Official Report 416KB pdf
I welcome the first panel of witnesses. They are David McDougall, president of West Lothian Chamber of Commerce; Douglas Millar, chief executive of Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce; and David Elder, president of Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce.
I will kick off with a response from the perspective of the business community in West Lothian. At the moment, there is a good communication link from Linlithgow to Glasgow by public transport, but from the southern part of West Lothian—the area around Livingston, where most of the economic growth has been in the past 20 years—communication links to Glasgow by public transport are so poor that they are hardly ever used. If somebody has to go to a meeting in Glasgow, their default option is to jump in a car and clog up the M8 going into Glasgow, so we are keen to have an alternative means of getting into Glasgow quickly. From Livingston, it is possible to get to a meeting in the centre of Edinburgh in 20 minutes. To go into Glasgow takes about an hour and a half if we are lucky, so there is a real need for an alternative, to allow people to have quick and regular access into Glasgow.
That is helpful. Thank you.
From a Lanarkshire perspective, it is almost the opposite. Our transport infrastructure is very much linked into Glasgow's—it is like a spider's web, with everything from Lanarkshire going into the centre of Glasgow. Getting links to the east is important to us. We think that the railway will help to create job opportunities for Lanarkshire people in the east of Scotland. In the area that will be served by the rail link, there are high numbers of unemployed people who do not have access to cars. It is important to open up transport links to give those people job opportunities. That will create wealth in the local economy, which will then be spent in the shops and will benefit the local community.
Thank you. Mr Elder, do you have anything to add?
I reiterate what has been said from both points of view. I am also the director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and with that hat on I can say that people on both sides of the fence are keen to open up economic links. Douglas Millar made a good point about individuals who do not have cars. People often talk about getting in the car and going through to Glasgow for business, but in many areas, particularly in North Lanarkshire, people would benefit from being able to get a job in Livingston or Bathgate. At the moment there is no way for them to do that by public transport.
I would like to ask a question arising from Mr McDougall's comments. At present, is there a high number of people from North Lanarkshire going eastwards passing people from Lothian going westwards?
There is a lot of movement back and forward. Some of the companies in West Lothian bus people in, but that is an expensive option that benefits only companies that are over a certain size. Smaller employers have to rely on people being able to come in by car or by public transport, but the public transport is not good enough to allow people to have flexibility. The shift patterns of big employers in West Lothian such as Sky and Intelligent Finance are such that they need people to be able to travel at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, for example. It is all very well having certain options available, but at the moment companies are restricted in what they can do, rather than being liberated to do what they want to do. Transport is definitely a constraint, because there is a big demand for people to move back and forward.
I would like to ask specifically about the £340 million, because I know that chambers of commerce are careful with their cash. Do you think that the project would be good value?
It would be good value if it were accompanied by a lot of other things. From a West Lothian perspective, I would say that the key factor would be having the rail project dovetailed with an integrated bus timetable, so that when people arrive at stations they can travel on with confidence. Similarly, it would mean that someone in West Lothian could jump on a bus, go to the station—ideally with one ticket—and go right through to their destination. The new rail service would have to dovetail with other local services.
That is an interesting remark.
What advantages to local people will the railway, as opposed to improved bus services, offer in increasing access to wider job markets, increasing inward investment and improving local economic performance?
We can look at what happened when the new Larkhall rail line was opened last year. The passenger numbers that were predicted for that route have already been exceeded, so we can see that the use of a railway line can grow quite quickly. The impression that we in Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce have is that if we invest more in the railway infrastructure throughout central Scotland, people will use it. Such investment would release people from using their cars on the M8 and, we hope, free up some of the congestion that is hindering business performance in the central belt.
A good example is the station at Motherwell, which has a large car park. More and more, because of congestion and parking issues in the centre of Edinburgh, if my colleagues and I need to attend meetings there, we use the alternative to driving of travelling from a station with good links. You need only go to Motherwell station car park of a morning to see it full of cars that would previously have been driven into Edinburgh. Many of those would have contained only the driver.
Would an improved bus service not do exactly the same thing?
The timings of a bus service just do not compare with those of a train. From a business point of view, someone could be on a bus much longer than they would be on a train. Speed and time are an issue. Also, on the train, they can use a laptop or mobile and do business while they are travelling; that is a big issue for the chamber of commerce. Instead of sitting on a bus being unable to do anything, people can use the time productively from a business point of view.
I have a supplementary question on that. Do most of those who travel from Motherwell to Edinburgh not use Great North Eastern Railway's fast non-stop service to Edinburgh? That is not what is being proposed in the bill.
Yes, there is a direct fast service to Edinburgh from Motherwell, but numerous people use the other services as well. As Douglas Millar said, in the past one would have had to go into Glasgow and then change to get to Edinburgh. Again, that throws the timings out and makes it impossible.
How will the railway attract people into the area for work, leisure or education opportunities?
There are huge movements into West Lothian at the moment. There is a misperception that Livingston's terrific growth has been because it provides housing for people who work in Edinburgh. However, the growth over the past 10 years has come much more from movements of people into Livingston to work there every day. They come from all round the local area, including from Fife and from the west. The NEC and Motorola closures a few years ago had a big impact on many people who were coming from the likes of Lanarkshire.
Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce has done some work in talking to local businesses. They say that their recruitment pool is constrained by the transport infrastructure, which is poor for people who want to travel from North Lanarkshire to South Lanarkshire or across Lanarkshire. We feel that if the new railway link can be integrated with a good bus link so that people can use it, it will be of tremendous benefit to employers in the area.
Both chambers of commerce have given us examples of how the economic and social regeneration of their local areas could be helped by the project. What would be the economic and social impact on both areas if the project did not go ahead?
We would have more and more gridlock on the M8. At the moment, everything funnels towards the M8 going into Edinburgh and Glasgow. The problem is that, because the M8 is now so clogged up so much of the time, people need to allocate far more time than is really necessary to ensure that, for example, they can make a meeting at 11 o'clock in Glasgow. No matter how unreliable a train service might be, it will be a lot more reliable than using the M8. Mostly, however, trains are pretty consistent. For example, someone travelling from Livingston North into Edinburgh can usually be guaranteed to be in the centre of Edinburgh in 20 minutes. If we do not have the proposed new service, all that will happen is that all the road networks going into both big cities will become more and more cluttered. Everything goes on to the M8, which discourages people from moving between Lanarkshire and West Lothian.
The evening economy is another factor. Many pubs and clubs are members of the Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce and they tell us that they are quiet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The aim is to enable people to go out of their houses and to create adequate transport links into towns and villages, so that people can access the social infrastructure of the area. It is important to have a transport system that works most of the day. In Lanarkshire, many bus services stop at 6 or 7 o'clock at night, whereas I presume that the proposed rail service will run until 11 or 12 o'clock at night. That is important for opening up opportunities for people to mix socially.
You say that bus services stop at 6 or 7 at night. Is there a reason for that other than a lack of passengers?
The reason is probably just the lack of passengers, which might be because of some of the journey times, as David McDougall said. On some bus routes in Lanarkshire, it is quicker to go into Glasgow and take a bus back to a destination rather than to go across the county, because the bus services are slow or infrequent. Because of such issues, we want to ensure that the railway is established and that the bus infrastructure exists to serve it. That will open up a lot of opportunities that do not exist for people at the moment.
If one reason why bus services do not run later is that there are no passengers, is £340 million for a railway that will have no passengers not rather expensive?
Since the rail service opened in Larkhall, it has been used effectively. It is used not only during the day but in the evenings. The same will apply to the Airdrie to Bathgate link. It will take people to Edinburgh who cannot at present reach Edinburgh easily by public transport in the evenings and it will give them the opportunity to go to events.
When activities such as this meeting occur or when discussions take place with bus operators, how much is the level of transport that is needed for communities stressed? I return to what the business case is for the project, which involves more than a quarter of a billion pounds.
It is wrong to compare buses to trains from a commuting point of view. I mentioned the number of parking spaces that are necessary at train stations to enable commuters to use trains. I do not know of many bus stations that have huge car parks next to them to allow people to use their car then take the bus. That would not be viable. It is unfair to say that the community that uses buses is necessarily the same as that which uses trains. The M8 is a huge issue and we must factor in what would happen to commuting and to traffic if we did not establish the rail service, as has been said.
I appreciate the difference between buses and trains. Bus stops tend not to have car parks next to them. If train passengers will mainly use cars, why is it important to have bus services that link with train stations? Would the money be better spent on 21st century, state-of-the-art bus services for Lanarkshire and West Lothian, like the guided busways that operate in west Edinburgh?
I was not making the point that commuters would use only trains; I think that they would use trains and buses. If the bus links were set up with the right timings for reaching employment, a commuter could take the train then have a quick bus journey of one or two stops to their employer, rather than walk 2 or 3 miles. From a commuting and business point of view, it is important to have a link, so that people do not have a walk of some distance from a station, which would make going to and from work pretty uncomfortable.
We all know that major transport projects such as this one have far-reaching benefits, not just in the areas that they serve directly. To what extent will the purported benefits of the Airdrie to Bathgate project be geared towards supporting the economic and social regeneration of Lanarkshire and West Lothian as opposed to the economic development of Glasgow and Edinburgh?
Those goals are not mutually exclusive. Lanarkshire and West Lothian already perform successfully. We are talking about two major cities that are about 45 miles apart. The area between them should be the hub of economic growth in Scotland, but at the moment it is neglected, even though there are many isolated examples of excellent development. If we had an integrated rail and bus transport system, far more economic development could go on throughout that area. Such activity is constrained at present.
I endorse that view.
As the committee has visited some of the areas in question, it will know how shocking it is to discover that villages and towns that are just minutes from the motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh are extremely run down. The proposed railway could only help to serve the people who live in those communities by making them more mobile and by giving them opportunities that they would have if they lived elsewhere.
My question follows on from our discussion of the attractiveness of the project to businesses and commuters. Much of what has been said has been general. Are there specific aspects of the proposal—such as the stations that the service will stop at, its frequency or the timings—that you think will be particularly attractive to the groups that we are trying to get on the train?
The frequency and reliability of the service will be crucial. It is important that people who want to go from West Lothian to Glasgow know how long the journey will take and can be sure that it will be quicker than going by car. There is no point in implementing a service that is even slower than going by car.
I will pursue the point, although other members might want to pick up on what you said. You alluded to the stations that it is proposed that the train will stop at, but you will be aware that people think that there should be stations at Blackridge in West Lothian and Plains in Lanarkshire, where it is not proposed that there will be stations.
Not necessarily, provided that those areas are properly served by a good bus service, by which I mean not a lip-service bus service but one that allows people to make it to the train quickly and reliably, without having to buy more than one ticket to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
The railway line will start in Helensburgh and finish in Edinburgh. We do not think that many people will use the train for the entire length of the route. From a Lanarkshire perspective, we regard the line as a means for the people of Lanarkshire to go to Glasgow, as they do at the moment, or to Edinburgh. In our view, including a station at Plains, which would add two minutes to the journey, would not be detrimental to economic development. We certainly support the council and the other bodies that have called for a station to be built at Plains.
Under the present proposal, will people in Lanarkshire who want to go to Edinburgh get a better deal than people in West Lothian who want to go to Glasgow? Examination of the existing timetable shows that although there will be only about four or five station stops between Lanarkshire and Edinburgh, there will be so many station stops between West Lothian and Glasgow that I will not list them all. Is it sensible for a train going from Armadale to stop a dozen times before it gets to Queen Street? Will that need to be considered?
It needs to be considered in terms of how long the journey will take. Whether people use the service regularly depends on how efficient a use of their time it is for them to do so. If the train takes what people think is an unacceptable length of time, they will not use it.
On a different tack, are there any businesses or types of business that you think have not come to West Lothian or Lanarkshire that would have done so had the proposed railway been in place?
It is hard to say. However, it is definitely true to say that small businesses have been constrained from growing into medium-sized businesses because they cannot recruit the kind of people whom they want, which is because it is too difficult for folk to travel by public transport all the time. If people are working in relatively low-paid jobs, spending two hours a day sitting in a car is not worth it. That is a definite constraint on the growth of small businesses, which is a serious issue for the whole of Scotland.
My questions follow on from Mr Morgan's questions about Blackridge and Plains. I will then ask a question about West Lothian. Is it your collective view that the stations at Blackridge and Plains—you mentioned Plains in your letter, Mr Millar—would stimulate economic activity around those communities, or would they just improve access to jobs outside the area? That also follows on from Ms Hughes's questions.
That is a difficult one to call. Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce would like the rail link to open up opportunities for people to come into the area. That will happen only once the link is established and people see the opportunities surrounding it. The same reasoning lies behind the development of other rail links. We view the rail link as being a tool by which economic growth can develop, although that will not simply happen overnight.
What is the evidence for that? Are there new stations that have directly stimulated economic activity in their areas?
If we consider the opening of the Larkhall rail link, we find that companies are now looking around the Larkhall area to establish businesses, using the rail link as the feeder for bringing people in for employment. We are at the early stages, however.
In your letter, you comment that Plains, which we have visited, is in a remote area. Perhaps because I am a Borders MSP, I am not sure what the definition of remote is—it might be helpful for me to get some resources for my own constituency.
The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament need to consider the provision of bus services throughout Scotland. The bus industry is deregulated. It is run on the basis of having bus links if there are enough passengers to support them. If there are not, either local authorities pick up the tab or there is no service. We need to examine that matter and decide whether we are serious about developing our public transport infrastructure and getting cars off the road wherever possible. We are not there yet. The Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee is not here to consider that; its role is to consider one rail link. However, bus service provision needs to be considered as we develop and grow our public transport infrastructure.
Have you had any discussions with the promoter or with enterprise companies with regard to putting numbers on the jobs that you think will be created? I have tried to find that in the business case and the Scottish transport appraisal guidance analysis of the very substantial amount of money that is to be spent on the project. It may be my fault—I may have missed the figure—but I have not found information on the anticipated number of jobs that will be created in the area that the project will serve.
Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce has not had discussions on that with Network Rail.
We have not had such discussions either.
West Lothian Chamber of Commerce's written evidence states that it broadly welcomes the plans, which seems a less than whole-hearted welcome. Will you expand on why that is and what your reservations are?
It depends on how the plans are implemented. The existing stations in West Lothian have had their car parks extended, because when the stations were built, the car parks were too small. We now know that sufficient car parking is essential from day one. Similarly, the existing rail links would be used more if they were integrated better with bus transport. So our proviso is that just having the railway will not be the answer to the problem. However, if the scheme is integrated properly, it will have a much better chance of making a real difference.
Next week, the committee will take evidence on the location of stations, and on 18 September we will consider integration with bus services. We will cover those issues, but the chambers of commerce will not be back to give evidence. I think that Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce submitted evidence on integration with bus services, particularly with regard to Plains station. If we consider the geography, we see the nearness of Drumgelloch station to Plains and the fact that people in the northern extremities of Plains will be a fair distance from the railway line. Given the importance of integration with bus services and that there will have to be specific bus services, it might be just as easy to provide a bus service from Plains to Drumgelloch station rather than have a station at Plains and all the disadvantages that could come with that. Have you thought about that?
Yes, a little. We must consider the frequency of the proposed rail service to Drumgelloch. From memory, the proposal is that every second train will stop there. We must ensure that the scheme serves the community well. The chamber would like a station at Plains, as that would give people in a socially excluded area opportunities to access public transport that they do not have at present. That is important, and it chimes with the Executive's policy of developing opportunities in socially excluded areas.
Your written evidence refers to an additional 16 car parking spaces at Airdrie station. Why 16, and why is that so important?
People who travel to Airdrie on business at any time of the day find it difficult to get a parking space. When I had a meeting at Airdrie Savings Bank a couple of weeks ago, it took me about 10 or 15 minutes to find a parking space. Airdrie is tight for parking spaces. If we open up a railway line to Edinburgh, people in Airdrie will take their cars to the station, which will clog up the town centre even more. Therefore, a bigger car park at Airdrie station is vital.
There will be a large car park at Drumgelloch with additional parking spaces. Will that not attract existing users of Airdrie station a little bit eastward?
That takes us back to the frequency of the service from Drumgelloch, which is an important issue that must be considered. We need to get the balance right.
I accept that.
Are you really suggesting that we want to clog up Airdrie even further by getting cars to come in just so that passengers can get on the train?
I am saying that if every train stops at Airdrie station, as is proposed, people will obviously want to park there to get on the trains. People who have just missed a train will not go to Drumgelloch and wait half an hour. People will want to park next to the railway station, get on the train and get on with their business. If we are going to have this rail link, it is important that there are adequate parking spaces at Airdrie to serve it.
An alternative would be to have the full service at Drumgelloch.
That is a possibility. You would have to consider whether the number of parking spaces that are proposed at Drumgelloch would be sufficient to cope with what we suspect will be the Airdrie demand and—
Certainly, there would need to be a lot more than 16 parking spaces.
Certainly.
If I understand it correctly, part of the promoter's argument in its discussions with the council is that having a much larger station at Airdrie would cause problems for the existing road infrastructure, including the roundabout that we used to access the station when we visited it, although I got parked okay. Are you aware of the discussions that the promoter is having on the potential to have additional spaces over and above the proposed 16? The promoter has said to us that a further 28 spaces would take the number to 194 spaces at Airdrie. There are also 336 spaces proposed at Drumgelloch. Would that not be adequate?
At every new railway station that has been opened in central Scotland, the car parks that have been built fill up pretty quickly. I do not see the situation in Lanarkshire being any different from what has happened at Croy station, for example.
In your view, how many spaces should there be at Airdrie? Should there be a multistorey car park, which could potentially cause havoc with access to the station? I would have thought that your members in the town would be absolutely furious about that.
The chamber of commerce wants to ensure that commuters who use the rail service early in the morning can park their cars and that there are sufficient spaces in Airdrie during the day for people who want to conduct business and do shopping there. From the chamber of commerce's perspective, it is important to get that balance right.
You cannot help us with numbers.
I cannot help you with numbers, no.
From our members' point of view, the problem is a catch-22 situation. If the service is a success and people use it to commute but there is no car park, there will be far more mayhem with cars abandoned all around Airdrie. It is important to get the numbers right at this stage of the planning process if the service is going to be as successful as other new railway stations that have opened. I park at many railway stations, most of which are building extensions to their car parks at the moment. If we are aware that that is happening elsewhere—in East Kilbride and other places in Lanarkshire—let us look at the issue now, rather than leave it as a problem to come back to.
I want to be absolutely clear about this, as we will ask the same question of subsequent panels. Is it your view that there should be a much bigger car park at Airdrie?
Yes.
The committee has no further questions. Do the witnesses want to add anything to what they have said?
I want to add to David McDougall's response to the question about extra stations, particularly at Plains—from a Lanarkshire point of view, I can comment only on Plains. That would enable people to get jobs in Airdrie and Coatbridge—it is not just about the east-west thing. At the moment, a number of people have to jump on buses, and we need to look at how they get into the Monklands area. An extra station beyond the station that is already there would open up a lot of that local community-type travelling. We should not always think about the issue as people in the west going east and people in the east coming west. The same issues would also apply to folk travelling into Livingston.
Thanks very much, Mr Elder. I thank the panel for coming along today.
It is a well-established fact that appropriate transport services and necessary transport infrastructure stimulate and enable economic development. Across central Scotland we have a series of increasingly overlapping labour markets and, particularly in the east, there has been significant employment growth in the past 10 or so years. Indeed, within the greater Edinburgh area, employment growth is increasing at a faster rate than population growth. If the wider Edinburgh economy, which is driving the Scottish economy at the moment, continues to grow, there will be a need better to serve that labour market by extending the reach. Public transport is the best means of achieving that.
There are several benefits from railways. First, they provide employment opportunities. Unemployment in the Airdrie and Bathgate areas is much higher than in Edinburgh, so there is a pool of labour as well as the opportunity for the residents to access work.
Although Edinburgh and Glasgow are leading economic drivers in Scotland, they have still fairly small populations in United Kingdom and global terms. As such, anything that improves the connectivity between the two centres and increases the critical mass is important for inward investment. Transport is very much part of the infrastructure for business, so the better the transport links, the greater an area's attraction.
I recognise that £340 million is quite a sum. At the same time, to invest it in the railway perhaps brings both short-term and longer-term results. If Glasgow, the Lothians or Lanarkshire had their portion of that £340 million to spend, would they have better ways of spending it than on the rail line?
There are obviously many competing interests for resources. Transport—particularly public transport—is vital for the local economy. Anything that increases the ability of people to get to work is important, and the problems of congestion on the M8 were raised earlier. Giving people the choice of different transport modes is good for the economy.
If we look back at the census over the past 10 years, we can see that there has been a great increase in travel-to-work patterns. Connectivity in Airdrie and the surrounding areas is very important. The Lanarkshire economy was traditionally based on manufacturing, but it is continuing to change and becoming much more of a service economy, which requires skilled labour. For individuals, the railway opens up access to better employment opportunities, particularly in the cities, where skill levels are often higher. If the residents can access higher-paid jobs, that is a benefit over and above access to employment.
What advantages over bus services does the railway offer local people in terms of increased access to wider job markets, inward investment and improved local economic performance?
The main benefits of rail transport over bus are reliability and speed of access. The point has been made about the growth of employment within the wider Edinburgh area. The Bathgate line reopened in the late 1980s, at a time when, in the aftermath of the Leyland closure and the Polkemmet coal mine closure, unemployment in West Lothian was twice the national average. The Bathgate line has allowed local people in West Lothian to access growing opportunities in the financial services sector. I was involved in the Scottish Development Agency at the time, and the original projections suggested that the line would result in about 300,000 passenger trips per annum; nowadays, there are well over 1 million. Given the easy access to Edinburgh that is available to residents of West Lothian, the line has been a significant success. With the connections to the other settlements, right through to Airdrie, that opportunity to access employment can only grow.
On the differences between buses and trains, trains tend to be more appropriate for business-type users. Buses make frequent stops and get held up in traffic, bus timetables tend to be unreliable and there are poor facilities at bus stops. From the point of view of convenience, trains tend to be far more reliable.
Could the money be used to improve bus services, to give people who would like better access to jobs and so on the opportunity to use them?
It certainly could.
The other point that must be borne in mind is the existing congestion on the road network throughout central Scotland and into the two cities, which is likely to grow. While it could be argued that investment in bus transport might be cheaper than the railway or could be an alternative, the impact of additional bus services on a congested road network has to be taken into account.
How will the railway attract people into the area for work, leisure or education?
We have already dealt with the impact that the railway could have in relation to residents gaining access to employment opportunities. The other significant benefit of the railway is the opportunity that it will bring in relation to the housing market. Population growth in West Lothian and, I believe, in North Lanarkshire, has led to a need for new settlements.
But in relation to such regeneration, the railway would benefit commuters rather than local people.
We can see the impact that population growth in the traditional settlements in West Lothian throughout the 1990s has had on areas such as retail services. A growing population sustains services, which is to the benefit of traditional residents as well as incomers.
There are increased opportunities for people to come into Glasgow for shopping, leisure and cultural facilities. It is important to give people more choice in accessing those facilities.
Would people from Glasgow go to Lanarkshire or West Lothian for cultural reasons?
Certainly, one attraction in that respect would be the ability to get into the countryside to access rural recreation.
The witnesses have highlighted quite a few general examples of how the project could benefit social and economic regeneration. Do you have any specific examples of regeneration or development that could arise as a result of the rail link?
In North Lanarkshire, the aim of the project is to bring more employment into the area and to increase connectivity. Many individuals' travel patterns are quite complex; they are not always simply travelling into Glasgow or Edinburgh. For example, a lot of travel takes place between Airdrie and Bathgate and between Airdrie and the east of Glasgow and, given that the unemployment rates in those communities are higher and that, therefore, car ownership is lower, the project will open up a number of new labour markets for individuals who live there.
The Clyde gateway in Glasgow, which is one of the Scottish Executive's national regeneration priorities, will not only open up employment opportunities but allow people to access various leisure and recreational facilities. For example, the new indoor national sports arena, which will incorporate sportscotland's new headquarters, will be built there, and Dalmarnock in the east end of Glasgow has been identified as an important site for the Commonwealth games in 2014. If they can be accessed, the massive amount of opportunities that are beginning to push off in that area will benefit people from North Lanarkshire, West Lothian and even the western side of Edinburgh.
A number of the project's positive impacts have been mentioned, but what would be the impact on local communities if it did not go ahead?
With regard to restructuring, the real danger is that the workforce in North Lanarkshire and parts of Bathgate will be unable to move into the new sectors that are being created. For example, although the hub of the financial sector is still in the city centres, more financial services are moving into Lanarkshire and Bathgate. I should also point out that the central belt is not well endowed as far as tourism and other growth sectors are concerned. Given that mobility of labour is very important, it will prove detrimental if the project does not go ahead.
I support those comments. The case for building this railway has a very strong social inclusion dimension. For example, as we have discussed, it will enable residents of parts of West Lothian and Lanarkshire to gain access to growing employment opportunities elsewhere. If the line is not constructed, their ability to do so will be severely diminished.
If people in the east end of Glasgow want to visit Edinburgh, they have to go into—and then go out of—Glasgow city centre. A direct rail link from places such as Easterhouse will benefit those communities.
What proportion of the purported benefits of the project are geared towards supporting economic and social regeneration in North Lanarkshire and West Lothian rather than supporting economic and social redevelopment in Glasgow and Edinburgh?
For 18 months now, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council have been collaborating on an exercise that recognises that the cities' economies are increasingly coalescing.
On that specific point, I must say that I was struck by the evidence about a forecast growth in employment in Lanarkshire of 5 per cent between 2004 and 2010, which is above the forecast national average for that period.
Lanarkshire has a higher proportion of large employers than tends to be found elsewhere in the central belt. As I said, if employers are going to grow, they have to access a wider labour pool. A lot of employers have already tapped into the local labour market. If they are growing and need a higher skill base among their employees, an ability to access a wider pool is important.
On our site visit to the areas where the council and others would wish there to be stations other than those that are in the proposals, we were shown housing plots and told about the local plans. However, what was lacking was information about economic development areas, which are dealt with in the local economic plans. It might be that that information was simply not presented to us. Have you submitted that information? In the evidence from Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian I read that it has submitted information on the project, but I would like to know where it is.
One of the things that we are doing in Lanarkshire, through the local authority and the local economic forum, is examining the role that the town centres play. Many of the town centres are suffering because people do not use them for retail in the way that they used to. In Airdrie, for example, we have worked with the council to develop the new Airdrie Business Centre, which is designed to accommodate small business growth and bring businesses into the area. We would like to ensure that that can grow and change. Airdrie is a big conurbation in the Lanarkshire economy and there are opportunities to grow its economy and use it as a location for business, particularly if there is improved connectivity.
In relation to sites for economic development, the committee has to bear it in mind that the line will provide additional services to locations such as Edinburgh Park, on the east side of Edinburgh, where there has been significant growth during the past eight to 10 years. There is scope for further expansion in the area around Edinburgh airport and scope for continued industrial expansion in places such as Livingston and Bathgate, which saw inward investment during the 1990s. Some of that inward investment has changed and some of the manufacturing elements have gone, but in industries such as financial services those areas are still fertile territory for Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International.
Forgive me, but I am hearing strong evidence that the project will be good for the Glasgow and Edinburgh economies, which will tap into the pool of labour that is perhaps latent in Lanarkshire and West Lothian, rather than evidence of already-designated sites for economic development and companies saying, "We want the train services here." If there is town centre development and economic generation within the area of the proposed stations, would it not be better to invest £34 million—a tenth of the cost of the railway—in bus services, which can operate from point to point? Rail is good for moving people quickly from A to B but it is not good at providing the more local services that are needed to generate the economy in Lanarkshire or West Lothian.
The point that I tried to make at the beginning is that we have a series of overlapping labour markets in central Scotland. There are significant commuting patterns into the two cities from Lanarkshire and West Lothian but there are commuting patterns across the areas as well. It is not an either/or situation. Investment that enhances the situation and makes it easier for our workforce to be mobile must be in the interests of the Scottish economy as a whole. That is why Scottish Enterprise is very much behind the proposal.
Ms Woodburn, you mentioned the project's possible impact on tourism to the area. Will you expand on that?
I was referring to the fact that a number of industries and sectors are growing, including the life sciences, financial services and tourism, whereas some of the old, traditional manufacturing industries are not expanding. The industries that are growing need to be serviced by labour, which will happen through people from communities going into those areas. However, as Stephen Craig said earlier, a lot of outdoor leisure activities take place in the more rural areas. Tourism is growing in those areas, as are the big employment generators. Labour flexibility is an attractor.
Both Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian and Scottish Enterprise Glasgow refer to the effect that developing the line would have on congestion on the M8. Have you been able to assess precisely what that effect might be?
No. We do not have any specific information on that.
Scottish Enterprise Glasgow states in its submission:
If it gives people the opportunity to take traffic away from the M8, there will obviously be a knock-on effect on journey times.
I do not know offhand what the journey time along the M8 from Edinburgh to Glasgow, centre to centre, might be. It might be an hour or an hour and a quarter.
It is something like an hour and 10 minutes.
How many minutes would the proposed new line knock off that journey time? You said that the line would decrease journey times.
I am afraid that I have no transport expertise on—
Perhaps that was an overly optimistic claim.
I am ever optimistic.
We referred in our evidence to the Executive's central Scotland transport corridor study, which clearly pointed to the congestion problem in the Glasgow to Edinburgh corridor and the likelihood that congestion will continue to get worse. About 95 per cent of journeys along that corridor are by road, so anything that offers an alternative can only be a good thing.
A lot of evidence that we have heard from you in this meeting has been about creating extra journeys—increasing capacity for people to make journeys that they are not currently making, either for employment or leisure—rather than moving existing journeys, so there will be no effect on congestion at all.
Over the past 10 or 15 years we have seen higher levels of commuting over increased distances for employment purposes, and it is likely that that trend will continue. What we regard as the travel-to-work area of Edinburgh extends from Fife down to the Borders and right across central Scotland.
Let us move on to other matters. Obviously there will be specific station stops on the proposed new line and specific journey times. What do you see as particularly attractive about that to commuters, businesses and investors?
Sorry, did you mean—
I am speaking about the specific pattern of the proposed railway line and its stations.
Again, I return to my earlier comments about the need to sustain and grow jobs in the wider Edinburgh area for the labour market to work more effectively. The more people who have access to public transport to feed that labour market, the more helpful it will be to the economy. The particular benefit of the proposed re-opening of the line is that it will enable communities that do not have good access at present to access the railway network.
Will such benefits be reduced by omitting to have stations at Blackridge and Plains or will the benefits be conferred regardless?
It is one of those issues where a balance has to be struck between access and journey time.
Is the balance that has been struck the right one?
Yes.
Do your colleagues agree?
It depends on whether one looks at the situation through a lens of economic development or of social inclusion. There is no doubt that the communities around Plains have a much higher rate of unemployment, but they have a less dense population than those around Airdrie and Bathgate. It depends on whether the priority is economic or social.
You at Scottish Enterprise have to make judgments as to the economic benefits of investing money. I suppose that the hard question is whether the current pattern of service and station location is the best way to invest the £340 million, or whether it should be changed to include other stations.
If it were changed, there would be a cost impact. I do not have enough detailed financial analysis to answer the question.
I think that the economic analysis shows a positive net present value. The scheme itself is robust. As my colleague Pamela Woodburn said, it is a question of balancing social inclusion and wider economic development. The scheme as proposed strikes that balance and gives the country a return on the investment.
The promoter suggests that the provision of the line will create something like 1,500 jobs through connectivity by 2021, which is about 150 jobs a year. Is that good value from Scottish Enterprise's point of view? Is that figure realistic? Would you be more optimistic?
I would be more optimistic. I mentioned the scale of employment growth. Recent work by Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian suggests that in the period 2005 to 2014 an additional 38,000 jobs are likely to be created in the wider Edinburgh area. The issue for us is where the workforce comes from to encourage the creation and take-up of those jobs. In our view, it is not just about the contribution to economic development that the railway itself will make and the jobs that it will create directly; more important is the opportunity that the railway will provide in giving the population of North Lanarkshire and West Lothian easy access to the jobs that we know will come.
We have been talking about road congestion, about which valid points were made. I appreciate Mr McFarlane's comment that if there were more buses, one would have thought that more people on congested roads would be getting out of their cars to use them.
I do not have the local figures, but I know that for east-west movements about 60 per cent of the commuter destinations are between the two cities; it is not about going point to point. The issues are around peak time. I am not sure whether the figures that you quoted are for peak time or total journeys. I am not familiar with the detail of that.
We can certainly send you the figures, in case you want to come back to us. They show an 8 per cent increase during the am peak hour, no change between the peak hours and a 6 per cent increase in the pm peak hour for southbound journeys, with a reduction for northbound journeys. The figures show that there will be an impact, certainly in the morning.
It depends how long a delay is caused. The bulk of the congestion at the moment is on the A8 and M8. If congestion can be reduced, particularly at peak times, that will be a positive economic benefit.
Thank you for coming along and for your submissions.
I am sure that we would love to get our hands on that kind of money. We very much see the railway as one of the measures that can be taken to achieve some of our key aims. Social inclusion and economic development are key features of the community plan and the corporate plan. That ties in with Government policy.
North Lanarkshire faces a number of challenges, and we attract significant regeneration funding from the Executive. As Graham Mackay said, 112 areas in North Lanarkshire are among the worst 15 per cent in Scotland in terms of deprivation. The rail link would go through many of those communities, so the scheme would be important in promoting social inclusion and widening economic opportunities.
In our local plan we have identified this corridor as having potential for housing growth. Rail infrastructure is an important part of that. In the plan, we propose that growth areas for residential communities will be placed along railway lines. Shirley Linton, who is our planning manager, can say something about that.
Through the Strathclyde structure plan, we have been asked to identify growth areas within North Lanarkshire. The area that we describe as east Airdrie, which includes Plains and Caldercruix, is one area that we have identified. The housing developments that already have planning permission and are currently under construction amount to around 600 units. The possibility of further expansion between 2010 and 2018 has also been identified. We cannot specify the exact number of units at the moment, but we will identify the developments in the coming months in our new local plan.
So the £340 million investment in the transport link will be a real aid to your development ambitions.
Yes. One of our aims in identifying areas for expansion is to ensure that the expansion is sustainable. The railway link would benefit those areas.
We are hearing phrases such as "job creation" and "social inclusion", but what advantages would the railway offer to local people that improved bus services would not? I am thinking about access to wider job markets and transport links. Would a better bus service not be more appropriate for the folk in Caldercruix and Plains?
Several aspects of bus versus rail were mentioned earlier. North Lanarkshire Council has tried to work in partnership with the bus companies and with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, but we have found that the services that we have tried to promote have been transitional. We can give start-up grants to bus companies and we can try to work on bus quality partnerships, but I have to hold my hands up and say that our delivery of such things has been very poor. Bus deregulation has played a part in our not delivering in the past. Perhaps not reregulation but some other legislative method will have to be considered before we will be able to make significant improvements in the use of bus corridors.
It is always worth highlighting what different services do better. Network Rail would probably tell you that the railway is better for moving people longer distances and the bus is perhaps better for shorter links. As we said, we should consider route lengths. For example, a bus journey from Airdrie, through Plains, Armadale and so on, all the way to Edinburgh would be a long and slow journey and I do not think that it would be attractive. I think that the railway is the better option looking westwards for West Lothian conurbations and eastwards for North Lanarkshire ones. Bus services will be local services that connect to train services and feed surrounding communities.
On bus services, we have been promoting express bus park and rides as well. We recently invested heavily in Harthill bus park and ride, which has been a success. Again, though, it is point to point and, as we heard from our colleagues in the local enterprise companies, it does not give people the opportunity of multimodal stops between East Lothian and West Lothian and between North Lanarkshire and West Lothian. In-between trips, rather than point-to-point trips into Glasgow and Edinburgh, account for 60 per cent of the trips that are proposed for the train service.
Can you give me specific examples of how the proposed railway will aid in the area's economic and social regeneration?
Graham Mackay referred to the report that we commissioned jointly with West Lothian and the enterprise companies. We drew forecasts from that, using the transport/land use model for Scotland. The forecasts show that in the Airdrie corridor we would gain an additional 1,800 residents and 600 jobs, albeit over a period of time, so the railway offers a potential to reverse the trends in some of the most economically deprived areas of North Lanarkshire. A sustainable railway could offer additional settlements through local plans and offer sustainable routes into areas of economic growth in Glasgow, West Lothian and North Lanarkshire itself.
I am interested in what differences the railway would make for people in communities such as Plains and Caldercruix.
Almost the whole village of Plains is within the worst 15 per cent of deprived areas in Scotland. The people who live there tend not to have many travel choices. A rail station at Plains would offer sustainable transport into areas of growth. Residents of that village do not currently have that option.
It is recognised that since rail services between Airdrie and Bathgate closed 20-odd years ago, the areas in between have suffered quite a lot economically and in terms of jobs. I think that the figures show that levels of unemployment in the villages there have been exacerbated since the railway closed. The reopening of the line has the potential to reverse that trend.
Was that the passenger railway that went through Plains?
Yes. I think that the passenger line, which had stations at Plains and Caldercruix, closed in 1982. Passenger services closed between Airdrie and Bathgate and there has been a noticeable decline in economic activity in the area since then.
It is worth noting the trend in the area for employers to close, move away or look to relocate, which means fewer opportunities for the people who live there. We hope that the railway will encourage people to stay in the villages to ensure that the communities are more mixed again.
Nationally, there is a commitment to close the opportunity gap. North Lanarkshire is one of seven local authority areas that have targets on closing the opportunity gap in Scotland. Certainly in Plains, where there is a high incidence of economic inactivity, the rail line will provide options for people who do not have many travel choices.
It might take more than a rail line to close the opportunity gap.
It is one of many tools, but it is an important one, all the same.
We do not have a copy of the economic appraisal document to which reference has been made. From the figures that were given, the document sounds interesting. Would it be possible for a copy to be passed to the clerk as soon as possible?
Certainly. Network Rail used figures from that document in the reports that have been given to the committee, but it contains other figures. We would welcome the committee's consideration of that document.
It would be good to have the North Lanarkshire input.
You have told us about some of the positive impacts that the line would bring to your communities. What would be the economic and social impact, locally and regionally, if the line did not go ahead?
The report to which we have referred gives an indication of the likely number of jobs that would be created over a certain period. Our concern is that, without the scheme, those job numbers and population increases will not transpire, which would obviously be a setback for North Lanarkshire. However, we acknowledge that the scheme is one of many available tools to regenerate communities in North Lanarkshire.
If the truth be told, we have not really tested the alternatives. We have been working hard to promote the scheme since its early stages. Among the issues that we would have to consider would be bus park-and-ride schemes. As I said, the opportunities for developing that type of infrastructure are limited, but we would have to consider such schemes if the railway scheme did not go ahead.
My next question is on that issue. Do you have a plan B? You have tinkered at the edges of the issue of what else you could do, but you do not have any major regeneration plans, in case the scheme does not go ahead.
On transport, we work in partnership with Transport Scotland and SPT and we have several other proposals. We have just built a major park-and-ride scheme at Greenfaulds, and a bus park-and-ride at Harthill. However, on the corridor that we are considering, the scheme is an important measure. If it is not provided, we will have to rethink the proposals for the corridor.
A few years ago, a proposal was made to provide a subsidised bus service along the route, but it fell through. I think that the Strategic Rail Authority was to fund the scheme in advance, but there was a problem with the funding. With the deregulation of bus services, one issue is how much control we have, which goes back to the issues of night-time and weekend services and connections. There is a limitation. The bus route development grant is a possible tool, but that is short-term three-year funding to try to generate services, so we could not guarantee that the services would continue beyond that.
We heard about bus services that finish at 6 o'clock at night. We all know about that from our local communities. That often happens because of a lack of people using the services. Will the investment that is to be put into the project result in more people using the services after 6 o'clock, including people who do not at present use buses at that time?
From Plains, which is one of the communities in the middle of the corridor, it is about 11 miles to Bathgate, which takes about 20 minutes by car. People who wanted to go to Bathgate to work or college by bus would have to get a bus at 20 to 7 in the morning, as the journey takes an hour and 50 minutes. Coming back, a bus that leaves at about half past 5 would arrive at about 8 o'clock, with three or four changes. That is an unattractive service.
How many of the purported benefits of the railway will be geared towards economic and social regeneration in North Lanarkshire rather than to helping the further development of Glasgow and Edinburgh's regeneration?
The majority of trips on the line are generated from West Lothian to Glasgow and from Lanarkshire to Edinburgh. Reference was made to the fact that about 60 per cent of the trips are generated from that zone, rather than being end to end. We think that there is a great opportunity for movement of employment into the east and west, and, as David McLay said, to create about 600 jobs in the area. We think that the railway will be a catalyst for the people in those social inclusion areas to travel to employment outside the area and a catalyst for bringing jobs to the area.
Figures for travel-to-work patterns in the most recent census show more than 4,000 journeys from North Lanarkshire to West Lothian and 1,200 journeys from West Lothian to North Lanarkshire. A significant volume of people already travel east to west for employment and other purposes. We hope that the railway would support the development of city regions, which is an Executive priority.
In your response to Janis Hughes, you said that the railway line was a very important development. With respect to your overall ambitions of social inclusion and economic development and so on, is the railway line the most important thing that can happen?
It is one of the most important things. Getting people back into work does not rely on public transport. Colleagues are introducing several other initiatives with the local enterprise companies. It is important that all those initiatives work together to try to improve access to employment and to improve the business community in the little towns. We are spending about £8 million a year on improving town centres. We are trying to create a sustainable business economy in the town centres. We are improving public transport from our local communities to the rail infrastructures. We are targeting investment on the rail infrastructure. All our current plans in relation to housing and business generation are geared towards the rail infrastructure. Rail is important. This is one of the key rail corridors that we want to join up with and which we would like to be promoted.
I do not know whether the council representatives have seen the evidence from SPT. If the promoter's memorandum is to be believed, there could be an additional 12,678 boarders on the service, including 500 a day at the relocated Drumgelloch station.
That is possibly in recognition of the level of patronage and the fact that it is a busy service, but it may also suggest consideration of rolling stock issues—the length of cars and the number of cars in each train—to accommodate the patronage. Rather than being negative, the memorandum is just highlighting the anticipated patronage.
So you are positive that with better rolling stock, which is not in our remit—we are just permitted to build the railway and keep our fingers crossed that the system will be fine—it will be fine.
Network Rail has done a very professional job in the STAG assessments. SPT has joined up too. It is bidding to Transport Scotland to improve the rolling stock. That is a key part of achieving our growth targets for the railway line. Another part of that would be to improve the park-and-ride facilities to the west of Airdrie. We have just put in a bid to SPT to undertake studies to see what land is available for SPT and the council to improve the park-and-ride access to stations to the west.
I know that the written evidence from North Lanarkshire Council touches on some of those issues, but can we be given further information in writing on those wider aspects? Our questions have been specifically about the Airdrie to Bathgate scheme but, given the fact that these things are connected, it would be interesting to see the depth of work in which the council has been involved. Can that be provided to the committee?
Following up on the statistics that Mr McLay gave, I want to ask about the disparity that he mentioned. He said that the number of people going from North Lanarkshire to West Lothian was about three or four times the number coming the other way. Given that that is what happens without the rail line, one could postulate that, with the rail line, the disparity will get even bigger. Therefore, the two figures might not equalise in the way that was perhaps suggested. How will the existence of the railway line attract people into North Lanarkshire for work or for other purposes?
As Shirley Linton mentioned, our local plan is currently being drafted with consideration of the rail line. We are looking to expand the settlements on the Airdrie corridor and to promote urban growth. The rail line will help to address some of those concerns.
Given that, as you mentioned earlier, a large number of people in the area do not own a car, the railway might simply provide people with an opportunity to seek employment outside the area. Therefore, the tendency for people to seek employment elsewhere might well increase as a result of the railway.
That might happen, yes.
It is important to note that there has been a large interest from housebuilders on the back of the potential for a railway. The railway could bring a different type of tenure to those villages. As I said, that could provide more opportunity for rounding off the villages and people will be able to use the train to go out to find employment.
After we have finished our evidence-taking session with this panel, we will break for lunch. Therefore, the witnesses from West Lothian Council and others who want to slip out until after lunch are free to do so. However, I am sure that they are riveted by the evidence that we are hearing at the moment.
The written evidence on development and housing mentions the new schools that are being built; presumably those schools, as community schools, will offer training facilities as well—at least, I hope that they would do so. Can we be given some information on how the railway would improve access to training and education opportunities in the two areas? Will it have an impact in those areas?
From what my colleague has said, I understand that very little public transport is currently available later in the evening. Clearly, if people want to attend out-of-hours evening classes and so on, it is impossible for them to do so using only public transport. The colleges in Livingston and Airdrie will become more accessible to the people in the villages when the line exists.
Our main public-private partnership investment in schools is currently in primary schools, which will provide mixed community facilities and multicampus facilities. Therefore, some social benefits will arise from having the schools in the area.
From some of the villages that lie just to the east of Airdrie, three or four changes of bus are required. The times are unattractive. In the evening, the last bus out of Airdrie is at 20 to 6, so a taxi and a walk are required if people are going to the villages. The rail service could open up the opportunity for direct access to campuses to the west of Edinburgh—for example, Livingston has facilities for training in manual skills. Accessing such opportunities at present is not feasible by bus or by people who do not have cars.
I asked about building job markets and about issues such as unemployment that face people in some of the villages. I am disappointed that we have before us only people who know about transport, because if we are considering social regeneration, we need to discuss education and developing people. Is the council considering that? What plans are afoot to ensure that people can have benefits from the rail line apart from access to a university or college, which will not do the business that needs to be done for social regeneration?
The council recognises that it needs to invest in such communities. We have developed several approaches to engage with communities and to prepare training and employment opportunities in communities. We have developed Routes to Work Ltd, an organisation that operates in several settlements throughout North Lanarkshire to provide access to jobs, jobs advice and training and to link people into local employment opportunities.
Not just transportation officers are present, as David McLay is from the economic development team. Another important initiative on which he is working is construction skills training. Perhaps the rail project provides an opportunity to introduce construction skills, because the amount of money that is to be spent offers a great opportunity to provide work for the local workforce and not just for local companies. That is another initiative that we are working on with the local enterprise company.
Convener, I have a question about bus services, but did you say that we would return to them?
We will return to buses at a later date, but this panel will not return. You may ask your question if you feel that it is relevant to the panel.
The question may relate to the departments that are represented. Is any of the witnesses responsible for contracting out bus services?
Strathclyde partnership for transport operates buses in the Strathclyde region and has primary responsibility for bus operations.
I will leave my questions on buses until later.
The rate of population growth differs throughout Lanarkshire. As a whole, Lanarkshire has suffered a slight decline, but the population in the Airdrie and Coatbridge corridor—the Monklands corridor—has grown modestly. We expect that growth to continue once the local plan proposals are put in place.
I was struck by your point about having had difficulties in delivering growth in areas that have been identified as growth areas. You have suggested in your evidence that you expect the railway to help with that.
The annual business inquiry noted that, between 1998 and 2003, jobs growth in North Lanarkshire was 13 per cent, which equates to 13,000 jobs. After a difficult period of industrial restructuring following the closure of Ravenscraig, there has been jobs growth in North Lanarkshire and we are keen to protect and maintain the progress that we have made.
I was asking specifically about the population of North Lanarkshire.
The latest figures from the General Register Office for Scotland forecast very modest growth, with the population between now and 2024 rising from 322,790 to 323,900. However, although the figures suggest that growth will be modest, they also suggest that the population will remain stable.
Do you have any figures for the number of housing units that are planned along the railway line in North Lanarkshire?
In the shorter term, we expect 1,000 units to be built. As for the longer term, I said earlier that we have identified the area as a growth area. As yet, we do not have any numbers for that. We have suggested that 2,000 to 3,000 houses might be built by 2010, but we must also consider other growth areas in North Lanarkshire. We need to strike a balance and work out how many of those houses will be built in that corridor.
What work are you carrying out on longer term projections? If it is expected that population growth will remain static—or at least that any increase will be fairly marginal—one would not have thought that there would be much impact on current housing demand.
Housing projections come through the structure plan, which has identified the need for housing in the eastern part of North Lanarkshire. Through the local plan process, we will identify where additional housing units will go. Housing growth has been projected, and we are saying that, locally, the railway corridor should be the growth area. We do not have any projections beyond 2017, as they will come through the next structure plan. At the moment, we are working towards the medium term, which is the period between 2010 and 2017.
What consultation has been done with existing communities? When I visited the area, the communities seemed to be fairly distinct. Are they aware of the implications of constructing a station at Plains or Blackridge and of local plans that indicate the potential for housing growth in those areas? How do they feel about such growth?
The consultation process on the local plan and on housing growth in those areas has only begun. In fact, we have told communities that we are currently preparing the local plan and that anyone with an interest can make representations to the council. At the turn of the year, the council will agree its consultative draft in which we will define and set out our plans for the specific growth areas and will then go out to public consultation, as we are required to do. As a result, we have not received any feedback on the local plan, but consultation on the rail proposals has been carried out with communities through the area regeneration partnerships.
Consultation on the railway is one thing, but all the evidence that we have heard has associated housing growth with properties that have what you have called a different type of tenure. Is that code for executive homes for commuters? You have held a consultation asking, "Would you like a railway station?" and people have said yes, but you have not held a consultation in which you say that the railway comes with 300 executive homes next door. Are people to find that out from this committee's proceedings or from the consultative draft that you are looking to produce early next year, which is six months away?
The local plan will identify land for housing, but the interest that we have had has been largely from private housebuilders.
They are not housing associations, one would assume.
No.
And they will build commuters' houses for a quarter of a million pounds.
That may be overoptimistic for the area.
Well, surely you take my point that it is not housing associations that have expressed an interest in building.
Yes.
Is that process about to begin with the communities?
Yes.
Committee reports are passed through the local area partnerships meetings—the regular meetings with councillors that community councils attend. The details of the concept of the urban expansion areas and of the housing that will come to those areas are being promoted through those meetings, so there is an understanding of what is being worked towards.
My figure of a quarter of a million pounds might have been a bit optimistic, but let us say that the houses cost £150,000. What discussions are you having with private developers about how much they will contribute to the railway on the back of whose construction they will make a profit by building their houses?
At this stage of the local plan, we are not really having any discussions, as such; we have just asked for expressions of interest, so with many of the housebuilders there has been no dialogue. Also, through our local plan we are considering a general policy for developer contributions across North Lanarkshire that is not specifically related to the railway. I know that you have asked about section 75 agreements and about the contribution that would be made, but at this stage we are not in a position to be conducting dialogue at that level.
I was struck by the fact that other schemes such as the Borders railway and the Edinburgh tramlines have involved a private contribution to the capital costs of the works. Indeed, there will be on-going revenue implications, and you have highlighted some potential aspects of that for your council. However, the scheme has now been lodged at the Parliament, and you have missed the opportunity to hold what could have been good discussions with private developers who will be building private houses but will be asked to make no contribution to any of the capital costs of the scheme or to on-going associated costs. That seems absolutely remarkable.
I do not think that we have missed the opportunity. As I explained, we are at a very early stage of our local plan, and that is how the timing has worked out in relation to the railway proposal.
You cannot have that kind of discussion after the bill has gone through the Parliament. Presumably you are hoping for royal assent before the next election—the clerk may be able to indicate whether that is the case—and you cannot have that kind of discussion post assent. You just cannot. The timeframe is now, and if your local plan is not finalised before the bill is given royal assent, the outlook is pretty disastrous. You will lose out on what could have been a serious contribution to the capital costs, which would be to the benefit of all taxpayers.
Within the timescale for the bill, we can have only a consultative draft of the local plan; there is no way in which the plan can be finalised. However, within that consultative draft, we can present a policy on developer contributions, which is what we aim to do, but we cannot work any more quickly than that. The policy on developer contributions will not be targeted solely at the railway project; the council is considering the broader perspective.
Is it perhaps to the council's advantage not to have the discussions on contributions at this stage, because there will still be the possibility of pulling in funding at a later stage, as each application is dealt with, at which point the money would presumably go back to the council, or at least you would have a greater say over it?
Possibly. The timescale for those discussions is set largely by our local plan programme. As I said, that is the programme that we have and that is its relationship with the bill, and there is nothing that we can do about that.
Would you like us to slow down and we could come back to this after the election?
No.
That is certainly an option for us in considering the general principles of the bill. If the committee is not satisfied that the funding for the scheme is robust, it can say that it is not happy with the general principles of the bill because we are not content with its funding structure. If we are not confident about it, we can come back to it after six months. I wonder whether that might focus some of your deliberations within the council.
Would the scheme that you are thinking about be a developer contribution? It would relate in no way to the presence of the railway line, as you are talking about a scheme for the whole of Lanarkshire. Is that correct?
At the moment, the council has no policy in its local plan on planning gain or developer contributions. We want to develop such a policy through the new local plan that we are preparing for the whole of North Lanarkshire. It would cover contributions for all sorts of things—education, perhaps, and community facilities. The railway might be one of those things, but the policy would not be solely for it.
But it would be reasonable to think that anyone who has had the prescience to buy some development land near the railway will be laughing all the way to the bank.
There are two aspects to developer contributions. For every major development that we approve we will ask for a transport study, for contributions under section 75 and for the development to link in with the proposed railway line, so there will be developer contributions. You also talked about improved access to the railway and we will expect the development sites to be linked to the railway, so that the railway will be encouraged and promoted and so that additional traffic will go to the railway.
The committee will consider the points that you have made. Do you have anything to add?
No. We thank you for the opportunity to come to the committee and we look forward to your proceeding with your business. If there is anything else that we can do to help you, we will be happy to co-operate.
We appreciate your written submissions and the oral evidence that you have given today. Thanks very much. We look forward to receiving the document to which we referred earlier.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome the representatives of West Lothian Council. You sat through this morning's activities, so you know the ropes. On that basis, you have probably guessed the first question. Could you use the £340 million better? Do you think that it represents wise investment and is it the right thing for West Lothian?
We are here to offer the West Lothian perspective, but the committee is considering the project in the national context. It looks as if the project will benefit the wide area of the whole central belt and the bit in between Airdrie and Bathgate. The money will be spread over that area. We understand that the Executive and Transport Scotland have carried out wider economic analysis, against which the project scores well. Measured against many other major transportation projects, you are getting a lot for your money. As well as benefits to our area, there is electrification, the existing track is being doubled, there are station expansions and a lot of the route is being made compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There will be a pretty broad benefit. I do not think that it is a case of West Lothian Council alone getting £340 million. I see the project in a much wider context.
Thanks very much. I think that the promoter will be happy with that response, but I will leave that to it.
I am interested in who might benefit. What advantages over improved bus services does the railway offer local people in increasing access to wider job markets, enhancing accessibility and mobility and improving local economic performance? Would providing decent bus services for the same kind of money be just as good for local people?
I do not think that it is a case of either/or. We are enthusiastic about public transport. We have done modelling to see what would be an ideal public transport model. We have spoken to Transport Scotland about how we would like support and investment. For something like £2 million a year, we think that we could get a pretty good, enhanced public transport system. However, this project is slightly different. Rail complements bus; the two are not necessarily doing the same things. I was around when the Bathgate to Edinburgh line was reopened, at which time there was a pretty good bus service between Bathgate and Edinburgh. As you heard from Jim McFarlane earlier, it was forecast that there would be 300,000 passenger journeys in the first year—I was one of those who did the forecast, which we thought might be a bit optimistic—but we got one million such journeys. There was obviously a pent-up demand that forecasting could not see. The line was pretty attractive. Things might be different in a city context, but in West Lothian we see buses and trains as doing a complementary job; one is not a direct replacement for the other.
How will the proposed railway line improve the area's economic development and social regeneration?
On the economic side, we carried out a joint study with our colleagues in North Lanarkshire Council, which we thought that you had and which will be made available to you. The crude economic forecasts were for about an extra 900 jobs, although these things are quite hard to forecast. We want to build positively on the back of the project. All along the rail line, we have housing allocations and employment zone allocations and things will proceed at a faster rate if accessibility improves. In the local plan we have a concept called central park. We are trying to develop the area between Lanarkshire and West Lothian, looking 10, 20 or 50 years into the future. We believe that having access to a central Scotland railway will help us. Economically, we want to build on the back of the Bathgate line, as we did around Linlithgow; the northern line has a good service.
You told us about some of the benefits of the proposed railway, but what would be the impact on social and economic regeneration if the project were not to go ahead?
It would make a big difference in the west of West Lothian—in Armadale and Blackridge, for example. In those areas that already have at least limited access, regeneration would be delayed and limited. We are planning developments along the whole corridor. The impact of not going ahead would be substantial in the west of West Lothian and would limit the upside, if you like, of development in the east of the region.
As Jim Dickson said, there is a wider concern because the project would affect the whole of central Scotland. The majority of commuter journeys in the central belt are not point to point from Edinburgh to Glasgow; they are massively between the bits in the middle.
You said that there would be a detrimental effect if the project did not go ahead. What is your plan B should the project not be given the go-ahead?
As I said earlier, the region will not die, but it will not grow quickly. It would be a great big missed opportunity for everyone. Our plan B is that if the Executive wanted to put more into public transport, we have a model ready to accommodate that. We are not arguing against the railway—we think that the railway can do those bits that railways are good at and that that can be complemented by local bus services that provide access to the railway station. We want a public transport network in West Lothian.
You mentioned that a substantial amount of housing will be completed. Was the fact that the Airdrie to Bathgate proposal was in the pipeline part of the draw?
It has certainly helped. West Lothian has proved attractive for a range of reasons. We could not say that the prospect of the new railway line has been solely responsible, but it has certainly added to the area's attractiveness. The reinstatement of a railway line to Bathgate in the 1980s was a major boost for that town. Craig McCorriston will keep me right, but I think that between 2,000 and 3,000 houses are being built there. Although I have not been to Bathgate for a while, I believe that the old Leyland site that sat there for a long time is being transformed. The momentum is building, but that relates to a range of factors. The railway project would undoubtedly help economically, by stimulating more rapid growth.
How many of the railway's purported social and economic regeneration benefits will be brought to your area, rather than helping just Edinburgh and Glasgow?
According to the study that we did with the enterprise companies and the Executive—I think that some of the consultants who did it are present—the theoretical benefits were predicted to be the creation of 900 jobs and a boost in the number of houses of about 1,900. Those were the measurable benefits.
Given that the greater Livingston and Bathgate area is already quite developed in terms of opportunities for work, education and maybe even leisure, do you think that, in the short to medium term, any effect that the railway line has on the west of West Lothian is more likely to be on housing development, as the area is likely to be used as a dormitory for the east of West Lothian and Edinburgh, rather than on commercial development?
I think that it will be a bit of both. Through our local plan, we have genuinely tried to create opportunities for people to do things in Bathgate and around Armadale, Blackridge and Whitburn. We have gone for a pretty ambitious plan for developers to try and create more than just trite sustainable communities that have employment opportunities as well as jobs. There is a limit to what we can do, but accessibility and rail access are issues that we can do something about and that might make a major contribution to our plan. In the past 10 to 20 years, what we have done with regard to accessibility has contributed to the success that we have had.
I will add a wee bit to Jim Dickson's point in response to Alasdair Morgan's question about housing-led regeneration. In the proposals for the Heartlands development just outside Whitburn, which is regenerating the Polkemmet site, the developer includes not only a housing-led development site but a significant business park. The private sector is seeing the opportunities in West Lothian not only for housing-led regeneration but for employment opportunities alongside it. It is important that the private sector is seeing employment opportunities not only in relation to the housing but for the whole central belt of Scotland. That is evident through the core development areas and the local plan process.
I will build on what Alistair Shaw said. We are in the final stages of producing our local plan, which is currently going through a public local inquiry. We recognise that although a significant amount of economic development land is identified in West Lothian, there is a need for significant amounts of additional land. As part of the local plan strategy, that economic development land is, as Alistair Shaw said, being brought forward within the core development areas. From our perspective, one of the three key core development areas in West Lothian is around Armadale. That is partly, but not exclusively, predicated on the potential for the railway line to come there. As Alistair Shaw said, there is a significant amount of additional industrial land within the core development area itself and around Cowhill. The allocation of economic development land is moving to the west. That will be significant in respect of where future economic growth happens in West Lothian.
Jim Dickson alluded to our experience in West Lothian. Over the past 20 or 30 years we have seen an economy that has been more dynamic in its change than anywhere else in Scotland. Effective rail connections have been a key element in the regeneration of places such as Uphall and Bathgate. Janis Hughes asked what would happen if the scheme did not go ahead. If Bathgate rail line had not reopened, Bathgate's unemployment rate would be much higher. Having rail connections has been a key factor in the regeneration of our area.
I want to ask about a connecting aspect of economic development, which is training and education. The panel members will have heard the similar question that I asked the panel from North Lanarkshire Council. Most of the students go to college or other education establishments in your area. Will the railway have benefits for education and training in West Lothian?
I would say that it will have. The argument that is used for commuting can be used for education. The railway will open up the whole of the central belt and provide a variety of opportunities, not only for young people from West Lothian to go to colleges, universities or other education establishments outside the area, but for people to come in to West Lothian and benefit from West Lothian College, Oatridge College or the institute for system level integration at the Alba Centre in Livingston. It will provide that accessibility for a range of people to come in, but it will also provide better opportunities for people in West Lothian to move out and get education and training.
You heard my questions to your colleagues from North Lanarkshire about housing. It was helpful of you to give an indication of the scale of housing development, which is considerable. If I heard you correctly, Mr Dickson, you said that there is potential for 16,000 houses to be connected to the line.
In West Lothian as a whole, there is currently consent for 12,000 houses. We are going through a local plan inquiry and we have allocated another 12,000 houses. We will know the outcome of that inquiry by next spring, but we are pretty confident about the broad levels. The people in about 16,000 of those houses would probably use the rail line in some way, for social or other reasons. Some people from West Lothian have to go to hospitals in the south side of Edinburgh and the bus connections are not that great. It would certainly be easier for people from Blackridge and Armadale to go into Edinburgh by train and access the hospitals from there. The rail line will contribute towards a whole range of accessibility issues and it will enhance things.
It is sometimes difficult to imagine what 16,000 or 25,000 houses look like. To illustrate that, Livingston new town—if you are familiar with the new town—contains 20,000-odd houses, so the scale of what we are proposing in West Lothian is akin to building Livingston new town during the next 15 to 20 years. It is a massive development. Clearly, we are not going to build the development in a single location as another new town. The houses will be spread along the route of the railway line. Some locations will be directly on the railway line and some will be offset, but still within the catchment area.
It is 20,000.
It is something of that order. If 16,000 houses are built within the railway line area, up to a quarter of those, or 4,000, will be for individuals with some form of social housing need.
What will be the breakdown of the estimated 16,000 houses? For how many has consent been given? What figure will be in the finalised local plan?
It will be about half and half. Armadale is on the route of the line and around 3,000 houses are planned, of which 2,000 do not yet have consent. However, further along the line at Bathgate, around 5,000 houses have been allocated in the plan and the majority of them will now have planning consent. The split is broadly 50:50 between the houses that have consent and the houses that do not, but the figure varies from settlement to settlement along the line.
On the subject of section 75 agreements, you will have heard my question to the witnesses from North Lanarkshire Council. Are you asking all the developers of new houses along the railway line for contributions to the overall capital cost of the scheme?
In Armadale and Blackridge we have asked about access to the stations. We face an enormous challenge, but we are probably ahead of the game among councils in obtaining developer contributions. When we started out on our consultations, the railway line was not yet a prospect.
Or knocking on your door in Blackridge—
We are trying to create sustainable communities. In principle, if there was money left over, a station at Blackridge would be possible. I am not sure whether there is any money left over for that, but we are prepared to consider it in terms of the overall principles. However, I would not want to say that the development was dependent on that, as I am not sure that it is deliverable.
Treasury decisions are slightly outside the remit of the committee.
That decision impinges on it, though.
At the beginning of the process, however, you did not indicate that there could be a development contribution for the capital costs—that just did not happen.
It did not happen. North Lanarkshire Council had been lobbying for years, but no one had been interested in the project. When we started this process, it was not even a twinkle in anybody's eye. Generally, the pretty negative view was held that it was not a project that we could support. If we had had a twinkle in the eye, we would have been in there like a shot—we are pretty opportunistic. It is great that the project has come forward and that people have carried out the analysis that North Lanarkshire Council asked for and have got a positive result.
Regardless of whether the committee indicated to the Executive or the promoter that we wished to see a demonstration of the private sector investment under the scheme, like under comparable schemes such as the Borders railway or the Edinburgh tramlines, perhaps using a ratio of 85 per cent to 15 per cent, you are still at a stage at which it would be possible to put in a mechanism to raise funds from private developers.
That is probably the case in theory. In practice, however, that might mean that no development happens because we have asked for too much. It is fine if we can have a meeting with the Executive, as a corporate body, and if it recognises that we have an issue with schools and says that it will forward-fund or contribute towards schools. If we get that funding, we will be able to meet the requirement on rail. It is not about the point in principle; it is a practical issue. The developer contributions to the public purse generally are substantial; I am not sure that we in West Lothian could deliver that for you.
But that does not seem to have put people off building the roads or the stations. A contribution to the capital costs would be involved, but using a different mechanism. The point is that you have not tested that.
No—I am just telling you, quite genuinely, the danger of that.
I am aware that we are to have a session on stations later, but I am interested in your paper's emphasis on the case for a station at Blackridge. As you will be aware, the committee went on a field visit, and I can see why you emphasised the case for a station there. However, I am at an absolute loss to see why you are pushing for a station at Armadale. We visited the proposed station site, and there was absolutely nothing around that area. Would you prefer a Blackridge station to an Armadale station?
No. The council's view is clear. The Armadale station would have a much greater impact than the Blackridge station according to the modelling and the patronage figures. That makes sense for the rail line, from both sides, because of the relative scale of Armadale and its possibilities. We do not think about it in the way that you have suggested.
But the proposed station would be quite a distance from the town of Armadale.
It might appear so at the moment—clearly, it is. We have talked about the core development areas in West Lothian. The location of the proposed Armadale station is right in the centre of a core development area. We anticipate development or building work commencing in the core development areas in 2008-09. By the time that work on the railway has started, work on delivering the core development area will be progressing. There will be something in the region of 1,500 houses around that station, which will be linked into Armadale town centre. As I said earlier, 50 hectares of industrial land has been allocated in that area. There will be various other mixed uses, and there will be local community facilities within the area. The location is out in the open at the moment but, 15 years from now, when the plan is implemented, that area will be part of Armadale town.
We would be happy to provide you with a plan for that area. Armadale is of a scale such that a bus service could link round the town and bring people to the station. We think that, in terms of economic, social and regeneration factors, the case for Armadale station is the stronger one. That does not mean to say that we do not think that there is a case for Blackridge. You asked us about making a choice. Hopefully, I am giving you a straight answer.
I wish to ask Mr Malcolm about transportation interests. One of the problems that I always encounter is the build-up of traffic on the M8 around Bathgate and Livingston, both at night and in the morning. Will the railway be guaranteed to do something to improve that, or will all these new houses mean that we will still be stuck in the traffic on the M8?
As Mr Gallie knows, there are no certainties in life. The central Scotland transport corridor study that was commissioned by the Scottish Executive looked at a range of projects that, although they might not reduce traffic on the M8, would help to maintain existing traffic levels against a background of increased car ownership and increased use of the car for longer commuter journeys. Throughout Scotland, people now seem to be willing to travel in their cars further and further to work. Therefore, rather than see the proposed line as the saviour of the M8, we should see it as a project that will provide opportunities to help to control travel on the M8.
I acknowledge the wider aspects, but my question was more specific.
To answer your specific point, we hope that, at Uphall station, which is near the point at which traffic on the motorway begins to queue, we can create a visible site to the north of the track, which will have a psychological effect. People on the motorway will be able to see the park-and-ride station and will know that they have a real choice. Sometimes, all we can do is give folk choice. With money from the Executive plus our money, we are trying to expand the existing stations. At Uphall, the specific aim is to get a site that is next to the motorway so that folk can see it. We might even get a sign on the motorway that says, "Leave the motorway now for park and ride: avoid the congestion". That is the point at which traffic comes to a dead halt. We can use such ideas to build on the back of the railway line to try to give folk choices.
I want to follow on from Mr Malcolm's point about the development at Whitburn. He might be able to help me out. The information that we have from the promoter is that there will be increased congestion on the A801 at Armadale and Whitburn.
I picked up that point from this morning's questions. The transport model that has been run for the project includes the core development area in the Armadale area. As Mr McCorriston stated, there are to be thousands of houses joining up with the road network in that area, so there will be a substantial increase on the existing congestion. At present, the A801 corridor is not particularly busy—certainly at off-peak times it is fairly okay. As part of the contribution under the section 75 agreement, we want the developers of the CDA to upgrade that section of road to dual carriageway standard. That links with our long-term aspiration for the new crossing of the Avon gorge on the A801, which Cathie Peattie will be keen to see.
For our purposes, you can confirm that there will be even more congestion, regardless of the railway.
In the transport modelling for the scheme, no attempt will have been made to include the measures that will be put in place to mitigate congestion on the A801.
We believe that, because of the mitigation measures, there will not be more congestion, but we are happy to investigate the issue and get back to the committee. We do not envisage that the scheme will make matters worse.
A chat with the promoter would be helpful. We will ask about that. We asked how many car journeys annually would be removed from the M8 and local roads. That was a specific question, but we are not getting specific answers. We will ask the promoter about the issue.
You are asking about congestion rather than volumes. The volume could go up but, if mitigation measures are in place, the congestion might be less. However, the question is fair.
I asked earlier about potential developer contributions. Transport Scotland's evidence on the overall costs states:
We have spoken to them and put the case that I outlined to you. We have had an exchange on the issue. Our assumption is that they accept our position because they have not come back to us on the issue. We have had a discussion to explain the dynamics. We said that, from an Executive point of view, if funding can come in from a different source, the decision could be different.
If the projected outturn cost of £341 million and the range of £300 million to £375 million, depending on the rate of industry inflation, are not accurate, you expect that West Lothian Council will not pay anything toward the project at all.
The question is one of affordability. We have raised a series of issues about the affordability of our allowing development. The bottom line is that all we can do to protect the council position is not to allow development to happen, which is not what we want to do. We have no funding of our own to put in.
Right.
Members have no more questions, so I thank all the witnesses for attending and for the evidence that they have submitted.
The straightforward answer is yes. The scheme will bring several major benefits. At every place that I have visited since I became involved in the project, I have been delighted with the support that we have seen for the scheme. Throughout the many consultation meetings that we held earlier this year, although issues were raised about localised matters, support for the railway was overwhelming.
In some of the assumptions that you have made—the assumption about the number of jobs that were likely to be created over 10 years has been referred to—it was suggested that you have been rather pessimistic. Could the factor of 1.81 be improved with further consideration?
I ask my colleague David Simmonds to answer.
The benefit cost ratio to which Mr McAulay has just referred is based on a strictly conventional analysis of the transport benefits, mainly in terms of time savings and accident reduction. That is a purely transport analysis, following the procedures laid down in the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. All the economic and social regeneration benefits of the line, any environmental benefits and any wider benefits of the kind that we have been hearing about—such as linking different parts of central Scotland more closely, linking different labour markets and so on—are in addition to that benefit cost ratio of 1.81, and the number of additional jobs has been estimated using a modelling system known as the transport/economic/land use model of Scotland, which my colleagues and I developed for the Scottish Executive some years ago. That is the analysis that gives rise to the figure of approximately 1,500 additional jobs within the corridor directly served by the line.
Paragraph 6 of the promoter's memorandum says:
A definite feature of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link is that it connects two complex networks in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas with the south and with the east coast main line. For the cost of 14 or 15 miles of new twin track, it connects those active and important networks with the whole of the UK network. That is one reason why, in relative terms, it delivers a high BCR.
You are not running any trains to the south—they terminate at Waverley.
There are connections to the south and the link will allow people on the route to access the wider network.
So these are, effectively, people from between Glasgow and Airdrie.
It will also allow people in the villages of Plains, Caldercruix, Blackridge, Armadale and Bathgate to connect directly into the wider network via Waverley.
People in Bathgate can do that at the moment. How many journeys of that type—people from those stations going south—do you anticipate? Is that a significant factor in your modelling?
The modelling that has been done indicates that the main users of the railway line—about 60 per cent—will be commuting to work. Roughly 14 per cent will be on shopping trips to the city centres. Those are the highlights of the people who will use the line, but there will be the opportunities that I have described for the same people to access the UK network.
But that hardly makes it a key aim of national transport policy.
I cannot identify precisely why the scheme was included as a national aim, but I can see a very good reason why it should be. After all, we have already heard the arguments for linking together the different parts of central Scotland. Moreover, continuing substantial job growth, particularly in the Edinburgh area, has been forecast, and there is a need to widen the labour pool from which workers can be drawn. Linking the Airdrie to Coatbridge corridor to Edinburgh Park and central Edinburgh with a relatively fast public transport system will play an important role in widening the pool of labour available to present and future Edinburgh employers without putting more pressure on the Edinburgh housing market. Given that growth in the central belt—particularly in Edinburgh—is a driver for the Scottish economy and that labour supply is a critical constraint in that respect, the scheme will play a nationally important economic role.
I do not want to nit-pick over the precise meaning of words, but in agreeing to provide national funding for a project one must assure oneself that it has a national economic benefit. If we pursued your argument, we could quite easily say that almost any project had a national benefit. In comparison, the proposed Edinburgh airport rail link is very much a national project as it will enable people from Aberdeen, Inverness and wherever to use the airport. I am struggling to see how this project has a similar national importance. I can see that, regionally, it is of great importance to the central Scotland corridor, but I am not so sure that people in Inverness or Dumfries will agree that it is of national significance.
The national planning framework highlights the aim of supporting cities, and providing another link between the two main Scottish cities must help in that respect. Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian's submission highlights a surplus of something like 10,000 jobs by, I think, 2015—although it might be slightly later than that. Surely providing that additional labour to those markets must support cities and therefore help the country's economy.
Okay.
Overall, we expect an additional 12,500 boardings per day on this line. I am struggling to remember exactly how many people will transfer from the current Edinburgh to Glasgow service, although my colleague tells me that the figure is about 50 passengers per train in the peak hour.
So 50 passengers who use the current Edinburgh to Glasgow service would transfer to this service, but out of how many passengers?
It is about 12 per cent—or, say, an eighth—if that helps you to work things out.
That number is quite high, given that people would transfer from a service that took 45 minutes to one that would take 70-odd minutes.
Yes, but you must remember that many people come into Glasgow Queen Street station on low-level trains. At the moment, they have to transfer to the higher-level station to get a train through to Edinburgh. I imagine that many of them will find it just as easy to stay on the low-level train instead of having to get off and wait for a connection.
Are the figures a result of modelling or have passenger surveys been undertaken in which people were asked what they might do?
The figures are a result of modelling that we have carried out.
I will move on to something more specific. The current Bathgate to Edinburgh service is half-hourly and is decidedly overcrowded at the peak period. The Airdrie to Bathgate project would result in the service being quarter-hourly. Do you anticipate that it will be able to cope with the current Bathgate to Edinburgh traffic plus the additional traffic that will be forthcoming?
Yes. In effect, by providing a 15-minute service instead of a half-hourly service, we will double the capacity in that part of the corridor for moving people from Bathgate into Edinburgh.
Right, but obviously the other two trains that you will put on will not be empty, because people will come in from the west. How soon will it be before they get full up?
There would not be so much of a capacity issue at that end of the line. If anything, I would have more concerns about the other end. However, capacity is being addressed through a rolling stock strategy that Transport Scotland is pulling together. We are looking at the whole issue of the type of units that would be available and that would be used on the line.
Does that mean that, in order to avoid congestion at the Glasgow end because of the opening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line, you will have to invest in more rolling stock?
Yes, there will be a need to invest in more rolling stock for the overall scheme.
Where did the costs come from and from where are they being met?
They are included in the operating cost element of our estimate of expenditure and funding.
There was a story in the paper earlier last month about the phase 2 development of Waverley, which was just a re-run of the question whether that will go ahead. Is anything in what you propose dependent on phase 2 of the Waverley remodelling, or does it all fit quite happily with what is proposed in phase 1?
We are not dependent on what is being called phase 2 of Waverley. The on-going project at Waverley will increase the capacity of the west throat by four trains per hour. Two of those trains will be taken up by the Airdrie to Bathgate service. Two trains come in from Bathgate at present, and four trains will come through. The on-going work will be completed by the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 and it will provide the capacity that we need.
There will be an additional four trains per hour, so is somebody bidding for the remaining two slots?
We anticipate that they will be taken up with additional services from Fife, but that has still to be finalised.
Okay.
I should say that Fife is one option and that others that might take up the other slot are being looked at, so where the two services will come from is still a bit fluid.
I have a final question. On a personal note, as somebody who uses Waverley station, the usual excuse that I hear when we are delayed is that there is congestion in the station. If you propose, through the remodelling, to offer an extra four trains and to use up all the slots, does that mean that there will still be congestion?
We have modelled the operation at the west throat to ensure that the design that we put in will be able to accommodate the flow of traffic there and will not result in performance deterioration. We have designed the operation in such a way that it should still be able to perform as it does today. I should say to you that performance at the moment is extremely good on the railways in Scotland.
Yes, but on the Haymarket Edinburgh section we continually get the excuse that trains are being held up because of congestion at Waverley. What you are saying is that the modelling shows that you can run four extra trains and that we will still be in the same position, so we will continue to have congestion at Waverley.
I do not want to sound overly optimistic—
Perish the thought.
The modelling suggests that as soon as we finish the remodelling of the west throat of Waverley, we will see quite an improvement in overall performance there. Moreover, as the additional services come on, performance will start to come back to where it is now. However, current performance is actually very good. We are seeing performance figures across Scotland in excess of 90 per cent.
I was not interested in performance across the rest of Scotland; I was just asking about the west end of Waverley. After we remodel it and put on the four extra trains, what will the situation be?
There should be no worsening of performance compared with the situation at the moment.
I do not know that a lot of people would be happy with that, but I shall leave it at that.
I should point out that the second phase, to provide even more capacity at Waverley, is a major operation in terms of what needs to be done to the station to get more paths in there.
But that is at a cost of £700 million plus.
Yes, but the figures that you are quoting include things such as building a shopping complex on top of the station, which is not what we plan to do.
I would like to ask about your response to the further questions from the committee. In response to question 8, you indicated:
There is no reason to suggest that they will not be. We are already planning that work in. Our design engineers have been looking at that part of the project, and the intention is to carry out as much of that work as we can within the works that will be going on at Waverley over the next year and a half.
If they are not done, that will cause considerable problems for the project.
Yes, but if we do not do the west throat remodelling, that will cause the project similar problems. There is no doubt that the work at Waverley is needed if we are to be able to deliver the service.
There is money for the work that is being done at Waverley, which you have said is scheduled to be completed in advance. The work is under way, or will shortly be under way, and there is no problem with the funding for that.
That is correct.
That money is in the bank.
The funding has been made available, contracts have been let and the work is under way at the moment. I would not say that the money is in our bank; let me put it that way.
The promoter's memorandum refers to the railway
We are saying that, by providing a public transport link that gives people the opportunity to make fast, reliable, punctual journeys into city centres at either end, we can provide an alternative that is more attractive than using private transport. Have I misunderstood your question?
I just want to know how that enhances competitiveness.
We believe that providing a fast, reliable service will be more competitive. It will be more attractive for people to use that service than to be stuck in a car in a traffic jam or to have unreliable journey times.
You state that in your memorandum, in paragraph 78.
Unless I am missing something, that is what we mean in that part of the memorandum.
Okay. What advantages to local people does the railway offer over improved bus services in increasing access to wider job markets, increasing inward investment and improving local economic performance?
I shall ask David Simmonds to pick up on that point, but the issue will be about the ability to provide fast, reliable, shorter journey times.
The key point is to do with wider job markets and wider opportunities, as mentioned in the question.
You list six policy objectives that would not be achieved if the railway was not built. Why would the first five of those objectives not equally be achieved by an enhanced bus service? If the kind of resources that are going in to build the railway network were put into bus services, could not the objectives still be achieved?
I want to make sure that I am looking at the same list, so that we are not talking at cross-purposes. Are you referring to the list in the memorandum?
Yes. It is in your supplementary reply.
In relation to the first three objectives, which are improving direct access to labour markets in Glasgow, Edinburgh and West Lothian for people living in the Airdrie to Uphall corridor, stimulating economic growth and increasing social inclusion, my answer is the same as the previous one. It is about the greater effectiveness of the railway in carrying people and greater acceptance of the railway. The fact that people are more willing to use the railway because of its greater speed and comfort relates to the point that the witnesses from Scottish Enterprise made about the possibility of making good use of time on trains as working time, which is much easier on trains than on buses. Those of us who have experience of trains and buses will know that it is difficult to work effectively in a bus seat and that it is much more likely to be possible to get valuable work done on a train.
It is worth mentioning that the central Scotland transport corridor study, from which this project came, considered the possibility of an express bus package as an alternative to the Airdrie to Bathgate proposal. The study found that although there would be a small uplift in bus use, the package would increase road traffic and reduce rail patronage, which would not sit particularly well with the objectives of the scheme.
I want to pick up on economic development and social regeneration, about which others from deep within the communities have said much today. Given the objectives that have been set with respect to transport investment, how could the railway uniquely aid economic development and social inclusion?
Again, I will call on David Simmonds to assist me. One of the things that I picked up from the evidence that was given earlier is that although people have attempted to introduce bus routes and services in these areas, the services have not been sustainable and have not provided the links that people were hoping for. The railway will represent a permanent feature on the landscape—it will provide a permanent link between Glasgow and Edinburgh and the communities will regard it as something that is there to be used.
I emphasise the point that railways are better accepted, and not just for the reasons of speed and the potential value of the time spent on board, which I have already mentioned, but also—as Mr McAulay said—for their expected permanence. That might be a result of the way in which transport planning has developed in Scotland. The introduction of a bus service is not regarded as a permanent change. The committee heard evidence this morning that bus services have been introduced but it has, under the existing arrangements, proved to be impossible to sustain them. If the railway line is reopened and improved in the way that is being discussed, the expectation is that it will be there for a long time—for decades, at least. The scale and nature of the investment gives people greater confidence.
I am concerned that you propose to run, at one particular station, a 30-minute service rather than a 15-minute service. I realise that you can adapt and change the scheduling of services as time goes on, but it seems to me that to have a reduced service at Drumgelloch station would put people off, especially at peak travel times when they seek to get to their businesses at certain times. Is that service set in stone or will you consider it again to see how you can improve the service before it gets off the ground?
Our philosophy in drawing together the overall timetable is, first and foremost, to ensure that there is no detriment to the existing service. If an existing station has a half-hourly service, it will not have anything worse than a half-hourly service. Similarly, if it has a 15-minute service, it will not have anything worse than that.
I am looking to get the maximum economic development gain from the project. I would expect that, after an investment of £340 million, a given station's service might improve.
We have used a timetable to model the benefits of the railway and to work out what patronage numbers might be. That timetable has the new Drumgelloch station as having a half-hourly service. That modelling shows the economic benefits that we have included in our submission. Changing that timetable might well change the overall cost-benefit ratio, but I am not sure whether that sensitivity was included in the calculations.
I am not sure whether that was included in the main cost-benefit analysis that produced the ratio of 1.81 of benefits to costs. It would be expected that if an increase in the number of trains that stop at a station was to lose more passengers than it gained, that would reduce the benefits slightly, although one would have to go back and do the calculations in order to be absolutely sure of that. It is, perhaps, worth adding that although the service from the new Drumgelloch station would still be only half-hourly, it would now be half-hourly in both directions. That is a big change that would result from the service continuing eastward all the way to Edinburgh Waverley.
In your written evidence, you state that if the railway is not constructed, many of the areas that are already defined as deprived communities
I will have to come back to you on that one, convener. Earlier, we heard from the two councils that the view is that the speed at which improvements would be seen would reduce and that the railway will be simply one tool in the overall toolkit for driving economic growth.
How much of the railway's purported benefits are geared towards the economic and social regeneration of North Lanarkshire and West Lothian as opposed to their simply supporting the continued development of Edinburgh and Glasgow?
Again, I will ask David Simmonds to answer that question, because it relates to the overall analysis that was carried out by his team.
As I have mentioned several times, we used the transport/economic/land use model of Scotland to carry out our modelling. It is the main basis for the job and population impacts that we have quoted. As the name of that model implies, it covers a much wider area than just the corridor with which the bill is concerned—it covers the whole of Scotland and models in considerable detail the whole of the central belt and much of north-east Scotland, as well as some of the south of the country.
Thank you. That would be helpful.
We conducted detailed surveys of existing businesses in the area. We are thinking more of the expansion of existing businesses than of major new inward investment. The recent history of West Lothian and North Lanarkshire shows that relying on major inward investment is a risky strategy, so the general emphasis is now on providing conditions that allow and encourage the growth of businesses that are already located in the area. The effects that we forecast will be mainly in the service sector—we do not forecast that the project will result in major gains in manufacturing. The growth that will be achieved will be additional growth in the service sector, which is very much in line with what is happening throughout most of the central belt.
So your predictions are based on modelling—you have no specific examples of companies that have shown an interest in locating in the area because they know that new line might go ahead.
As part of the work that was done, a number of firms were interviewed in some detail about the ways in which the railway line might affect them, but those interviews took place in early 2005 and the responses were based on the circumstances that the companies faced at that time and related, for example, to the difficulties that they were experiencing in attracting and retaining their workforce. The responses tended to confirm that the mechanisms in the model were the correct ones to consider, so we have relied on the modelling results in the figures that we have put forward.
The almost 50 new jobs to be created at the light maintenance depot in Bathgate are one example. There is also the retention of the car-based jobs that currently exist at that site.
It might be worth picking up on some of the points that came out of the survey of businesses. There was certainly evidence of labour-market exhaustion in some sectors, and of a lack of skilled staff. Businesses saw public transport as being a negative characteristic of their location. More than half of them thought that the line would be used by their business and 26 out of the 37 firms thought that they would benefit from the improved access to labour. That provides a bit of context.
Turning to the light maintenance depot at Bathgate, I was just reading First ScotRail's submission, which says:
We see it as a given. There is a need for ScotRail to have a depot at which it can maintain the trains that will be running back and forward on the line. The trains that will come through Bathgate will replace existing diesel trains, so there will be a need for a place where electric rolling stock can be maintained. I am quite happy to go back and question First ScotRail on what it meant by that.
You are more confident about there being a depot at Bathgate.
Yes.
We heard from other witnesses about the fact that bus services in some communities often stop early in the evening, which precludes people from getting out and about for leisure purposes, social purposes or even for educational purposes in relation to some of the new community education facilities. How do you think the railway will attract people to use public transport facilities in the evening, when they will not currently use buses? Bus services are often taken off in the evenings because of lack of patronage.
I mentioned the idea of the railway being a permanent item on the landscape. The railway will be there, and people will know when the trains arrive and leave. We hope that new bus routes will be developed to link communities to the stations—tying in with the times when the trains will arrive and depart, so that people can plan their journeys, knowing that they can get back by train—and that the bus companies will start to appreciate that there is a market there for them to feed.
The route will provide a through service between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and it will cater for a mix of purposes and journeys. It will be particularly attractive for people who are going into the centre of either of the two cities. That will attract the passengers and, hence, the revenue that will support the services, which will also be available to people who will make shorter journeys within the corridor. By providing for that mix of markets, it should be possible to sustain a service that does not work on its own in the central part of the corridor, with a separate bus service currently being required there. A through bus service is not so attractive for journeys from Airdrie or Coatbridge into central Edinburgh, for example.
We are keen to ensure that people can take up educational opportunities. I note from the papers that the stations along the route will be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but a number of the stations will not be staffed. I wonder how disabled prospective students will be able to take up the opportunities in colleges and so on if they have to use stations that are not staffed. Often, staff are essential at a station to help people to use the trains.
It is not normal policy for all stations in Scotland or in Great Britain to be staffed—in fact, very few are these days. The facilities that we would provide at the stations would include ramps that are designed to the right gradients to allow such people to use them on their own. Staff would not necessarily be needed to assist.
Just ramps? Ramps are not the only thing that you need to provide to ensure that disabled people can use the stations.
The only two stations that would be staffed would be Airdrie and Bathgate stations. At this stage, we do not expect the others to be staffed.
I want to move on to houses and housebuilding in the area, but first I want to follow up a couple of earlier questions about the expected patronage levels and the type of patronage. Forgive me if you have provided the information and I have not seen it, but what is the expected level of modal shift from cars travelling on the M8? We have heard that it is expected that the railway will reduce traffic congestion. It would be helpful if you have figures for the modal shift. If you have already provided that information, you can refer us to it and I will go away and do my homework.
I believe that we have provided that information. In broad terms, 31 per cent of the patronage at each station can be assumed to be car drivers who will turn up in their cars and park. About 21 per cent of the patronage is expected to be car passengers who are dropped off. It is estimated that people arriving on buses—we all hope that the bus services will improve—will account for about 18 per cent of patronage. Cyclists account for a lowly 1 per cent of patronage at the moment, but it is hoped that that figure will rise, and pedestrians are expected to account for 26 per cent. That is a broad estimate of the types of people that we think will use the service.
Right. So, what is the expected level of modal shift from car use on the M8?
That is a complex question, which has been asked several times. We estimated that about 41,000 vehicles per annum will shift from the M8 as people use the service travelling east, with a lesser figure of 28,500 per annum shifting as people travel west. It is a relatively small number.
Did you calculate the percentage?
It is less than 1 per cent.
It would be wise to point out that, although that percentage might appear very low, the space cleared on the M8 will quickly be filled by people who previously used back roads. They will divert to fill any spaces on the M8.
We have just heard from West Lothian Council and, even if only a proportion of the people who move into the new houses use the M8—and of the potential 24,000 new houses, 20,000 will be executive houses whose owners will, we presume, have cars—there will not be any reduction in congestion on any roads. Any reduction caused by the introduction of the rail line will be wholly offset by the growth in housing.
Those are today's figures. However, as Mr Malcolm pointed out, a 1 per cent reduction in traffic road use might reduce congestion by a much greater amount—by up to 10 per cent.
When I asked about the A801, the witnesses from West Lothian said, I think, that the information that you have provided us with does not take into account what the council plans to do with the road network. It seems to me that a lot of work will be done but that the impact of the project will be minimal. The growth in car use in West Lothian alone will easily outstrip any benefits of modal shift that the project will bring.
It is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, what we have assessed as impacts and benefits and, on the other hand, the changes from the present situation that will occur over time. The present forecast is still for a growth in the use of cars, but that growth will be slightly less than it would otherwise have been. Nobody has claimed that the rail link will lead to an absolute reduction in car use. However, providing an attractive public transport system that is attractive to some people who currently use their cars will mean that the growth in the use of cars will slow slightly. That analysis has been carried out based on the same levels of housing development with or without the railway.
So, your modelling incorporated the housing estimates that we heard this morning from West Lothian Council and North Lanarkshire Council.
I believe that those are the same figures as the councils provided us with 15 or 16 months ago. We included the figures at a late stage in the modelling.
You used those forecasts in the traffic modelling.
That was—
You have—I am sorry, I am cutting over you and I should not do so, because it is rude. You have taken account of the forecasts from the two councils, so your traffic modelling is not of today's existing patterns.
It is based on forecast growth.
Right. I am trying to get an accurate picture of absolute modal shift. We have heard evidence on that—including evidence from you—and you have given an interesting clarification. Not only are you saying that the difference on the M8 will be less than 1 per cent—which I accept—but your ambition is that growth in car use will increase at a slower rate, rather than that congestion should be reduced. If that argument had been a bit more transparent in some of the written material, it would have been more helpful.
Let me be clear. If the Scottish Executive, or whoever, promoted only additional road schemes, people with cars would benefit immensely, whereas people without cars would be left behind and the gap in opportunities would widen. The scheme will provide another public transport link for communities and people who have no access to a car, which will help to keep the gap from widening further.
That is one of the major aspects of the written evidence. I am not saying that it is an untruth; I just wanted clarification of the real impact that the project will have.
We do not have that detail with us, but we can provide it later.
I was interested in what First ScotRail said about the end-to-end figures. You say that the service will relieve pressure on the Edinburgh to Glasgow service, which First ScotRail kind of questioned. It says that you are comparing a 74 or even 70-minute journey on the proposed scheme with a 50 to 53-minute journey on the Edinburgh to Glasgow service, which it says
We have always said that when we talk about end-to-end journeys, we are talking in effect about journeys from the Glasgow area and the east of Glasgow to Edinburgh and about journeys from Edinburgh through to Bathgate back through to Glasgow. The benefits to people there will be immense. This morning, Graham Mackay from North Lanarkshire Council spoke about a study that said that going from Airdrie to Edinburgh Park would take 1 hour and 29 minutes in the peak. We are saying that the journey from Airdrie to Waverley station, not just Edinburgh Park, will take 45 minutes in the peak. The benefits are immense and that is what we are talking about to attract people.
I do not necessarily disagree with you; I am asking for your evidence of the numbers of passengers who will make end-to-end journeys. When I say end-to-end, I mean journeys from Airdrie to Waverley, too. How many people in Airdrie work in the centre of Edinburgh? Considerable times need to be added for journeys to other parts of Edinburgh. How many people who board the service will leave at Waverley?
I will approach the matter from a slightly different angle. The projected increase in passengers on the line is approximately 12,600. I will run through the stations from west to east. On the line's opening in 2011, we expect an additional 673 passengers at Airdrie, approximately 500 at the new Drumgelloch station and 260 at Caldercruix.
Where will those passengers go?
Those passengers will use the stations to go west or east. I am trying to capture—
I accept that.
May I clarify a point about the modelling system that was used to generate those figures? The original model was the transport model for Scotland. That model divides the area into more than 1,100 zones, of which probably 1,000 or so are in the central belt. It looks at the travel between each pair of zones, which gives 1 million different journey possibilities—1,000 times 1,000. There are figures in the modelling system for each of those 1 million cells. All those flows—end to end or any part to any part—were taken into account in the process that was used to produce the figures. The problem is that we do not have the breakdown of those 1 million cells with us and we cannot remember the 1 million numbers in question. That is why we use a computer model. We can assure you that the patterns have been taken into account. If it is critical to your considerations, it would be possible to extract particular numbers for you to consider.
Standing with a clipboard on a given day and asking people where they are going would often be too blunt a tool compared with your very effective 1 million cells. However, my point is that you are telling us that if we consider the general principles, rail is far better than the bus and other modes. We have found out that the impact on congestion will be marginal, but you have not done a like-for-like comparison to establish whether a light rail solution would be better for moving people within Lanarkshire and West Lothian.
Do you mean a light rail system that goes from end to end?
No, I think that we are discounting the end-to-end option because you are saying that you are not comparing an end-to-end system with an Edinburgh to Glasgow service.
Do you mean a light rail system between Airdrie and Bathgate?
Yes.
So you would introduce stops and changes at each of those locations.
What I am getting at is that we are being asked to approve a large scheme. You will have gathered from the pattern of questions today that we are trying to find out how much the scheme will benefit communities in Lanarkshire and West Lothian and how much it will just shift people from their home to the cities. What alternative transport options were considered that might bring better benefits for communities in Lanarkshire and West Lothian?
Is the alternative of a light rail system between Airdrie and Bathgate, which would link in with the existing stations, an option that you feel should be considered?
I am asking you whether you considered it. You might think that it is a ridiculous suggestion. What about extending Edinburgh tramline 2, which will go out to Newbridge?
As soon as one starts to introduce additional connections, so that people have the inconvenience of arriving, meeting another mode of transport, moving on, meeting another mode of transport and moving on again, one starts to reduce the number of people who will find the system attractive. The beauty of the scheme is that people can get on a train as far west as Helensburgh and go straight through without having to change—that is one of its attractions. I can say almost with certainty that a different form of railway between Airdrie and Bathgate would be less attractive to customers, so the number of people who would use it would reduce dramatically.
I have a supplementary, which ties into the question that I asked earlier about the number of people who would switch from the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line to the new one. I think that you came up with the figure of 14 per cent.
It was 12 per cent.
I notice that First ScotRail's submission states:
We have spoken to First ScotRail; we consult it and speak to it. Obviously, there is a bit of confusion between us in this area, but we do speak to each other.
So it simply forgot that you had been undertaking this modelling.
I am afraid that I cannot speak for First ScotRail.
Well, we will have the opportunity to ask it these questions in a couple of weeks' time.
Absolutely.
I will move on to the questions on housing that I promised a long time ago.
I want to be clear about the transport change that you have highlighted. We expect to attract people to the railway through bus links or through park-and-ride facilities that allow drivers to park their car and transfer to trains. Railways are not good at going round people's house and picking them up. Instead, we must focus on what they are good at and ensure that the links between Edinburgh and Glasgow, Glasgow and Edinburgh or wherever are fast and convenient enough to attract people to the line. We need—and are trying to encourage—an integrated overall approach to transport that makes use of good park-and-ride facilities at stations and good bus links. Unfortunately, we cannot control bus companies to ensure that such links are running as we want them to. However, we can certainly encourage such an approach.
We will deal with bus services at a future meeting.
The number of new houses that West Lothian Council, in particular, suggested would be built because of the railway is far larger than the number that we expect to be generated. I do not have any details about the exact location of all the properties that have been proposed.
Our written response to question 57 in the list of further questions that the committee sent us provides some detail on the extent of existing and proposed housing that is within 800m of each station. Such a distance is the kind of standard by which one measures accessibility to public transport.
As you heard, we asked the councils about developer contributions. Why are there no plans to use such contributions to meet the costs of the project?
The councils gave fairly full responses to that question. We have discussed the issue with them but, for various reasons, such contributions have not been forthcoming.
One practical difficulty for the promoter is that it is not a planning authority and so cannot require developers to pay contributions. As a result, it must rely on what planning authorities can do.
So there is no policy decision that part of the project's costs should be met from private means. I understand that you are discussing these matters with Transport Scotland. What point have those discussions on alternative sources of funding reached? After all, if the funding is not to come from developer contributions, where will it come from?
At the moment, Transport Scotland has indicated that it will grant-fund the entire project.
But Transport Scotland's evidence says:
Transport Scotland is exploring other opportunities, and indeed we have been discussing with the councils opportunities for contributions under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the transfer of land for nominal fees and any contributions that the councils might want to make. However, so far, none of those contributions has been forthcoming. We have confirmation from Transport Scotland that it will fund the project, which is why, in our estimate of expense and funding statement, we made it clear that that is the source of funding.
Where is that confirmation and in what form is it?
It is in a letter.
Do you have that letter?
I do not have it with me, but I can get you a copy of it.
That would be helpful, because what you say tends to counter what Transport Scotland said in evidence, which is that it is in discussions with you to investigate
Transport Scotland and Network Rail have been in discussions with the councils about the issue, so that comment is correct.
But the investigations so far have come up blank.
The transfer of land is still being discussed with the councils. On section 75 agreements, we have so far drawn a blank, for the reasons that the councils explained.
What level of commercial development is planned along the railway corridor and what contribution will it make to the project's viability, or are the two not connected?
I am not aware of any commercial development, such as development at stations, being planned as part of the scheme. The forecasts that have been made are for impacts throughout the corridor in general, not for development at stations.
So although one of your priorities is to stimulate economic growth along the corridor, that is not specific to the rail route.
That is correct—the aim is for growth along the corridor.
Is the business case dependent on residential development near the railway, or are there sufficient numbers of people to allow the predicted patronage levels and the cost-benefit analysis to stack up?
The cost-benefit analysis is based on the situation that is expected in 2011. Therefore, a large part of the assumed development is either already in place or actively in the pipeline. That part of the case does not depend on, for example, the outcome of North Lanarkshire Council's local plan decisions, which relate to a later period.
I asked the question because we heard from North Lanarkshire Council this morning that it has had problems delivering its plan up to now and that it forecasts housing growth on the back of the railway. It seems as if the two are dependent on each other. I am just trying to get a picture of what the situation will be if that development does not happen.
The level of benefit that has been forecast is such that the business case is robust even if there are difficulties in delivering some of the development that is already in the plans.
A sensitivity test was conducted that assumed no population growth from 2001 levels in the intermediate settlements. The results of that are given in paragraph 142 of the promoter's memorandum, which shows that there would still be significant 12-hour additional boarding levels and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.81.
We will no doubt find this out from the letter from Transport Scotland, but have you been given any indication that its funding is capped?
No. In effect, Transport Scotland will fund the project. We have discussed the overall cost estimate and keep using the figure £340 million. The figure in today's prices is £300 million. That is where we think that the project will come in—in fact, we are hopeful that it will be less than that.
That is the projected outturn, which is uplifted from today's figures of £299.7 million.
That is correct.
That is in 2006 prices, but the expected cost to the purse when the services start is £341 million.
That is correct, but in today's figures that equates to £300 million, or £299.7 million.
But that figure is not capped.
We will hear from the Minister for Transport and Transport Scotland next week and the promoter will follow. That might be a good point to pick up then.
Absolutely.
I want to follow up a question that I asked earlier about the on-going running costs. You said that new rolling stock was crucial to avoid congestion at both ends and to allow the increase in frequency of service from Bathgate to Edinburgh. You estimate that the releasing cost of the rolling stock will be £1.9 million. Transport Scotland states that it is
Transport Scotland is developing a rolling-stock strategy. It will be a number of months before it is finalised, but it is making good progress on it. The strategy has implications for the rolling stock throughout Scotland, not just for this project. I am confident that the matter is being considered seriously.
We will be able to ask Transport Scotland about that in a couple of weeks' time.
Absolutely.
First ScotRail told us that the indications are that the most likely outcome is that the new rolling stock will be procured for use in Ayrshire and Inverclyde.
You will find that if we introduce rolling stock, there will be a cascade of existing rolling stock. It moves around the network, so that best use is made of it.
So the discussions will include the point that any new rolling stock that is introduced in Ayrshire and Inverclyde will free up stock that is suitable for use on this line.
Yes. It might cascade through and have a knock-on effect elsewhere in the network. Rolling stock is introduced where it is most effective and then moved around. Transport Scotland is considering its overall strategy.
I declare an interest in that rolling stock in Ayrshire and Inverclyde.
Meeting continued in private until 16:11.
Previous
Item in Private