian Sharp will deal with the detail of the consultation process, as he is my official in charge of capital projects overall, and of the rail link in particular.
The development of the project has had two phases. Sinclair Knight Merz produced the original study, in which a large number of options were considered, after which SPT progressed one option, on which it consulted widely. We have been clear about what we expected from SPT during the consultation on that option and its variants and we are satisfied that SPT met those expectations.
That raises the question of how that information is imparted appropriately to members of the public during the final consultation. We have heard today and at other times from individuals who believe that their comments were restricted because only one option existed and that insufficient detail was given on why the other options had been discounted.
We are clear that consultation must be effective and we expect people's questions to be addressed. That is the promoter's responsibility.
The other side to the question is that, as with several other projects of which I can think, members of the Parliament have not been slow to batter down my door when they have deep concerns that reflect those of their constituents and communities. I can think of several ministerial correspondence cases in which representatives from the west of Scotland have done that in the past few years.
I will move on to some overview issues relating to the bill. Do you support the view that Glasgow airport and Prestwick airport are net contributors to the Scottish economy in terms of the comparative spend by incoming and outgoing passengers? What impact will GARL have on increasing that contribution?
I certainly support the contention that those two airports contribute in net terms to Scottish economic output. I have no doubt about that. I hope that you will forgive me for not knowing all the complete numbers off the top of my head, but we can no doubt produce studies to demonstrate that across the network, and I am pretty sure that BAA and the owners of Prestwick airport—if the committee called for it or if it was appropriate—would certainly say in evidence that they are important drivers in our economy. I think that it is fair to say that all the evidence worldwide suggests that when a rail link is added to an airport, particularly a main airport—if I can describe it in that slightly pejorative way—there is no doubt that it assists the airport and encourages other transport advantages that would be gained, such as the modal shift from the car to rail, which is one of the drivers of the project. International and UK experience is that airports are assisted by rail links; they grow because of such improved connections and I am sure that, although there are one or two issues to be resolved, Prestwick will reflect the importance of the rail link.
Do you accept that, even with GARL, road traffic and vehicle emissions will continue to rise, given the large predicted increases in passenger numbers at Glasgow and Prestwick airports?
That is why the rail link is so important. You are right to suggest that, unless we do something to tackle problems attending people who are trying to get to airports for business or leisure or to collect people, and unless we improve that provision and ensure that there is a useful alternative to the car, emissions levels will get considerably worse. There is no question that for both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, the provision of rail links is essential in the context of the wider transport perspective of decreasing car use and therefore emissions.
I turn to a subject that has been raised on a number of occasions: the Glasgow crossrail system. Do you think that the promotion of GARL is premature without the existence of the Glasgow crossrail system?
No, because there is nothing in the GARL proposals that would preclude Glasgow crossrail being developed. Irrespective of the Commonwealth games and other such major events—Glasgow regularly hosts major sporting and other events—there is a strong argument on paper for the Glasgow crossrail. Indeed, members of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail presented the case for that improvement extremely well when I met them recently. That has to stack up with a robust business case, just as every capital transport project must, but I assure the committee that there is nothing in the proposals for the airport rail link—indeed, the bill contains a number of complementary proposals—that would inhibit the Glasgow crossrail project if a future Government were to decide to take it forward.
Do you agree that all of the promoter's policy objectives can be delivered in full through the bill as drafted?
You might have to remind me what all the promoter's policy objectives are, but if you give me and my officials a few moments we should be able to answer your question. I can talk about our objectives, but perhaps the promoter should talk about its own objectives.
I was going to ask about the Executive's objectives as well, but I had expected that the minister would be familiar with the promoter's objectives. I see that he is being presented with them now.
As if by magic.
I will have a look at the information that has just been given to me.
If the minister wants to add anything later, I am sure that the committee will be glad to receive it.
I would be happy to share details of such evidence with the committee if that would help, but we should reflect on the number of airports in the UK and Europe, never mind further afield, that have, or are investing in, airport rail links to ensure that they achieve the necessary better connections that form a strong part of the driving objectives of the GARL scheme. Independent companies, businesses and Governments would not make those investments and argue strongly for the retention and improvement of timetables and connections and so on if the business cases for such investments did not stack up.
When the chief executive of Infratil Airports Europe Ltd was asked whether GARL will
I am not familiar with those comments, so you must forgive me. I will be happy to read the comments in full, but it is difficult for me to respond off the top of my head to comments from someone in that position when I have not seen them. I would probably get myself into a little difficulty.
We were concerned about that because the rail link is supposed to have benefits for Prestwick airport as well as for Glasgow airport.
I should clarify that the Glasgow airport rail link will provide benefits to services to Ayrshire generally through improved reliability. Improved reliability of service to Prestwick must be good for Prestwick airport.
Can we get some clarification about those improvements to services to Ayrshire? Will those be only on the coastal line, which serves only North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire?
I understand what the convener is saying on that point.
What are the Government objectives that support that objective?
As with every other capital transport project that Parliament has recently considered in detail under the capital transport programme, the GARL project must not only meet the top-line objectives but come through a financial process that, as I described in my opening remarks, requires a robust business case that demonstrates the point of investing large amounts of public money and taxpayers' money in the scheme. The top lines are about contributing to the economy, strongly improving connections and enabling modal shift so that we work extremely hard to ensure that people have a choice and can be encouraged to leave their motor cars and instead to use the train and other public transport services.
Does the minister accept that socially excluded people can already use public transport to access Glasgow airport? Will it be possible to provide further subsidies for socially excluded people who travel on GARL? If the projected GARL fare changes, what impact will that have on socially excluded people?
I will ask Bill Reeve to deal with the practical fares and services issues, which I think are probably the driver of the question. I certainly accept the premise that people can use the bus. However, one of the strong arguments for the project has focused on reliability of service and the journey time from the city centre to the airport. I suspect that such drivers are important to anyone. I take the point that Marlyn Glen makes in relation to fares, and I ask Bill Reeve to pick up that point.
I make the general observation that the fare will form part of the suite of fares that are available on rail services in Scotland. Any fare policy that we have for Scotland generally will apply to the airport service. You may know that Transport Scotland is currently studying options for its fare structure going forward. In Scotland, we benefit from rail fares that are typically some 20 to 30 per cent cheaper than are fares for comparable journeys elsewhere in Great Britain; however, that does not leave us satisfied that we have got the entire mix right. We want the fare to be reviewed in the context of all other fares as part of a Scotland-wide fares policy.
One of the objectives of the project is to include people who are generally socially excluded. I wondered whether there is any specific pull for them from GARL.
I cannot see why we would have something specifically for GARL that we would not want the rest of the network to benefit from. I would put it the other way round. We should have a fares structure that takes account of inclusion throughout Scotland, including the fare for this extension to the rail network.
Thank you for that. How can the committee support the policy objective of a high-quality service with competitive journey times when the decisions on timetabling and fares have not been finalised?
I guess that it takes a leap of faith. The promoters have said what they have said—it is firmly on the record, just as what I or any other minister for transport might say would be firmly on the record—regarding what is expected from the service in terms of journey times, reliability and so on. We will be measured against that. I suspect that if we fail to hit those objectives and targets, there will be an awful lot of noise about it.
Is it accurate of the promoter to state that GARL will provide public transport services in the Ayrshire corridors, or is it the case that there will be spare capacity created by GARL that could benefit Ayrshire or Inverclyde?
Bill Reeve will deal with that question. I think that we have done some modelling in the area to provide some back-up and authoritative study on that question.
SPT has commissioned some performance and timetable analysis of how the railway will perform and what the capability of the railway will be once the infrastructure has been altered and upgraded to take account of the Glasgow airport rail link. We will create significant additional capacity between Paisley and Glasgow Central station, which will contribute to the development of capacity further west beyond Paisley, although it may not of itself be sufficient to do more. Transport Scotland has tested that proposal to ensure that it in no way frustrates further service development, and we are content that it will be a sensible increment in the capability of the network.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon. At our first evidence session, connectivity was highlighted as an important factor in getting people to make the modal shift from the car to the train. When the committee visited Manchester airport and looked at its transport infrastructure—bus and rail—it was evident that connectivity had been addressed through the provision of more direct train routes through Manchester airport's station. Do you accept the need to ensure that any line that goes to Glasgow airport should be more than just a shuttle service from Glasgow Central station to the airport?
I believe that we need to aim for greater connectivity than that, which is why I gave the answer that I did to the convener on the Glasgow crossrail project. I accept that we need to move in that direction. However, the trains will stop at Paisley Gilmour Street, which already provides an alternative place for passengers to get off and to connect with other services. It could not be said that the service will operate just between the airport and Glasgow Central station. If the Glasgow crossrail project is to happen in the future, it will assist in ensuring that an airport link into Glasgow will also be part of a strategic rail link across the country.
One of the problems that was encountered in Manchester and has been experienced at other airports that have rail links where people are expected to change trains is that passenger numbers often drop off because of the inconvenience that is created. Notwithstanding the introduction of crossrail in Glasgow, someone who is travelling by train to the airport from the north and east of Glasgow—for example, from around Falkirk or Stirling—will have to come into Queen Street, change trains on to a crossrail train and then change trains at Glasgow Central on to another train to take them out to the airport. They will have to make three different train journeys. We were told that in Manchester numbers dropped off rapidly when people were expected to make such changes. Clearly, that would affect the patronage level of the service. That is why it is important for us to explore further the issue of connectivity. Is it desirable to have more direct routes running to the airport from other stations in Scotland?
Of course it is desirable, but we do not have that option because of the physical infrastructure that exists at present. There are many things that are desirable in transport planning terms, and if we had a blank map and the ability to skew the entire transport budget towards rail, we could meet some objectives more quickly than might otherwise be possible. I understand the premise of the question. Clearly, it is desirable over time to ensure that there are excellent point-to-point connections between Glasgow airport and the rest of Scotland. However, we are not yet at that point. In my view, that in no way diminishes the importance of getting on with the first stage.
Earlier you mentioned the possibility that someone could go to Paisley Gilmour Street, rather than Glasgow Central, to catch a train to the airport. The limited capacity and poor conditions at Paisley Gilmour Street have been raised with the committee. It is also difficult to find parking in the area. To make GARL more successful, is there a need to improve the present standing of Paisley Gilmour Street?
Yes. You make a fair point. I want every station in Scotland to aspire to be the best possible transport interchange hub that it can be. We can do only so much each year with the current budget for the First ScotRail franchise. However, as part of the project, I want to see some demonstrable improvements to the arrangements at Paisley Gilmour Street. I know that SPT, as the promoter of the bill, is committed to that and will consider closely any specific recommendations that the committee makes. [Interruption.] That is not my mobile phone, convener.
I am not sure who is causing the problem.
An advantage of my job is that I occasionally get to travel in the front of a train. Relatively recently, at the convener's invitation, I took a train from Glasgow Central station to Ayrshire, to consider infrastructure in that part of Scotland. The purpose of my visit was not just to visit Margaret Jamieson's constituency but to consider the physical layout of Glasgow Central station, including track and signalling, and to consider the point that you quite fairly raise.
The committee has heard that if an airport rail link is to be successful, there must be, first, sufficient baggage space on trains, and secondly, trains that run when passengers need them to run. Can you give the committee a guarantee that GARL will deliver a service that has sufficient baggage space and—given that Paisley Gilmour Street station is Scotland's fourth busiest station—sufficient capacity at peak times?
Those are fair questions and I am conscious of the need for luggage space. Bill Reeve will talk about that and about capacity, particularly at peak times.
We are very aware of both issues. Transport Scotland is reviewing options for rolling stock provision throughout Scotland, including anticipated demand for a large fleet of new electric units, partly for growth and partly for projects such as GARL. It is clear to us that the units for GARL will need adequate provision for luggage and capacity for passenger numbers. The railway has been designed to accommodate trains that are long enough to cope with anticipated passenger volumes even at peak times, given the frequency of service that is proposed. The rolling stock that will be allocated to GARL will be able to accommodate luggage—that is a key feature of its specification.
Will you also speak about capacity?
Sorry, I thought that I had mentioned that. Capacity at peak times can be accommodated by the length of the trains that we propose to run and the frequency of the service. We do not anticipate overcrowding.
In an earlier evidence-taking session, the committee was told that SPT wants to develop a Glasgow Ibrox station on the GARL line. Therefore, in future the GARL train might make an additional stop at Ibrox. What is the Executive's position on the proposal? Is the Executive of the fixed view that the train should run from Glasgow Central station to Paisley Gilmour Street and Glasgow airport and nowhere else?
That is our policy position. We would take some convincing that we should change that plan, particularly at an advanced stage of design and engineering studies. In addition, I suspect that any station there would have quite significant implications for capacity at certain points in a week. That is certainly our settled position at this time.
In your opening remarks, you said that the Executive would be the major funder but that you were talking to BAA. Are those the only two financial partners on the scene?
SPT is also a funder of the scheme.
What about Scottish Enterprise or any of the local enterprise companies?
No.
Or, indeed, the local authorities.
I am certainly not aware of any local authority funding or any other funding of that nature. However, if there is any specific information, we could bring it back to the committee. There is an application for trans-European networks funding and it would be helpful if the promoter was able to obtain that.
You are quite rightly reluctant to provide details of the negotiations with BAA, but what happens if they come to nought? Will the Scottish Executive be the sole funder?
Those are questions that we would have to deal with at the time, but I hope that the situation will not arise. I strongly believe that it is in BAA's interests to invest in the rail link. There are significant rail links at BAA's other main airports, particularly in the London area, and those are highly advantageous to the business. We expect the same principles to apply to the Glasgow rail link. It is our strong view that BAA's involvement in the project is essential to its safe delivery. From his time on the Finance Committee, Andrew Arbuckle will be familiar with assessing business cases and going through financial assessments. Those are important stages and BAA's involvement in them is essential.
Under the circumstances, is the Scottish Executive's support for the project without financial limit?
No. That is a tough one, but the figures that I have identified today are the Executive's contribution to the project. It is very important that we hit the numbers and timescale on this project, just as I want to do with all our capital transport projects.
We are told that the benefits of the project outweigh the costs and yet there is a need for a subsidy.
If you mean a revenue subsidy, we invest—is it £275 million?
It is rather more.
There we go. We invest in excess of £300 million in the First ScotRail franchise per annum, which is a considerable part of the transport budget year in, year out. Parliament scrutinises the investment and it has every right to do so. It will continue and this project will be part of that franchise arrangement.
What then is the answer to the taxpayer who says that there are other public transport services running on that route without subsidy?
The answer is that that is, of course, the case. Bus services were deregulated in 1985, if my memory serves me correctly. We could have another debate in another place about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but that is the fact of the matter. Transport Scotland—through the national concessionary travel scheme—and many local authorities fund a variety of socially important bus routes, so it is not the case that no bus services receive financial support, because they do. Of course, the basic answer to the question is that Government makes policy choices and is accountable to Parliament for so doing.
The Edinburgh tram scheme has been temporarily scaled back because of financial constraints. Can you give me any guarantees on the GARL project?
I cannot say any more than I said earlier, which is that at every stage, including every quarter, we ensure that this project, like all the others, goes through further and continuing assessment of its financial robustness and the positive nature of its business case.
We have received written evidence that suggests that the promoter's contingency estimates do not accord with Treasury guidelines. Is that correct?
Damian Sharp will deal happily with Treasury guidelines.
I can confirm that, as this is a standard civil engineering project, the promoter started with Treasury guidelines of a 44 per cent optimism bias. Through a variety of risk-reduction measures, an optimism bias can fall as one becomes clearer what the risk is and accounts for it. I can confirm that the promoter has applied the guidelines and has reduced the optimism bias to 28 per cent.
The original study was extremely critical of the economic benefits of the project. Other factors were brought in that changed the equation. Why was the wider picture not considered from the start?
Damian, can you deal with that? It slightly predates me, so I will pass the buck.
There are two reasons. The main cause of the change in the benefit cost ratio of the Glasgow airport rail link is a change to Treasury guidance about the length of time over which one appraises projects, from a maximum of 30 years to the whole life of the project. The other reason relates to the specific remit that was set for the consultants, Sinclair Knight Merz, that conducted the original work. It seldom delivers value to change our minds about a project's remit once it has started.
Minister, I will start with a couple of points on your opening statement and your answers to questions. You have talked about how you remain to be convinced of the need for a further station at Ibrox. You have also talked about your support for the route as it stands, which goes from Glasgow Central to the airport, with a stop at Paisley. Would you still be supportive of the bill if the route was more of an express service and went directly from Glasgow Central to Glasgow airport with no stops? Other airports have such a service.
I would not be more supportive, in the sense that this is the project that is before the committee and me. I believe that in design, engineering and operating terms, the service meets our objectives on reliability and, perhaps more important, the time that it will take to get to the city centre. You are right that some airport rail services are direct; some also have stops. I can think of a number of European capitals where the service to the city centre is not direct but stops at one or two stations. The Executive and the promoter have come to a judgment about the advantages that flow from having that one stop.
Is the judgment based on the benefits of expanding capacity on the route to Paisley rather than the benefits of having the spur to the airport?
I will get Damian Sharp to comment on the methodological findings behind that. The crucial aspect is delivering a link to the airport which, after all, is the aim of the bill. The important element in that context, particularly for engineering design, is the link between Paisley and the airport. Damian will keep me right here but I assume that when the project was first considered, for a number of reasons Paisley was seen as the logical place for the service to the city centre to connect to the mainline railway system.
The inclusion of a stop on the Glasgow airport rail link at Paisley delivers three benefits. First, it directly connects Paisley to the airport by rail. Secondly, it provides an interchange between the rail link and other rail services, notably from Inverclyde and Ayrshire, so that, instead of having to go all the way into Glasgow Central to come back out again, people will have the opportunity to change at Paisley Gilmour Street. Thirdly, as Mr Monteith said, it delivers additional capacity for train services between Paisley and Glasgow city centre. It delivers on all those benefit streams. That is why the scheme includes a stop at Paisley Gilmour Street and not just at Glasgow airport.
Are you aware that the tables for growth in passenger numbers that the promoter has provided to the committee show that the percentage of passengers using GARL would fall in areas such as Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Inverclyde?
I am not familiar with the tables and am not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you talking about where the people who live in the areas to which you refer go at the moment, because there is no rail link, or about the alternative means that they could use to get to the airport?
I am trying to tease out whether we can be certain that the benefits that have been described will be achieved, because the projections in the tables that we have been given—which extend to around 2030—are not easy to pin down. They suggest that in some cases the proportion of people using the rail link from the areas that we might expect to use it more will not increase but decrease.
We will see whether we can provide the committee with more evidence on the issue. I do not know whether that will be possible today. I appreciate that I am jumping to another rail line, but since we opened the Larkhall to Milngavie line, the numbers using it have considerably exceeded expectations, which is genuinely positive both for the rail industry and for those of us who believe strongly in it. We will try to clarify for the committee the figures to which Mr Monteith refers.
In your opening statement, you talked about the importance of GARL for those who work at the airport and those who use it for travel. The first flights start just before 6 am, before the line will be operative. Given that international flights now require people to check in two hours before departure, those wishing to travel and those who need to be at the airport to check in travellers, to handle luggage and so on will not be able to use the line. What message does the Executive have for those who are trying to get to the airport for earlier flights?
Damian Sharp can deal with the issue of patronage assessments and the length of the day during which the service will operate. Andrew Arbuckle asked about the on-going revenue costs of the service to the whole franchise. If we had a blank piece of paper and no budgetary worries, it would be desirable to run the service 24/7, but we are not there. Damian Sharp may be able to say what assessment has been made of the possibility of lengthening the period of operation of the service, depending on the day or on known patronage. There is some difference between summer and winter, as there are more charters during the summer that might leave at unearthly hours.
The patronage assessments aim to ensure that there are trains at the busiest times of the airport day. It is always necessary to strike a balance between patronage and the practicalities of maintaining the railway, which is traditionally done during the night, when the line is closed down. It is true that the Glasgow airport rail link will not serve the needs of all air passengers. It cannot do so in the environment of a modern airport. The Heathrow express does not serve the needs of all passengers at Heathrow airport.
In answer to Margaret Jamieson's question on crossrail, the minister said that nothing precludes crossrail from happening. Although that is true, is it not the case that, for the business case to be delivered effectively, the projects would need to be introduced more or less concurrently?
No. If that were the case, we would not have proceeded with the GARL project at this time. That is the straight answer. You are right in the sense that there would be a benefit to a concurrent phasing in beginning those plans, but we would not be here today if we had concerns.
From the perspective of cost and timing, is it wise to include provision in the bill for a fuel farm to be relocated before the final findings of the Buncefield inquiry have been completed?
My recollection of that detailed point of negotiation with airport operators is that the relocation is desirable in relation to a number of other aspects as well. Can one of the gentlemen next to me shed light on the issue without getting into complicated areas of BAA management policy on airport operations?
The bill contains powers for the relocation of the fuel farm, but it does not provide details of what the fuel farm must be like. There may well be relevant recommendations on that from the Buncefield inquiry. The intention is that, whatever those recommendations are, the bill will contain sufficient provision to allow a new fuel farm to go ahead.
I would also assume that, following the recommendations, any subsequent planning application would need to be subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive, SEPA and everyone else. In that sense, the relocation will not happen immediately. I would assume that there will be time to consider the recommendations along with the other evidence from all the other statutory bodies that would be involved in such a decision.
Further to what you have just said, in a speech that you gave on 16 March 2006—we have all the information before us—you stated:
No, I believe that the promoter is being realistic and entirely robust about the progress that is being made. The detailed negotiations with BAA on, for example, the tank farm are, I believe, programmed into the decision-making process as fully as is possible. The project will be subject to the quarterly review that we take on every capital transport project, so I have no doubts about the matter at all. I believe that it is well within the promoter's capacity to hit the timescale and, crucially, the budget for the project.
Given that the final design of the project will not be complete until much later, can you be certain about all the capital elements? Are all the capital costs required? For example, is there a need to deliver platform 11a or could the same result be achieved and better connectivity provided by a more efficient use of current services?
I may ask the guys to deal with any technical aspects of that question, but the direct answer is that we produce a band of figures precisely because there is a degree of flexibility in the detailed design. Indeed, one of your colleagues—I forget which—made some fair points about Paisley Gilmour Street and so on. That issue will need to be factored into what I agree is a necessary investment. However, the banding gives us assurance on those aspects of the scheme. I can assure you that, whether we are dealing with Network Rail or any other partner, we will drive out cost wherever we can.
I have just two more questions. Why is it, according to the promoter, that the Scottish Executive
That is a jolly good question.
The rail link is intended to be delivered by 2009.
I take the point.
We insisted on that because of sad and bitter experience, unfortunately. Some members may recall the Larkhall to Milngavie project, on which we were within six weeks of those 10 years being up. The reality is that we do not wish to spend anywhere near that length of time, but introducing an ability for people to frustrate and delay the scheme in the knowledge that it would fall over after five years would not be good governance and would not provide us with the certainty that we need in making the investment. That is why we went for the 10-year period. Other schemes have imposed periods of five years plus another five years, but we went for 10 years because it was clearer. The bill states that that is the maximum period and that no request for extension will be allowed.
The running costs are estimated to be £4.3 million a year over 30 years, amounting to a total of £129 million. It is clear that that will be funded through the fare box and the franchise agreement. To what extent can the Executive commit to that franchise agreement in order to make up any shortfall in funding?
The franchise agreement is for seven years with an option to extend by three. By definition, such an extension has to be to the mutual benefit of both the franchise company and the Government, which pays for the franchise. That would provide an opportunity for any necessary negotiations about funding.
We know that you are pressed for time, but we have some final questions that need to be asked. Can you demonstrate to the committee that you have fully considered the interaction between GARL and the proposed Edinburgh airport rail link and that there will be sufficient patronage of both?
They are linked by headline, but they are separate projects in terms of the details of design, engineering and procurement. The linkage is at that top level where we wish to demonstrate that airports benefit in general from rail links, which are economic drivers in local and national economies. It is important to make such investments and to work with airport operators to make the best of them.
We asked you earlier about emissions. The promoter has stated that GARL would increase the use of rail and decrease the use of cars and taxis. It also stated that by 2030, taxi use will be 65 per cent higher than immediately before the opening of GARL. How do we square that circle?
I suspect that we have no option. Generally speaking, crude oil is $70 a barrel—I was about to say $100 a barrel because that is what it sometimes feels like where I live. There is no doubt that there are serious concerns for the national economy and the Parliament about future emissions and our responsibility to the next generation. We have to be serious about modal shift and about encouraging people to use forms of transport that are easier on our environment. No transport minister or Government of any persuasion will be able to back away from that challenge.
Concern about certain studies that have been carried out was expressed to the committee. We note that an SKM study was extremely critical of the economic benefits of GARL. Other factors were included in subsequent assessments, which boosted the case for GARL. Why were those factors not included in the first place? Will they generate the economic benefits that the promoter claims they will generate?
It strikes me as reasonable practice to have a pretty critical analysis of a project at the first stage. Business cases for projects must be robust. We do not want studies that say, "Yes, promoter, you've got it right on every button"; we want them critically to challenge the assumptions of promoters and Government—after all, we are talking about £170 million of taxpayers' money. After the critical analysis has been done, it is important to consider how to address the concerns. Damian Sharp might comment on the detail of the process in relation to the studies.
The main difference between the SKM study and subsequent assessments arose from the extension of the appraisal period from 30 years to the full life of the asset, in line with changes in Treasury guidance, and not from the inclusion of other factors. The consultants delivered against the remit that was originally set, and in doing so they acknowledged that there were areas of benefit that they had not quantified. Therefore the promoter sought to quantify those benefits.
Minister, you talked about the need for the economic aspects of projects to be subject to critical challenge. However, at last week's meeting, Simon Wallwork told the committee that his proposals for an alternative to SPT's scheme were never fully assessed. Do you have information on that?
I suspect that there might be a difference of view about what constitutes a full assessment. I do not in any way belittle alternative proposals that have been made, but it is fair to say that the promoter had a responsibility to make the best assessment and Transport Scotland—and the transport group that preceded it—had to make a full assessment of alternative proposals against the criteria that we set. There are technical and engineering issues in that regard. I am strongly of the view that any realistic alternative to the proposal that is firmly on the table has been properly considered. Other people might have different views.
You stressed the importance of modal shift and getting people out of their cars and on to public transport, in particular trains. Are you aware that the promoter estimates that by 2030 GARL will probably have reduced car journeys on the M8 by about 0.5 per cent? Does that represent a significant modal shift over 21 years?
First, that is a conservative assessment. Successive committees of the Scottish Parliament have been critical of grandiose aspirations for modal shift. It is also obvious that the M8 does more than just deliver traffic to Glasgow airport.
Yes, the figure is 0.5 per cent of all traffic on the M8, which is obviously not just headed for the airport. On what basis do you think that the figure is conservative?
We should be careful about the figure. If we were talking about 0.5 per cent of the traffic that went just to the airport—
No, I am talking about a reduction in all traffic on the M8.
That is exactly why it is important to put the figure in context—it is 0.5 per cent of all the traffic that currently uses the M8. It might be better to ascertain how many motor vehicles go to Glasgow airport—I presume that there are figures for that—and how many of those vehicles would come off the road because GARL was being used.
Okay. I might pursue the conservative nature of the figures with the promoter later.
Yes.
What assessment have you made of that?
All the evidence has been presented to you. There is all the project casework, the robust business arguments that are made and the business case assessment that is done day-in and day-out, quarter-in and quarter-out. I assure you that there is no light-touch assessment of the project. It happens every quarter and it will continue to happen, with this project and every other one.
Thank you.
The promoter of GARL has a job to do in putting forward the case for the rail link and defending it robustly. One can expect you to give your support as long as the business case stacks up. The promoter for the Edinburgh airport rail link has the same task: to make a business case that will allow you, as the minister, to support it. You are in the unique position of having to support both projects as long as the business cases stack up. You have an interest in seeing both projects through because they are part of your policy.
The best answer to that is to look at the projections in the aviation white paper; I am sure that it has been shared with the committee and it is certainly in the public domain. Those are Department for Transport assessments of the growth of air travel across the UK and in a wider international context. That trend is still upwards. Again, forgive me for not having the white paper with me but the figures for growth are very strong. That is, after all, why the DFT has concluded that planning should be done for second runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Those are strong, driving arguments, facts and figures. Admittedly, they are based on assessments and modelling of the likely growth in air travel during the next 30 years, but it is still important to invest in the surface infrastructure to make sure that people can move around Scotland and to and from the airports.
I thank you for your evidence and apologise for keeping you a bit late. I am sure that you will make up the time.
There is a speed limit.
I thank the minister and welcome back to the table members of panel 5, who I will not introduce. I notice that Mr Parry Jones has left us. I do not think that we have questions for him so we will continue now.
I refer the witnesses to the useful tables in the SPT submission that show passenger travel to and from Glasgow airport and projected passenger use of GARL in 2009 and 2030. I seek clarification of those figures. Has the completion of crossrail been factored into the 2009 or 2030 figures or were they drawn up without knowing whether crossrail will happen?
Those figures do not take account of crossrail.
So if crossrail were to happen, it would have an impact on the figures.
I clarify that neither the patronage estimates nor anything else in the bill assumes the existence of crossrail.
I just wanted to check because crossrail might change the picture.
Given that the question we were asked related to Ayrshire and Inverclyde, rather than burdening the committee with an enormously long table that would not be easy to understand, we decided to provide a relatively disaggregated table to reflect those areas in relation to Glasgow airport and to aggregate areas that are further away.
That is helpful. It is clear that Falkirk, which is in the Glasgow to Edinburgh corridor, would be in the south-east Scotland area, but one has to leave that corridor to get to Stirling.
I confirm that Falkirk is somewhat on the margin. We will come back to you on that one.
I would like to continue to break down the table, which has rather whetted my appetite. Does it take account of the proposed Edinburgh airport rail link? I presume that it does not, but for the avoidance of doubt, is that link beyond consideration in the same way that crossrail is?
You are absolutely right—it is not included.
Okay. Would it be possible, even at this stage, to show the split between origin and destination in tables 1 and 2? In taking evidence we have been considering the different travel requirements of people who arrive at the airport and people who depart from the airport, some of whom are leaving Scotland. The tables show passenger numbers, but not whether people are coming or going.
It should be possible to provide that split and we will be happy to do that.
I can anticipate your answer to this, given your comments about Ayrshire. The tables treat passengers from south-east Scotland and England and Wales together, which must be rather a large number of travellers. Could we have separate figures for the different regions? You will have noticed that the committee is concerned about connectivity and we want to get a handle on the numbers in that regard.
It will be possible to provide separate figures. For information, in practice nearly all the users of Glasgow airport who come from England and Wales are from the Carlisle area—not many people come from Devon, for example.
That helps us in our attempts to pin down the figures in the tables.
Table 2 shows projections for total use of the airport and demonstrates that trends will change relatively little over 21 years, which is quite a long time in the context of trends in air travel. There will be a little expansion of the airport's catchment area and a higher proportion of air passengers will come from the two zones that are furthest from the airport. However, the expansion will not be spectacular.
Okay, but looking at GARL users between 2009 and 2030, the number of people travelling from Glasgow falls, although I know that it is a marginal drop of 0.1 per cent. The figure for Inverclyde also falls. It strikes me as odd that those percentages might fall.
I can only reiterate what I said earlier: the table shows that there is strong growth in the number of air passengers from every zone in table 2.
Indeed.
There is slightly higher growth in the number of passengers coming from the areas furthest away from Glasgow, which shows that the airport is expanding its catchment. As I said earlier, EARL is not factored into the figures.
Okay. I follow the arithmetic.
That is the intention. At the moment, the concessionary scheme for rail travellers applies to all services in the SPT area and I cannot see why Glasgow airport station would be excluded from that. To take the example of the Glasgow to Paisley route, that would obviously be in the scheme because it already exists. There is no reason to expect Glasgow airport station to be treated any differently.
Why did GARL's economic case not take account of bus concessions?
They were not seen as a significant factor. Having gone back and done the calculations, as we said in written evidence, we see that bus concessions would reduce the benefits by 0.5 per cent at most.
Which benefits would those be?
Where there is free travel on buses and discounted fares on rail, you would expect slightly fewer concessionary passengers to use GARL than if the concessionary fares did not exist or if both modes were free. Those passengers would therefore not get the time-saving benefits that they would enjoy if they used GARL.
On the implications of concessions, you quote data showing that only 12.9 per cent of air passengers are aged 60 or over. Given demographic change, is that not likely to become a significant group of people over time?
It is likely to grow, although it will not grow hugely. It is interesting that while the proportion of the population over 60 has grown substantially in the past 20 years, the group among which there has been most growth is people over 80. They tend not to be heavy users of any mode of transport, because at that age they tend to suffer from limited mobility and even with concessionary fares they are not in a position to make much use of public transport.
We have done quite a lot of work on the matter because of our regional transport strategy. For the west of Scotland, the growth in the number of people over 65 will be about 5 per cent up to 2021. That outstrips the growth of the general population, which is growing at a much slower rate.
That is helpful.
There will be two groups. A small group of air passengers, who are perhaps going on cycling holidays, will find it convenient to be able to ride their bike to their local station and to put it on the train to get it to the airport and loaded on to the plane. Another group might be airport employees who live too far away from the airport to cycle the whole way, but who would like to take advantage of the ability to cycle and then ride on the train, as some people who commute into Glasgow do now. The number of cyclists will be affected to some extent by the times of operation. That comes back to the more general question that you asked about the operating times of the service.
Yes, it does.
We are focusing on the policy objective. We are clear that GARL will not solve all the problems and encourage a huge number of people to get on their bikes, but we are allowing for the development of that opportunity. The existence of a train service to the airport will mean that passengers can take their bicycles on it. Simon Temple gave two examples of situations in which people might do so. Without such a train service it is difficult to take a bike to the airport on public transport. Obviously, people who live within a short distance of the airport can currently cycle to it.
One more category of people that I should have added is people who cycle to a station, leave their bike there and get the train. That is another example of improved interchange between cycle and rail. People can cycle as well as walk to the station.
The environmental statement refers at various points to temporary cycle path diversions. Does the promoter believe that GARL will provide enhanced interchange opportunities for walkers and cyclists?
I hope that I partly answered that question in my previous response. The focus in delivering that objective is that the rail service in itself will allow the opportunity for interchange. We have spoken previously about our on-going work with BAA on the transport interchange. Members will have seen the example of Manchester, where cyclists are encouraged to use such a facility. We fully recognise that although the bill does not deliver an interchange, it provides the opportunity for one in future, because there will not be an interchange without a railway station at Glasgow airport.
That is right. A cycle path crosses Paisley Moss local nature reserve. The route goes across what will be the access to the new fuel farm, so during construction the path will have to be diverted temporarily, but during operation the cycle path, which goes to Inchinnan, can be reinstated.
I should also point out that, at the moment, cycles are carried free on all services in the SPT area.
Do any of your policies reflect the recent ruling that space for bikes should be given up to make room for disabled people's wheelchairs?
The issue has certainly had to be borne in mind in the design of train interiors. However, I do not imagine that it will be a practical problem for the airport rail link, which will, after all, be an electrified service with ample room for cycles and wheelchair passengers. That said, we have not yet had to take account of the ruling in our policies.
But will the ruling affect the current rolling stock that will be used to take cyclists from Glasgow airport to Paisley Gilmour Street and, in turn, make it more difficult for such passengers to use the train?
I imagine that Transport Scotland will take account of the issue when it considers the next generation of rolling stock.
My next question follows on from our earlier questions on the impact of EARL on GARL's patronage figures. It would be an understatement to say that, after taking evidence from you last week, members left the committee room feeling gobsmacked. An article in last week's Evening Times claimed that SPT supported the introduction of a direct bus service from Glasgow city centre to the airport and that private operators would run another bus service between the airport and the city's major hotels. What impact will those bus schemes—which have been approved and will be funded—have on GARL's patronage figures?
Both options will be entirely complementary to GARL and will not detract from its level of patronage. I point out that the fastlink proposal still needs to receive planning approval before work can start on it.
I return to the example of Manchester, which I know has been of interest to the committee. As you are aware, there is a fast rail link from the airport into Manchester city centre, and there is a proposal for a metrolink-like rail link that will also go to the city centre. In a way, that is Manchester's equivalent of the fastlink bus service, in that it will serve a number of communities along a different corridor on the way into the city centre. It will not be competitive in terms of journey time into the city, but it will fulfil a complementary role by serving other places.
Your information about the possibility of doing something at Ibrox is interesting in relation to meeting the objectives of Glasgow City Council. Why are you saying that you could do something at Ibrox with GARL if that area, greater Govan, will be better served by the new bus service?
I will start with a point of clarification. The proposal for a station at Ibrox was made by Glasgow City Council; it is not necessarily SPT's proposal. The city council was keen that, when we were developing GARL, we ensured that we did not prejudice its proposal. We clarified with the city council that that would be the case, and that the increased track in that locality would not prejudice the future construction of a station at Ibrox.
You make a reasonable point, convener. If the fastlink service proceeds, that will affect some of the arguments for also having a station at Ibrox.
Do you think that the announcement last week with regard to the new bus service has aided your case?
I do not think that it has done any harm. We genuinely believe that the two schemes are complementary. The announcement came out when it did because the entire focus of the proposal is not about travel to the airport—it simply identified the airport as one possible far-end terminus for the service. The whole focus of the fastlink proposal is the regeneration of both banks of Clydeside and the serving of the housing developments in the area and the commercial development, which includes the BBC, Channel 4 and others moving to Pacific Quay. The driver for the new bus service is Clydeside regeneration rather than serving the airport. Had the driver been to serve the airport, the announcement might have been made when you did not want it to be made.
I am concerned that SPT did not think it appropriate to advise the committee of that pending announcement—it did not tell us, and we have had to raise the matter today. If that is the way that the bill committee is treated by SPT, we can see why individuals who you say were consulted believe that they were not consulted. Your organisation needs to think about that. It is important to state that we should have been given that information. It should not have had to take your being brought here today for us to get the answers that you have now provided.
Yes. The proposed rolling stock in the project is what is called three-car length. The experience elsewhere is that, as demand increases, lengthening the trains is an option. The length of Glasgow airport station's platform allows for an eight-car train. That has also been allowed for in the new platform at Glasgow Central station.
In the absence of any provision for planning agreements or other third-party agreements within the bill, can you bind Glasgow airport to anything other than voluntary contributions?
Could you clarify what area you have concerns about?
Glasgow airport's contribution to the link is strictly voluntary. If BAA turns around and says, "This is a brilliant idea, but we ain't paying a penny towards it," what can you do?
You raise a valid point. In developing the project, we have recognised that we would much prefer to have BAA as a voluntary contributor—that would add value to the project. It has seen some benefit in investing in the project. The picture is reasonably good. However, as we have said before, there needs to be a little bit of coercion, otherwise BAA could walk away with its millions of pounds. That is why the bill includes provisions to deal with that.
Do you believe that Glasgow airport would have had to move the fuel depot anyway? We heard that it has plans to expand the airport to the west, which is where the fuel depot is. If it carried out those plans without the involvement of anyone else, it would have to bear the full financial burden of the cost that it is now looking to get from the public purse.
BAA has said, most recently in the evidence that it provided a couple of weeks ago, that it recognises that the fuel farm will have to either be relocated or be designed around. Both of those options would have some impact in terms of finance, which is why that issue is part of our on-going negotiations. We are firmly of the belief that, in any case, BAA would have had to meet the cost of dealing with the location of the fuel farm and that the only difference in cost that might result from the project that we are engaged in is the need to deal with that a little earlier than otherwise. That is as far as I can go in relation to the negotiations.
I appreciate that.
We fully recognise that that is an issue and that the public purse should not be funding the entire redevelopment of the fuel farm, which is part of the master plan.
Can you confirm that a future transport interchange at Glasgow airport would provide sufficient signage and publicity for all methods of transport, not just GARL?
A degree of co-operation would be required of BAA in that respect. BAA is part of the transport forum, and there is a group of bodies that meets to discuss transport. I am absolutely certain that signage will be part of the strategy for the development of the interchange at the airport and I expect that to be a central plank in the success of any interchange. BAA is aware of the range of things that has to be done to encourage people to cycle, to walk or to take the bus or the train, and I have always been encouraged by BAA's interaction with the transport forum, which hosts those meetings and encourages those developments.
I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify some previous evidence. Last week, there was some discussion about the possibility of additional trains being provided on some of the other routes, off the back of the new infrastructure. Mr Halliday made the point that two extra trains an hour could be provided for on the Ayrshire line, which would represent a 50 per cent increase over current capacity. What would the overall increase be between the Inverclyde, Ayrshire and Prestwick lines? Network Rail made it quite clear that, in its view, the additional provision would have a marginal effect on increasing overall capacity, but are the two extra trains an hour that were mentioned all that could be afforded with all the additional infrastructure that is planned?
I can explain the stage that we have reached in the analysis, and Simon Temple can give a little more technical detail. The development—and the necessary rejigging—of the timetable must be analysed to see what the impact on performance would be and it must be built around a global timetable that works. The infrastructure that is required for the project will provide an extra two paths, which could be used on the Ayrshire line. What Network Rail said could be interpreted as meaning that, if we take the total amount of rail travel, including freight traffic from the coalfields of Ayrshire, the increase of two extra trains an hour may appear marginal. However, as we said in evidence last week, we are talking about services that could increase from half-hourly to every 15 minutes, so there are potentials around that. However, specific timetabling issues would have to be addressed when we reached that stage.
Would that potential increase be on a single line, or would it be on the Inverclyde line, the Ayrshire line and the Prestwick line?
At present, the standard hourly timetable has four trains from Ayrshire—two from Ayr, one from Ardrossan and one from Largs—and four from Inverclyde. With the Glasgow airport rail link and the additional mainline infrastructure, there will be four trains from Ayrshire, four from Inverclyde and four from the airport—a total of 12—so there would be a 50 per cent increase between Paisley and Glasgow. In addition, there will be capacity between Paisley and Glasgow for a further two trains with the GARL infrastructure, which takes the total between Paisley and Glasgow from 12 to 14, which is what one would describe as a marginal increase.
That is helpful.
To clarify, the trains that serve Prestwick airport are the trains that go to Ayr. There is not a separate service to Prestwick.
One of the reasons why we think about the line to Ayr is that we know it is the busiest corridor. Often there is standing room only, especially on the approaches to Paisley. The Ayr corridor has the greatest potential for growth. That belief is held not only by us, but by First ScotRail, which has been in discussions with us and Transport Scotland. The corridor is the likely place for the additional services to be apportioned.
That clarification is helpful.
Yes. Obviously, the initial scheme serves only Glasgow Central station and Paisley. With one change of train, people will be able to travel to a large number of stations from Paisley and to an even larger number from Glasgow Central. However, the scheme will provide additional opportunities beyond that—I think that that is the core of your question. The first opportunity is the one that has already been mentioned. It will be possible for some of the airport trains to reverse and head back out to another destination, which will save people changing trains. Having the extra platform at Glasgow Central will obviously help with that.
Your point about connecting with crossrail is new to me; I may have missed it previously. Are you suggesting that it will be possible for trains that leave Glasgow airport on the Paisley line to go on to the crossrail line, when it is in place, to Queen Street station? Will the infrastructure in the current plan allow the required adaptations to be made in the future?
Indeed. One of the main objectives of crossrail is to enable exactly that connectivity so that airport trains or trains from Ayrshire can travel to Queen Street station.
May I clarify something about crossrail? A new piece of line is required for the services that you are talking about to get to Queen Street station. It would be possible to use the track and reverse at Bellgrove, but that is not a manoeuvre that one would do naturally. The crossrail project will involve new infrastructure, new lines, new stations and new junctions. GARL will link into that and make new connections. Crossrail will take trains either round the High Street and into Queen Street or to the east via other lines—Springburn or Airdrie to Bathgate, for example.
If we increase the possibility of there being more direct services to the airport, we will have to address the issue of capacity to accommodate trains at the airport end. We have heard that we can get trains of up to eight passenger carriages. Would the design for the station at the airport allow for a second platform, should that become necessary in the future?
The branch line is a twin line—there are two lines. As it approaches the station at the airport, there is a crossover. Two lines go into the airport station, which has a central platform. In essence, there is the capacity to deal with more than four trains per hour. The trains will be able to be switched as they enter and leave, so that they get on to the right line.
There will be a single-island platform, with two platform faces. In effect, there will be two platforms at the station, so two trains can be at the station at the same time.
The track layout is almost exactly the same as that at Manchester airport station. The platforms are about the same length and eight trains per hour are run from Manchester airport at present.
It is helpful to know that.
The percentage figure relates to all the traffic on the M8, not just traffic to and from the airport. I think that I misled you slightly when I said two weeks ago that the figure was 0.5 per cent. I have checked the figures and can tell you that the percentage is 0.8 per cent. Admittedly, the figure is still less than 1 per cent, but it is slightly higher than I said it was two weeks ago.
Given that the 0.8 per cent is the figure for traffic volume on the M8 in general, what is the specific figure for car journeys to the airport?
I will have to get back to you with that.
That would be helpful, because it would put the other figure in context.
Where was the measurement on the M8 taken? The M8 goes from Edinburgh to Greenock.
It was taken between the airport and Glasgow city centre. I cannot remember which junctions it was taken between.
When do you anticipate publishing SPT's proposals for crossrail, which will be the next stage if GARL goes ahead?
The rail powers in Scotland changed recently, and the agency that is responsible is now Transport Scotland. It is no secret that SPT had been pursuing crossrail for many years before that change was made.
John Halliday made a point about crossrail and the extra piece of line. Would that extra piece of line allow trains from Glasgow airport to go to Queen Street station without having to go to Glasgow Central and come out again?
That is entirely possible. It could be done using a line that connects in roughly around Shields junction and takes off across what is called the city union line. The line is currently used for transporting empty rolling stock, so we understand that it would need to be upgraded to passenger standards. On the other side of the Clyde, the line would loop round by the High Street and on to the Airdrie to Helensburgh line.
We are aware of the capacity problems at Glasgow Central, and you described the single platform with track on either side at Glasgow airport. While keeping its four trains per hour, would the airport station be able to accommodate additional trains that might go to Motherwell or Queen Street without having to go to Glasgow Central, where they might meet a logjam?
Yes, potentially. We in SPT have that vision. Infrastructure would have to be put in place to develop it, but I am sure that you understand that. That is part of our vision of connecting into the rest of the country.
I can clarify that, at Glasgow airport station, two platforms and two tracks on the branch line would allow additional services on top of four trains per hour. We examined the matter in considerable detail during our work on the branch line and determined that we needed a twin-track branch line.
There are no further questions. Any supplementary evidence from the promoter must be received by the clerk not later than Wednesday of this week. The timetable is getting ever shorter. I thank the panel members for their evidence.
Next
Assessor