Official Report 428KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the fourth meeting of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. We are at the preliminary stage and today we will continue to hear evidence on the general principles of the bill. We will focus on the main transport policy objectives, along with the issues of sustainable alternatives, congestion, interchange and rail operations.
In what way does Transport Edinburgh believe that integration between Transport Edinburgh and the EARL services could be achieved?
Integration comes in a number of forms and I could summarise the first of them as integrated ticketing, or the ability to purchase a ticket from Penicuik to the airport, for example, taking the bus from Penicuik to Edinburgh and then the train out to the airport. There are various possibilities with interavailable ticketing.
Thank you. That was a very clear answer.
The need to comply with competition legislation will inevitably restrict the ability to offer a fully integrated system.
Can you elaborate on the different markets and needs that will be met by the tram and EARL?
Yes. The way we see it, the EARL project is of Scottish rather than local dimensions. I understand that, if constructed, EARL will give us the opportunity to provide direct train services to and from Edinburgh airport from every population centre in Scotland of more than 40,000 people, with the exception of Paisley, Ayr and Kilmarnock. In other words, there could be direct train services from Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Kirkcaldy, Glasgow, Falkirk, Edinburgh and potentially even from as far down as Berwick-upon-Tweed and Newcastle upon Tyne.
I was going to ask about integrated ticketing later. In your answer about competition legislation, you said that that would limit integration. Can you expand on that?
As it is framed, United Kingdom competition legislation places restrictions on the ability of transport operators to offer as much integration as they might wish to offer. For example, the basic presumption is that bus operators will compete with one another, not work hand in hand. Therefore, there are a number of very tight gateways that any integrated ticket product has to pass through before it is seen as something that is in the public interest, rather than an example of transport operators colluding to rig the market and exploit the passenger. The basic presumption is of competition rather than integration.
I want to pursue the point in relation to combined bus and rail tickets. You referred to competition legislation, but I have in mind the Transport Act 1985, which brought us the joys of a deregulated bus market in this country. I remember combined bus and rail tickets being used on the Strathclyde network 20 years ago. They quickly disappeared after the introduction of the 1985 act. You are promising us combined bus, rail and tram tickets in EARL, but is it not possible that other bus operators could object to that arrangement under the 1985 act?
The simple answer to your question is no.
You do not feel that they could object.
Not as long as the combined ticketing proposal met the Competition Commission's requirement, which is that the scheme should be open to all. In other words, if EARL were to attempt to make an arrangement with only one bus operator, such as First, and Stagecoach, National Express and Lothian Buses were not allowed to participate, that would be unfair and would fall foul of the 1985 act. If, however, an arrangement in which every bus operator could participate were arrived at, that would be seen to be fair and equitable and could be made to fit requirements.
I will come back to the Strathclyde ZoneCard in a minute as you mentioned it but, staying with this point, I wonder how the involvement of the tram operator would be ensured in an integrated scenario. Would there be yet another line of bilateral negotiations similar to those on through ticketing between EARL and the different bus companies?
Yes, although it would be multilateral rather than bilateral.
The Strathclyde ZoneCard is still a viable product, but it is perceived by many commuters as rather expensive because the different operators who participate in the scheme insist on regular price rises while aggressively marketing only their company's season ticket products. That illustrates the difficulties of through tickets that combine different commercial operators, which would rather capture their own market share than concentrate on the smaller benefits of an interoperator ticket. Is that a fair analysis?
The situation that you describe is one perspective. If somebody pays for a ticket that gives them greater choice and opportunity, it is reasonable that it should be priced at a premium to a ticket that gives them less opportunity and choice.
Your analysis describes the current situation, but you understand that some people would argue that an intermodal flexible ticket ought to be less expensive than an ordinary single-mode season ticket if we are to achieve a modal shift from car to public transport.
It is counterintuitive to me that the multimodal ticket should be cheaper than the single-mode ticket.
Further to that point, in what way will EARL impact on future tram profitability given that the tram network that will operate initially has been reduced from that originally proposed?
As I said earlier, the primary objective of EARL is to provide national rail links to Edinburgh airport. The primary objective of the tram is to provide local links. Inevitably, some use will be made of EARL between the city centre and the airport, which will reduce passenger loadings on the tram below the level that they would reach if there were no EARL. If the only choice of transport between the city centre and the airport was between bus and tram, the tram would carry more people than if the choice was between bus, tram and EARL—that is self-evident.
Which would provide the shorter journey time, in your opinion—tram or rail?
My understanding is that the projected travel time by EARL from Edinburgh airport to Haymarket is 11 minutes. I defer to First ScotRail on that.
I am advised by First ScotRail that the EARL travel time from the airport to Waverley would be 14 minutes. The tram run-time would be 26 minutes.
You gave the example of a journey from Dunfermline to Heriot-Watt University. EARL alone would not deliver that; that would be dependent on the BAA transport study recommending bus links from the airport. It would not be EARL that delivered that; that would require another piece of the jigsaw that we do not have before us just now.
Without EARL, there would not be a railway station at Edinburgh airport, so there would not be the option to change from train to tram or bus at Edinburgh airport.
I understand that. However, without knowing what will come out of the BAA transport study, we do not know whether that journey would be possible.
If you say so. I defer to your superior knowledge of the matter.
I was hoping that you would say either yes or no. We have been struggling with this in the evidence that we took last week and that we are taking today.
I would need to refresh my memory. I did not do my revision on the BAA transport strategy before I came along this morning. My apologies.
That is not a problem.
Given the fact that the train would travel much more quickly than the tram between the airport and Waverley, could that not lead to a shift from tram to train, thus reducing the profitability of the tram?
That situation is possible. However, the tram and the train would not serve exactly the same markets. They would both transport people from the city centre to the airport, but the tram would serve many intermediate points that the train would not—for example, Edinburgh Park, the Gyle centre, the Royal Bank of Scotland at Gogarburn and Murrayfield stadium. At those intermediate points, the tram would be an option but rail would not be.
But trams and a couple of heavy suitcases do not make a good mix, do they?
Do trains or buses and a couple of heavy suitcases make any better mix?
Well, as you know, some rolling stock is designed specifically to cater for that. The Heathrow express is an example.
Absolutely, and on the blue airport buses that run between the city centre and the airport, something like 50 per cent of the downstairs is luggage racks for exactly that reason.
You have anticipated my next question. What effect will EARL have on the current bus link to Edinburgh city centre?
This is a variation on the answer that I gave to the previous question. The bus serves a third market. EARL and the tram are an irrelevance as far as the Royal Scot and Marriott hotels out at the Gyle, the Holiday Inn hotel at the zoo and the great phalanxes of private hotels and guest houses that line the road out through Wester Coates, Murrayfield and Corstorphine are concerned. The tram would be away over running down the railway line, as would the train. The bus service would still run for intermediate traffic, but at a reduced frequency to its current operation. At the moment, the blue express bus runs every 7 minutes. It might be reasonable to assume that the frequency will drop to every 15 minutes, as a large chunk of the traffic from the city centre to the airport will move off the bus on to either EARL or the tram. The buses will still run, but there will not be so many of them.
Given the fact that both the tram and EARL could be constructed over similar timescales, what concerns does your company have that the cost of constructing the tram could be driven up by the limited capacity in the construction industry?
It is a concern that we will have two projects going on more or less simultaneously in a similar area, but it relates more to the national demand for construction. Projects such as the London Olympics are likely to have a huge draw on the construction industry on a national basis. If all that was happening was that EARL and the tram were being built at the same time, I would be relatively relaxed because, in the overall context of major construction projects, they are not huge projects. It depends to a greater degree on what happens in the national market for major construction projects.
Given your experience of public transport passenger numbers, what are your views on the patronage levels that are being attributed to EARL?
We are looking forward five or six years, and it all depends on whether anticipated growth and development take place as planned. It is very much the same question with the trams. If the anticipated growth and development in air travel take place, the figures ought to be achievable. If the growth in air travel exceeds predictions, for whatever reason, we will be in a more positive position regarding the projections. If it drops back, we will be less positive about the projections. It is for the transport modellers and crystal-ball gazers to predict what will happen to airport and airline patronage over the coming years. The growth rate at Edinburgh airport over the past five years has been significant, as you are well aware. The projections for EARL are based on BAA's mid-range projections, not the top-of-the-range projections. That is probably the most comfortable position that one can be in. However, the patronage predictions for this kind of predict-and-provide project are dependent on predictions of air travel growth and development and demand for travel to and from the airport.
The promoter has indicated that by 2026 EARL will generate 4.96 million trips. Given their experience with train passenger numbers, will the witnesses from First ScotRail comment on how realistic that prediction is?
We know from running the rail franchise that a punctual high-quality rail service attracts more people. If the infrastructure is fit for purpose to run high-quality trains on time, the projections are probably realistic.
First ScotRail is likely to be the main operator of services at the station. Do you have any operational concerns that you need to work out with the promoter?
We need to be aware of two main issues. First, as I have indicated, rail passengers want and are attracted by good performance. Secondly, if the project goes ahead, the capacity of the infrastructure, rolling stock and support facilities such as maintenance depots must be appropriate if we are to deliver on our commitment to improve performance on Scotland's railways.
What type of train and infrastructure will provide flexibility in the timetabling and capacity of the EARL service?
As you will appreciate, with rolling stock, there is a trade-off between seating capacity and other facilities such as luggage space. Moreover, under the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998, the provision of wheelchair spaces, wheelchair-accessible toilets and so on is mandatory. New rolling stock must not only meet those statutory requirements but have the flexibility to cope with the expected passenger flows. For example, although lots of people might travel at peak periods, the trains must also have enough luggage storage. It is a bit of a juggling act.
Because of EARL, some services—for example, those on the Edinburgh to Fife line—will take up to three and a half minutes longer. As the main provider of rail services, will that have any impact on service provision? Will you incur any financial penalties under your current franchise agreement?
The timetable is still subject to discussion. However, we will have to finalise our rolling-stock strategy before we can find out whether journey times will be affected. In putting together the timetable, First ScotRail and other stakeholders will need to be aware of the effect on end-to-end journey times for people who do not want to go to Edinburgh airport. The industry must be mindful of that.
It has been suggested in some evidence that we have received that delays in train services that are diverted through the airport station could have serious knock-on effects on other services. How will you act as an operator to minimise any potential delays that may occur?
In our submission, we noted that the key issue was to ensure that the new and existing infrastructure was sufficiently flexible to deliver a robust timetable with a degree of resilience. I have already mentioned specifically the proposal to double the number of trains that come into Edinburgh from Bathgate, which needs to be considered. The more trains that are operating on the network, the greater is the propensity for delays when things go wrong. As an industry, we need to ensure that if the rail link goes ahead, we consider the implications not just for the new infrastructure but for the existing network, to ensure that it can operate as robustly as possible. I refer to matters such as physical layouts at junctions and signalling headways, to ensure that we have a timetable that is robust, can be delivered and can tolerate the minor perturbations that sometimes occur when one is running a complicated operation.
I have a question about the capacity of Waverley station, which is one of the main inhibitors of growth in passenger services. Because Waverley is almost at capacity, increasing or retimetabling any services may have an impact. Is that a concern for you?
The Edinburgh Waverley development scheme that is under way at the moment will result in some timetable changes for a 12-month period from December this year. The upshot of the scheme is that there will be increased capacity at the west end of Edinburgh Waverley. That will support future schemes, such as the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the doubling in the number of trains from Bathgate from two to four per hour. It must be recognised that, even with the work that is being done at the moment, there will be a finite level of capacity.
My next question follows on from a question that Iain Smith asked. Are the indicative services that the promoter has proposed achievable, especially for stations north of Edinburgh? I am talking not just about services to Fife, but about services further afield—to Aberdeen and Inverness, for example. The proposal is being sold to us not just as a transport link for Edinburgh but as a transport link for the whole of Scotland. Will you be able to provide the level of services north of Edinburgh that the promoter has suggested can be achieved?
Andy Mellors made the point that, as long as there is sufficient line capacity and the rolling stock strategy is laid out, we will deliver what we believe is reasonable. The issue is the provision of the infrastructure and rolling stock that will allow us to deliver.
How will that come about, if we go ahead with the airport link and the line is built? What negotiations will take place between First ScotRail, the other train operators and the owners of the rail infrastructure to ensure that we do not have a station just sitting there while we decide that, for operational reasons, it is better to divert trains going across the Forth rail bridge through South Gyle?
Under the existing arrangements in the rail industry, Network Rail is the custodian of the timetabling process. It identifies the actual capacity of any particular section of line. On that basis, and taking into consideration issues such as minimum headways between trains and what we call margin times at junctions, the different operators put together timetable bids that are submitted to Network Rail. Network Rail then validates those bids to ensure that the timetable is workable and offers timetable access slots to the individual train operators, who take them up with their own resource plans for rolling stock and train crew.
I realise that you do not have this option at the moment, but on the Fife services, for example, the train goes from Haymarket to Dalmeny via South Gyle. With the new rail link, trains would have the option of going from Haymarket to Dalmeny via Edinburgh airport. How do we know that you will do that and will not just continue to run your trains up and down the east coast main line because that would be shorter or because you do not want to use the airport for operational reasons?
Our franchise agreement specifies what is called a service level commitment. When FirstGroup bid for the ScotRail franchise, our resource plans were geared around delivering that particular level of service.
We are not necessarily talking about increased train paths; we are just talking about diverting some trains while others continue the way they are going at the moment.
It is precisely that sort of detail that is contained in the service level commitment—the frequency of trains on individual lines of route and the stopping patterns thereof.
When is that service level commitment up for review? You talked about amending the contract, so when would that be?
The franchise agreement contains the ability for either First ScotRail or Transport Scotland to initiate a change proposal at any point during the life of the agreement.
Surely that must be a bilateral agreement and it could not be done by just one of the parties.
A negotiation process follows a franchise change being proposed.
Therefore, if someone builds a new piece of rail infrastructure, First ScotRail does not have to run any trains over it unless an agreement is negotiated.
The franchise agreement contains provisions on reasonable endeavours. A financial model in the franchise agreement gives an indication of the level of incremental cost for such things as operating costs for rolling stock, fuel charges, track access charges and so on. That would be applied if any variation to the service level commitment was requested.
The main purpose of most of the services that come into Edinburgh at peak hours—in the morning and evening rushes—is to get people in and out of Edinburgh. If trains were diverted via the airport for operational reasons, how much would the increase in journey time displace passengers to other modes of transport such as private cars or other means of public transport? Three-and-a-half minutes does not sound like very much, but if it is added on to some people's journey time, it might be enough to tip them over and make them use something else. Are you concerned about that?
We must be mindful of that, as I have said. Accordingly, I expect that, when timetables are put together, we will take due cognisance of the market for going straight into Edinburgh and will provide for the shortest possible journey time. When we put the timetables together, it will be important for us to consider the markets that we want to meet, and that might be specific to certain times of day. On certain lines of route, we will run additional trains and provide additional capacity for the morning and evening peaks, and it is conceivable that we might end up with some trains running via the airport and other trains running directly, so that people get the benefit of the journey times that they currently enjoy.
If the idea is to have a transport interchange at the airport, which is what we were told last week, it is important to have frequent services. There is no point in ending up at Edinburgh airport to find that the train you hoped to catch is not coming through the airport and that you have to wait another half hour, which would not give you the time saving on your journey. That is equally important for airport needs. There are a large number of early morning flights, and it does not appear that the current train timetable would be able to get people to the airport in time to allow for check-in times and so on. For example, people would not be able to get the first shuttle down to London if they took the train, because the trains do not start early enough. If the airport link were built, would it be possible to have earlier trains than those that currently run from other parts of Scotland?
Again, it is rather like putting a timetable together; Network Rail has a set of rules to determine the hours during which we can run trains. You will appreciate that the infrastructure needs maintenance from time to time, so Network Rail's rules allow for periods of time, mainly overnight, when the infrastructure is closed and available for maintenance work to take place. Generally, those rules reflect the service level commitment that we have as part of our current franchise agreement, so the first trains of the day are usually around 6 o'clock in the morning and the Network Rail period during which maintenance takes place finishes around 5 o'clock in the morning.
Mr Renilson gave the example of Dunfermline. The first train from Dunfermline in the morning is at 6.55. It is only 11 miles from the airport, but you cannot get a plane much before half past 8 with that sort of timetable. If people wanted to catch the very early flights, rail would not be a possibility with the current timetable.
There are certainly possibilities for improving on the level of service that is currently offered without impinging on Network Rail's no-trains period during the night, but that would require amendments to our service level commitment under the franchise agreement. I am sure that members will appreciate that we do not keep any trains at Dunfermline overnight. They are generally kept at maintenance depots or at other locations where vital servicing and cleaning work can be undertaken, so there is the logistical issue of getting trains positioned to start the service first thing in the morning, which will also need to be factored in when constructing a timetable.
How will EARL service the destinations to which inbound passengers choose to travel? I am talking about people who arrive at the airport.
As was said earlier, under the EARL proposal, direct links will be provided from Edinburgh airport to most of the major conurbations in Scotland. We expect that the timetable and services that are proposed will meet a reasonable proportion of onward journey requirements.
Will you list those major conurbations? At the moment, which ones will be served? You have said that service level agreements would have to be altered to accommodate other destinations.
Our express network connects Edinburgh to places such as Dundee, Perth, Aberdeen, Inverness, Stirling and Glasgow. We would expect the majority of services from Edinburgh to those locations to be routed via Edinburgh airport.
You said, "the majority of services." What percentage of them will serve the airport?
As long as the timetable is still subject to discussion, we cannot confirm that figure. We currently run four trains an hour on the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk High route, two of which could possibly go via Edinburgh airport. The percentage is likely to be higher on the other routes.
What financial contribution, if any, does First ScotRail envisage making towards the cost of the project?
The franchise agreement has provisions in it under which any financial benefit that First ScotRail could reasonably expect to receive through additional fares income would be offset against any claim for additional operating costs that we would otherwise make as part of the scheme, so there is a no net loss, no net gain-type approach.
It does not sound as if you will be contributing very much to the scheme. Am I right?
The initial seven-year franchise period runs until 2011, although a three-year extension is possible. Under the proposed timescales, it is likely that the rail link will happen towards the end of our franchise period.
I understand.
I think that it will meet the vast majority of those requirements.
What are those requirements? How would you define a short-term break? Is it a break for two or three days?
People will be able to decide where they want to travel in from to embark on a short break. The Edinburgh airport services that we provide will meet the needs of those markets. For example, someone from Dundee might want to fly out to destinations such as Prague and Barcelona from Edinburgh airport. We will also meet the needs of the long-haul market.
I was thinking of the opposite scenario—of people who will fly into Edinburgh. We want Scotland as a whole to benefit from EARL through people coming here to spend their money.
That is the reverse situation. All the major locations will be served by airport services. We have mentioned all the locations to which rail services will go.
In our written evidence, we stated that we believed that the scheme would have a positive effect on tourism and growth.
I want to move on to integrated ticketing. I think that I am correct that Mr Renilson said that the multimodal ticket would be dearer and that there would be a premium on it because people would get a better service than they would do if they bought several single tickets.
Yes—I said that that is the current experience nationwide. A bus-only season ticket costs less than one that is valid on bus and rail.
So that was a fair summary of what you said.
Yes, absolutely.
Do the ScotRail witnesses believe that integrated ticketing will work? Aside from the anti-competitive stuff, it will possibly be dearer for people, given what we have just discussed.
It is far too early for us to comment on ticket pricing and on the potential benefits. We would hope to open up integrated transport with any scheme that emerges in the future. However, we cannot honestly comment on the ticket prices at this stage.
What integrated ticketing does ScotRail operate now?
We do the ZoneCard in Strathclyde, as well as one-ticket and plusbus. There are a number of areas where we do that.
Is it dearer that way compared with buying tickets separately on the services that you operate?
If someone is only travelling once by rail from one location to another and then adds on one bus fare, integrated ticketing is dearer. However, it is not as dear as buying tickets for two separate journeys comprising bus to rail station and rail station to rail station. There is a saving for people in that instance.
You might have already answered this, but are your current ticketing systems fit for expansion? Do you have procedures in place to do ticketing in a bigger way?
We have introduced new ticketing systems over the past few months in ScotRail stations, which gives us greater capabilities for more integrated ticketing. The systems to allow that are in place.
There are no further questions, and if there are no other points that the witnesses feel that the committee has not covered, I thank them very much for their helpful evidence this morning.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The witnesses on panel 2 represent West Lothian Council. They are Graeme Malcolm, who is the transportation manager, and Wendy McCorriston, who is the planning officer. I hope that we will be joined later by Keith Rimmer, who is the head of transport at the city development department of the City of Edinburgh Council. He is not here at the moment, but I hope that he will join us.
Good morning, convener.
I have some technical questions about your submission. You mention the proposed waste management strategy in relation to the Winchburgh area. Will you update the committee on what West Lothian Council believes to be the situation in relation to the haul road adjacent to the Union canal and any other issues that result from that?
In our submission, we noted that figure 2.30 in the environmental statement suggests that there will be a haul road adjacent to the Union canal. We received TIE's response to our point yesterday. It appears that there was a graphical error and that that haul route is merely indicative. We were surprised that the other haul routes are clearly on existing roads but that the haul route at Winchburgh was shown to run adjacent the Union canal, which would have been cause for serious concern. If provision will be made for a haul route that goes straight on to the B8020, which is known locally as the Beatlie road, to take haul traffic towards the A904 and on to the M9, that would be considered a suitable construction route.
You may know that the committee visited the proposed route, so we know a bit about that area, although I am not sure whether any of us is acquainted with it directly. To give us some idea of the volume, how many lorries would that equate to per day?
The promoter's estimate of traffic movements in the area is that there will be 32 heavy goods vehicle movements per hour during the operation period, which would be empty trips in and full loads out.
What would the necessary improvements that you foresee to the Beatlie road cost? How realistic would it be to upgrade the road to make it satisfactory?
A new superstructure is going in and, as part of the bill, the promoter is already making adjustments to the superstructure. I would not like to estimate the substructure costs of widening, but—notwithstanding the fact that there will be vehicle movements for three years on a fairly tight width of carriageway—it would seem that once the bridge deck has been lifted off, it is a more straightforward operation. For the sake of general safety in operations for the scheme itself, widening may be worth further investigation.
You said that you had been contacted by the promoter only yesterday about the anomaly around the Union canal. I presume that discussions will be on-going with the promoter over the next few weeks and months about the very issues that you have just raised.
Yes. The promoter has suggested that the code of construction practice that has been submitted as part of the bill is an evolving document; it is only a draft. It will evolve as the bill, if successful, is given royal assent and the work goes out to tender. As part of that, the promoter will work with the local authority on ensuring that the detail of the code of practice is appropriate. There have been discussions with the local community on that. Winchburgh has a history of HGV impact—a landfill site operated for a number of years to the west of the town, although it closed down recently. As you will understand, HGV routing is a sensitive issue for the community.
Do you wish to make any comments about the proposed code of construction practice?
In general, it is a good starting point. Last autumn, we offered to engage on developing it. Obviously, the code of construction practice is just one element of the bill's submission, so we hope that there will be an opportunity in the coming months to work with the promoter on developing a code that is acceptable to the authority and to the community.
Is there any action that you would like the committee to take in relation to the environmental statement and the proposed mitigation measures?
A severe impact on two properties in the area has been identified by the promoter. We want to ensure that the code of construction practice leads to mitigation of noise and construction traffic impacts on those properties, but we would also like to be fully involved in the routing so that we can ensure that the wider community is not also adversely affected.
What action would West Lothian Council like the promoter or the committee to take in relation to Hopetoun woodland?
Hopetoun woodland and the designed landscape for Hopetoun House lie to the north-east of the route. Woodlands that lie on either side of the Union canal and the rail track are part of the original ancient woodland. The area is also part of the central Scotland forest initiative, under which we aim to improve and manage woodland areas. A development proposal at Winchburgh includes significant new woodland planting, so we would like to ensure that any replanting along the EARL route is done in co-ordination with the other bodies that are involved in new planting in the area.
Will you elaborate on West Lothian Council's concerns about the capacity and sustainability of the waste disposal sites that are listed? Do more local sites exist?
Some sites in West Lothian may be suitable; we have not assessed individual sites. The issue with the information that accompanied the bill was that the sites were numbered but not identified. The promoter advised us that that information came from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. At least one of the sites is in West Lothian, but we could not identify its location or name, so we require clarification about that location. We might be able to work with the promoter to consider more localised sites in West Lothian.
About what assumptions in the bill does the council have concerns and what action would the council like the committee or the promoter to take as a consequence?
In relation to waste?
Yes—and in relation to anything else.
We said in our submission that we are concerned because it appears that a wide range of waste disposal sites throughout the central belt will be used, which would involve hauling waste long distances. The council thinks that disposing of vast quantities of material by lorry throughout central Scotland raises an environmental issue and could have a cumulative impact. As we said, we had difficulty locating all the waste disposal sites from the information that was available at the time. One of our planning officers has quite good knowledge of waste disposal sites in West Lothian and Fife and felt that it might be appropriate for the committee to consider the issue further with the promoter.
Will you elaborate on the council's proposal that the bill should not preclude a station at Winchburgh?
That is a key issue for West Lothian Council. The committee will be aware that the Edinburgh and Lothians structure plan, which the Scottish ministers approved, included not only EARL, but the aspiration for a Winchburgh station. That connection was made because of the requirement for West Lothian Council to deliver about 25,000 new houses in the next 10 years.
Those were all our questions for West Lothian Council. We have not yet been joined by Mr Rimmer from the City of Edinburgh Council, so we will suspend for five minutes in order that we can discover his whereabouts.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting. We are joined by Keith Rimmer from the City of Edinburgh Council. I understand, Mr Rimmer, that you have just rushed from another meeting. I hope you have caught your breath—thank you very much indeed.
Mr Rimmer, in what way does the council believe EARL will encourage modal shift?
First, the road system around west Edinburgh, particularly around the airport, is getting close to its saturation point. The council believes that EARL will make a significant beneficial impact on long-term car use and traffic growth in west Edinburgh because of the footprint that it will open up through public transport accessing the airport. Indeed, information that we have obtained from modelling shows that to be the case. Our figures show that no EARL would lead to substantial congestion in the road network around the airport, whereas with EARL there would be a significant movement of trips away from road-borne transport and on to the train services that will access the airport.
So it would be fair to say that one of your policy objectives is to compete with the motor car?
No, I think it is fair to say that we seek to encourage a sustainable modal shift over time. We are not looking to compete as such, but we are looking to make public transport an attractive alternative to the car. I think that EARL, uniquely, does that. The committee is probably aware of this statistic: something like 68 per cent of the Scottish population will live within 2 miles of a railway station and train services that can connect to the airport. That is a significant step along the path to modal shift.
In trying to achieve sustainable modal shift from the car, on which you elaborated, would integrated ticketing at attractive prices play a part?
There is no doubt that integrated ticketing would greatly assist in creating a more attractive public transport environment for many existing car users. For example, I can envisage someone arriving from a more northern part of Scotland getting very close to a platform, getting on a tram and completing their journey in Leith. That sort of opportunity would be very attractive in encouraging modal shift.
Do you think that people should or would pay a premium for the convenience of that type of integrated ticketing arrangement?
That is not really for me to say. The operators will have to operate such integrated ticketing arrangements. Any case that those arrangements should attract a premium would have to be made by the operator.
Could you elaborate on whether the Edinburgh tram project will compete with EARL for patronage—and, indeed, with the Airlink bus? If you think it will not, why will it not?
There is an interrelationship in patronage between the tram link and EARL. If EARL did not go ahead but the tram did, the patronage would be higher on the tram than it will be if EARL is also built. However, the two schemes do not really compete with each other. The rationale for the tram and its connection to the airport lies in serving most of the economic growth centres in Edinburgh. The tram route goes through a particularly vibrant corridor. It connects the airport with the Royal Bank of Scotland offices and all the development around Edinburgh Park and the Gyle, and goes onwards to north Edinburgh via either the city centre or the spur from Roseburn up to Granton. The tram does something that the train cannot do.
Could you say a bit more about how traffic congestion will be reduced as a result of EARL?
I will find some figures for that, if the committee could bear with me.
I assume that that table can be made available to the committee.
Yes, it can.
Some objectors have expressed concern that roads surrounding the airport will become more congested, especially during construction, given the additional lorry movements. How does the City of Edinburgh Council propose to address the additional congestion arising from lorry movements during construction, especially on the local roads?
The council has still to examine any proposals for construction movements. You may be assured that the council will examine that matter most carefully. You are quite right to say that there will be a significant impact on the local road network during construction. As a general principle, the council will seek to ensure that the developer and contractor make optimum use of the railway itself as a haulage route to minimise the impact on the local road network.
Does the figure of 64 per cent for car traffic that is currently going to the airport refer to Edinburgh traffic?
It is a projection for 2026.
Where does the traffic come from? Is it traffic just from what one might call Edinburgh roads?
No, it is traffic from all destinations that converges on the road network in the part of west Edinburgh that is adjacent to the airport.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I emphasise the answer that I gave to Charles Gordon. We have not looked at the issue in detail, and there is considerable detailed work to do around it. We will seek to ensure that the developer creates accesses at suitable points along the route that connect as directly as possible to the principal road network.
There are not many such points on the route.
No, but there are opportunities. A great deal of work remains to be done on the issue.
I am obliged to you for being frank about that. There is also the issue of how long the disruption will go on. The area is already a pinchpoint for traffic in Edinburgh, even when no construction is going on around it.
I cannot deal with that point directly. A detailed answer can be provided only by the promoter, which will be able to tell you precisely how long it expects the construction activities to take and to explain in more detail what design work is being done on mitigation features that you as a committee member and I as an officer of the City of Edinburgh Council are anxious to see. At this stage, it is not possible for me to give a detailed answer to your question.
Given their experience of the Royal Bank of Scotland project and of the construction of the Gogar roundabout underpass, you can see why businesses and people who commute to Edinburgh have concerns. Those projects caused huge disruption: tailbacks throughout the city and other knock-on effects. The area near the airport is very congested.
It is. The figures show that, at times, current traffic levels are very near the capacity of the roads and junctions.
Was the methodology that you have just outlined used when the bridge to the Royal Bank of Scotland development at Gogarburn was constructed? I seem to remember that for a long time only single lanes were in operation on that stretch of road.
To be honest, I cannot recall the arrangements for that development.
Your written evidence sets out how EARL fits in with your local transport strategy. How will the project meet the strategy's aim of reducing the environmental impact of travel?
As I have already explained, the introduction of EARL will mean a reduction in the level of road-borne traffic. Given the direct correlation between greenhouse gas and other emissions and road traffic volume, the reduction in road traffic volume that EARL facilitates will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Why does the council believe that EARL will increase the proportion of journeys made on foot, by cycle and by powered two-wheelers?
In a separate stream of work, we are trying under our local transport strategy and the regional transport strategy to improve cycle links with the airport. A number of initiatives that we are taking forward should improve cycle access in particular, which will make the prospect of cycling to the airport more attractive to people.
Given that certain waste disposal sites are some distance from the source of the waste, how will the disposal of waste material by lorries during the construction period impact on the council's objective to reduce the environmental impact of travel?
I presume that you are referring to tunnel arisings and other excavation material. Again, it is up to the developer and the contractor to make detailed proposals on whether waste from the site will go to landfill; if so, how it will get there; and what any local impacts might be. I cannot provide a direct response to your question because I do not know the detail. However, it is an important matter that the developer needs to work up. I imagine that both the City of Edinburgh Council and West Lothian Council, in whose area some of the landfill sites might be, will look to the developer to mitigate the impact of moving large amounts of material and any local impacts of disposing large quantities of waste to landfill.
Will you explain how EARL is consistent with the local transport strategy objective of reducing the need to travel?
Encouraging people to travel sustainably might be a better way of putting the objective. The only way we can reduce the absolute need to travel is to ensure that people live close to where they need to be. The way our society is these days leads to people living in pretty dispersed geography and embarking on substantial journeys at times. The key is sustainable travel, and EARL is an opportunity to enhance public transport journeys.
How much is the interchange facility that EARL could provide dependent on what BAA decides to do with its surface access strategy?
There is clearly a connection. There is no doubt that the airport station will provide a natural interchange facility. I have already mentioned the interchange between heavy rail and tram, which is important. There is also the interchange between heavy rail and bus services that will continue to serve the airport. The third dimension is the opportunity to make certain journeys more attractive. For example, if someone is travelling from Fife to Glasgow, in many cases it will be much more convenient for them to interchange at the airport, which would save a considerable journey time.
I was not asking you to.
There will be a natural encouragement. As you know, at particular times of day the city is significantly congested at certain points, particularly on the west side. This is about offering opportunities. If we offer the right opportunities in relation to public transport, car users will embrace them.
I think you said that you want to develop a network of cycle routes to create an integrated transport hub. Is that correct?
At present, we are considering developing further the network of cycle routes in Edinburgh, including a specific connection to the airport.
To that end, the evidence of Spokes is that
It is not a route that I would choose to cycle on, if I could avoid it.
Are you a cyclist?
I am an occasional cyclist.
Probably not as occasional as I am. You agree that the route requires upgrading. Will the route link to the airport?
Yes. That whole area of west Edinburgh will undergo significant redevelopment in the medium to long term. We are considering the sustainable transport routes that could be implemented in the area. Clearly, some cycle route upgrading will be development led in future, when development proposals for that area of west Edinburgh become clearer than they are today. However, in conjunction with the south-east Scotland transport partnership, we are considering how we can upgrade the existing routes. A high priority for the city is to do what we can in the short term to upgrade the cycle linkages from west Edinburgh to the airport. We hope to develop that scheme through SESTRAN.
An issue that is close to my heart is the Waverley line, which the Parliament will debate tomorrow. The City of Edinburgh Council is a co-promoter of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill. You say that it is essential that the Waverley line from Tweedbank through Midlothian to Edinburgh links to EARL. Will you develop that, so that I can use what you say as evidence against any member who says in tomorrow's debate that the Waverley line is a local one and that we should not have it? I hope that I am allowed to talk about the Waverley line in this context, convener, although I have taken an oath not to talk about it too much.
You have not been very successful.
None of my oaths ever is.
The investment in the Borders rail link is important and will bring enormous benefits for people who live in the area. One way of realising that benefit is to facilitate connectivity to greater Edinburgh. The benefit will not come only from people travelling from Galashiels or somewhere else in that part of the Borders to Waverley station. The way in which Edinburgh and most other cities operate nowadays means that people need to access a large part of the city easily. As we have already discussed, a large part of the commerce of the city takes place in the western part and, increasingly, in the northern waterfront area. It is important that, in opening up new transport links such as the Waverley line, we create seamless journeys to as many of the other economic growth centres in the city as possible.
And in the other direction?
Yes.
We want a flow in that direction, too—I am thinking of short breaks and so on. Albeit that you are—quite rightly—punting for Edinburgh, do you envisage that people will extend their journey beyond the confines of the city?
Yes. The project is not just about the airport. From the city's point of view, one of the attractive things about the Borders rail link is the fact that it connects a population that is increasingly needed to take up many of the jobs that the city has to offer. We now have a deficit in the city. If all the jobs that are on offer in Edinburgh, many of which are on the west side of the city, are to be taken up, we are now reliant on people coming into the city to fill those vacancies. For the city, it is just as important for rail services to connect with Edinburgh Park as it is for them to connect to the airport.
That is useful. I think that I have all of it down for the debate tomorrow.
It will make things better. I guess that there are two principal aspects to the local economy. I have just spoken about the first, which is to make public transport more attractive to people from outside the city and thereby make it easier and more sustainable for people to take up jobs in the city area. The second is to recognise the important role that tourism plays in the local city and city region economies. We cannot underestimate the impact that good public transport links have in that regard. Direct rail links of the sort that we are talking about are enormously attractive to tourists. Having high-quality links with the principal airport that are easy to use does a lot to promote the image of a city and a city region.
I turn to our witnesses from West Lothian Council. I have a couple of points to raise following on from your earlier evidence. The first is for Mr Malcolm. You acknowledged the fact that a station at Winchburgh is not within the province of the bill. What, if anything, do you want us to do with the information that you gave us about your desire for that station to remain at the forefront of people's thoughts. Do you want us to do anything to make the code of construction practice and the environmental statement more enforceable? Finally, do you want to see any changes made to the bill?
On the first point, we would like the committee to check the engineering feasibility of introducing a station at Winchburgh following the EARL realignment, where it connects with the Dalmeny chord. Secondly, we would like the committee to look at the timetabling changes that are associated with the project—we are aware that they are only at draft stage.
In addition to that, we would like the promoter to work with the developer on the Winchburgh expansion, as there is likely to be overlap in the projects and the construction traffic movements. The two projects and mitigation for them should be considered together.
If the bill is passed, it will give the promoter the power to construct the link. Am I right in thinking that you are saying that work needs to be done before that stage to ensure that, if the link goes ahead, the communities that you represent are safeguarded and their concerns are taken on board?
It is important that an assurance is given, as part of the bill process, that the impact of construction traffic will be dealt with sensibly. It is easy to say that all the HGV movements will take place, but what if the local road network cannot cope with them? Christine Grahame asked about disruption to a local network on the A8. If such a situation occurs in a small community with 2,500 people, the disruption will be significantly worse than on the A8. Commuters might consider the disruption to be far worse, but residents of Winchburgh, who would have to live with the works for three to five years, could find it quite disheartening to think that their local authority did not make a case for them at the appropriate time, so we are trying to do that this morning.
There are no more questions from members. Are there any other points of information that we have not touched on this morning?
No.
I thank you all for your useful evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome to the meeting our next witnesses. Peter Spinney is chairperson of the Association of British Drivers in Scotland and Bruce Young is the Lothian co-ordinator of the association.
Thank you very much.
Who wants to ask the first question?
I do. How many UK members does the Association of British Drivers have? I did not see a figure in the papers.
I could not tell you. I have access to that information, but I do not have the software that would let me access it.
You represent Lothian members, Mr Young. How many members does the organisation have in Lothian?
I cannot tell you that either because I cannot access the information.
It would be useful to have that information at some point for the sake of completeness.
Right.
The last time I checked, there were 73 members of the organisation in Scotland. The figure for Britain is much larger than that.
Thank you very much.
I said to Peter Spinney earlier that I initially thought that different ways of getting to the airport were being discussed rather than a transport hub, but I am warming to that theme. I think that it is very likely that people will look on the station at Edinburgh airport as an alternative to Waverley. People who live in the west of Edinburgh—in Barnton, for example—might find it far more convenient to take their car to the airport, park it there and catch a train than to go on a bus with all their luggage into the centre of the city, where there is no car parking at all. Car parking facilities are an important part of the airport's facilities, and there is every possibility that more cars will park there as a result of the railway station and the growth of the airport as a whole.
So instead of the Edinburgh airport rail link taking cars off the roads—as we think it would—there could be more cars on the roads because people will want to go to the airport's car park and then get a train.
There could be more cars within the area of the airport, but I do not think that people will start to use trains to go to places to which they do not already go. It will simply be more convenient for them to get to trains.
My next question follows on from that. Surely parking at Edinburgh airport will be more restricted with the developments that are envisaged. What will the impact of that be on drivers in your organisation? Surely they will be unable to park.
Life will be made more difficult for them. Such an approach to planning the project would be very short-sighted. There should be more car parking facilities at the airport as it develops.
That flies in the face of our trying to get people to take trains, trams and buses.
Not necessarily. I offered to meet Peter Spinney at Hermiston Gait, on the outskirts of Edinburgh, this morning. He was coming down from Stirling and I thought that he could park there and we could go into the centre of the city together. However, he told me that it would be far more convenient to come into Edinburgh by train from where he lives. That took me aback because I live in the little thumb of the Scottish Borders, at West Linton.
So you are a West Linton man.
Yes, I am.
I had a question for you later, which I will ask now. A man from West Linton reminds me of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
I appreciate that we are moving in the general direction of trying to move people out of cars and on to public transport, I hope by improving public transport rather than making cars more difficult to use. However, the reality is that over the past 30 years, people have been able to live where they do because they have had access to a car. In my case, it was because we had access to two cars. Once I got a company car, my wife was able to use her car to go to Glasgow where she works two days a week. We both build up quite large mileages getting between work and home. Unless someone decides to reopen West Linton station and connect it directly to the airport—
You never know—that might be my next project.
Using the car makes for a shorter journey and, of course, it leaves exactly when I want it to.
That is just you; we are also talking about other drivers.
Yes, but the point is that during the past 30 years, people who work in the Edinburgh area have been able to live almost anywhere they like. When I moved to West Linton in 1981, the going rate for a commutable distance was 20 miles. I understand that people now routinely commute to Edinburgh from Galashiels, which is 35 miles away. Many houses are being built down there to be sold specifically to Edinburgh commuters because, sadly, Galashiels does not have the infrastructure to support that size of population.
You say in your submission:
I took that as a truth, frankly, because it is the local airport. If you have grounds for believing that relatively few people who use Edinburgh airport live within the Edinburgh commuter belt, I would be interested to know what they are.
I am not saying that relatively few people use the airport; I am asking whether it is heavily used. I am testing your statement to find out on what it is based. You are talking mainly about people who live within a short commuting distance of Edinburgh driving to the airport in their cars. We are looking for people from all over Scotland to take trains to the airport. That is entirely different from what you are talking about.
I do not think so. I think that I said in our written evidence that Edinburgh airport is, as you say, used heavily by local travellers—
No, you said that.
The main benefit of the proposed rail link will be to people who live outside the Edinburgh area because it will make it more convenient for them to reach the airport without coming into the centre of Edinburgh first.
Let us say that EARL goes ahead. What changes would address the concerns about local demand, not just from West Linton or Gala man, but from—I am not being sexist here—west Edinburgh man and woman? What changes are necessary to get them out of their cars?
It is unlikely that there would be a heavy shift in demand for public transport as a result of EARL opening. Before I moved to West Linton, I lived in Barnton. Even from Barnton, it was far more convenient to take a car, taxi or get a lift to the airport than to go to the centre of town or the zoo, where the airport bus picks people up. The distance from Barnton to the airport is not much greater than the distance from Barnton to the zoo.
Christine Grahame made the point that the line will link the airport not just with the greater Edinburgh area but with everywhere else in Scotland. How do you respond to the criticism that your written evidence takes a too parochial view of the bill and fails to see the wider significance of the rail link for other parts of Scotland outwith the Edinburgh area?
That criticism is unfair. In both my written and oral evidence, I have said that the airport rail link will benefit mainly people from outwith the Edinburgh area.
Do you mean Queen Street station?
Yes, that is it. I used to have to take the train to Queen Street station, from where I took the train through to Edinburgh. I then had a 15 to 20 minute walk from Haymarket station to my office.
Your written evidence states:
Sorry, what was the first part of the question?
Why will the rail link be of relatively minor benefit to the economy of Scotland?
I find myself questioning the proposition that far more people will use the airport as a result of the rail link because it will allow them to travel to or away from Edinburgh—
I am sorry to interrupt, but some of the witnesses from whom we took evidence last week suggested that other European airports with rail links are developing more quickly and that the local and national economies benefit from such links. As you take a different view, I want to tease out the reason for that.
Let me make two points. First, the fact that other capital cities have found that an airport rail link has been beneficial does not necessarily mean that such rail links are important for economic growth. It is arguable that Edinburgh would have the same level of economic growth regardless of whether it has a rail link. Those other capital cities might be in the same position.
Let me make just a small point. To answer the question, the economic benefit depends to a large extent on the details of the rail link. For example, the Stansted airport rail link is infamous and people stay away from the airport on that account, whereas the rail link to London Heathrow is very good. If you asked me to draw a parallel, I would say that I am not impressed with the scheme. I do not think that the rail link will attract a lot of people, and it will cost an awful lot of money.
In answer to a question from Christine Grahame, you indicated that you think that car parking needs to be expanded at the airport, although you then said that that would be to provide a better transport hub. How much extra car parking do you think the airport requires?
It is not my job to say. I would be deeply concerned if I did not warn you that I believe that there will continue to be a growing requirement for car parking at the airport. It would be a mistaken policy to say, "Now that we've got the airport rail link, we don't really need the car parking that we've got." I believe the opposite to be the case. I believe that, as the airport develops, we will continue to require a proportional increase in car parking facilities. I really do not believe that people who have the flexibility of living anywhere within a broad radius of their place of work because they have a car will ever be able to do without it. Some of them—principally those who live in the city centre, probably those in the broader area of the suburbs and possibly, if public transport is good enough, those along the radial routes—might be able to do without a car. As the radial routes spread out, away from the city, so does the area in which people can currently live conveniently because of cars. Those areas do not have large enough populations to justify their own first-class public transport services, so I really do not see the car ever being phased out, whatever form it may take.
You make an interesting point that I had not thought about. All the development at the Waverley railway station and the shrinking car parking in town mean that people will need more car parking if they want to travel up to Perth or Inverness by catching the train at the hub at the airport, contrary to what one might think. I had not thought of it that way.
That is true. In fact, it is possible that modal transfer from the car would be principally along those lines. People who would drive to Perth or Aberdeen might find it more convenient to travel by train if they were able to drop the car off at the airport and take the train from there.
Depending on parking charges, I would have thought.
Yes, obviously.
That was just my point. How great do you consider the relevance of the charges for car parking to be?
The more expensive car parking is, the less socially inclusive—to use a buzzword—it will be. If you price people out of using car parking facilities, you make those facilities less available to more people, which I am sure is not something that the Scottish Parliament would wish to do.
I want to touch on some broader policy issues. Does your association accept that the current situation with the railway industry in this country is such that rail travellers pay the true economic cost of their rail travel?
I do not think that my association has a view on that.
There are massive subsidies.
Mr Spinney was shaking his head as you declined to comment, Mr Young, so I will ask him about this, if I may.
You certainly may. The railway gets massive subsidies. Drivers get none at all.
I was going to come on to drivers. Do you take the view that drivers pay the true economic cost of their road use, including the cost of congestion, pollution and accidents?
I would not go quite that far, but bearing in mind how little is being done to the roads I think that £40 billion ought to go quite a long way, and that is what we pay.
Do you accept that it is not easy to compare the true cost of rail use with the true cost of road use?
It is almost impossible to make such a comparison because of the rail fare system. I would defy you to do so, given the numerous factors involved, which can vary greatly.
Do you accept that, by buying a ticket, the rail user pays for the cost of accidents, maintenance and infrastructure investment on the rail network, which avoids the development of congestion?
No, sir, I do not. I will explain why. To travel to the Parliament today, I bought a return ticket from the far side of Glasgow for £7.50. I could not begin to get near that with a car.
Your trip today was too cheap.
Certainly—that is my point. It is very difficult to compare the cost of rail travel with the cost of road travel.
If the railways required no subsidy whatever and were able to clear their feet and invest for the future on the ticket take, they would begin to make the sort of contribution that road users make and on which they do not get a full return.
Our consensus on the railways is that we would not have started from here.
I am not sure that we want to go much further down that line. We have moved off the subject of the Edinburgh airport rail link. As members have no further questions about the specifics of the project, do either of the witnesses have anything to say to us that they feel has not been covered in questioning?
Yes. Our invitation to give evidence told us that we would be talking mainly about congestion, the railway infrastructure and the proposed new link, but when I framed our written evidence, I expressed concern about cost/benefit and possible cost inflation.
You are making very valid points, but we will take evidence on the cost of the project in a fortnight's time, and those are the very issues that we will want to raise with the promoter. I am sure that we will get evidence from the other witnesses that we have called for that particular day. However, it is useful for you to have pointed that out to us and we will be returning to the issue in great detail in a fortnight.
That is good. It is quite important. I have done copies of the article for each member of the committee. It also makes the point that, over the years, projects that have massively overrun have turned out to be quite a good thing, but Professor Flyvbjerg believes strongly that, in reviewing projects, a tight grip must be maintained on cost. I am pleased to hear that you are going to do that.
We can think of a particular project very close to us here where that would apply.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome everyone back to the meeting. We recommence our oral evidence taking this afternoon with Tom Hart, who is the vice-president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport; Colin Howden, who is the director of TRANSform Scotland; and David Spaven, who is the chair of TRANSform Scotland.
That route was the preferred option in our original submission. We welcome the proposal for improved access to airports for people who do not own cars, and for people who do, who will not need to use their cars so much.
Will you explain how the proposal to divert trains via South Gyle would avoid the reliability and capacity issues that you explain would be created by diverting trains via Edinburgh Park?
More than two years ago, we had a meeting with TIE to discuss the original plan, which was to have a link only from the airport through Edinburgh Park. At that meeting, it was mentioned that because of the number of services on the line through Edinburgh Park and the southern platforms at Haymarket, it might be necessary to evaluate an alternative link to Gyle and Gogar. What eventually happened is that TIE proposed both routes, which we felt was overegging the pudding. One link to South Gyle would give us an adequate connection, and would allow the development of through services via the airport and ensure greater reliability on the lines through the southern platforms at Haymarket.
What would be the impact on patronage of the EARL project if the project was changed to reflect your proposed route? Would passenger numbers be the same?
TIE asked AEA Technology Rail to consider our alternative. AEA concluded that our proposal would have no significant impact on reliability or on the performance of the system. It said, on advice from TIE's modellers, that there might be a significant reduction in income, but it did not quantify that reduction. Our response was that a fully integrated ticketing system and frequent tram services constitute a good package, which should not give rise to a significant reduction in income, given there would also be a saving on capital costs. We query the view that there would be a large loss of revenue.
We will probably return to that point later this afternoon. You believe that your proposal would not materially affect the provision of an airport link that will access the rest of Scotland.
No. It would still provide services running through the airport. There would be the same number of services as in the EARL proposals.
The committee has received evidence that direct access and journey time are important factors in addressing social inclusion. Can you explain how your proposed alternative, which would not directly serve west Edinburgh, would address social inclusion or those aspects of it?
Our proposed alternative would leave the airport station as it is, with the through services. There will be tram access to the station and some car parking. There will be heavy rail access and routes going up to Inverness and Aberdeen and across to Glasgow. The station would develop as a more general interchange for west Edinburgh, not just for people who want to use the airport. There are other ways in which that could be achieved, however. We are not detracting in any way from the concept of there being a good west Edinburgh interchange or of people changing between bus and rail, car and rail or tram and rail.
Your written submission states that your proposal would save about £45 million in capital costs, although a redesigned Gogar junction could cost £22.5 million. That could result in a saving of £22.5 million on the present cost of the EARL project. In your view, does that saving represent value for money?
I think that those were AEA figures. We agree that there could be a saving in capital costs of about £40 million and a saving of £5 million in land costs. AEA also proposed additional land take in the South Gyle area to ensure reliability. We consulted its report on the Turnhouse options; it said that there will be no need, certainly for the initial period, for elaborate works at South Gyle if there are to be no more than 12 trains per hour. We do not agree, therefore, that it would be necessary to spend £22.5 million in order to save £45 million. We think that it is more likely that the saving would be £45 million.
Can you explain how your people-mover option to operate between Gogar and the airport would avoid the security and safety issues that BAA has said exist with the proposed Turnhouse people-mover option?
The major problem with the Turnhouse people-mover option was that it would not take people from Turnhouse right into the airport. It would terminate about halfway, not because of security issues, but because of the geographical factors that affect the Gogar burn. People would have had to change from the people mover on to a travelator, which would have meant quite a lengthy access time to Turnhouse. The proposal for the people mover or automated shuttle from Gogar into the airport would simply take over the line that is already proposed for use as the rail link from South Gyle to the airport. We would not see any change in security issues.
Does that address BAA's concerns about safety and security in this context?
I noticed that BAA objected to details of the bill that would apply to the heavy rail terminal as well as to the tram terminal. Those can be overcome. The principle is to have good-quality access.
Can you elaborate a bit more on the savings and benefits of the Gogar people-mover option?
In 2004, with TRANSform Scotland, we asked that consideration of the Turnhouse options include consideration of the provision of a people mover from the Gogar area, which could be a pretty good interchange for west Edinburgh, possibly with some car parking and better bus access. There would thereby be created the choice of a tram going round by the Royal Bank of Scotland's headquarters and the park-and-ride scheme at Ingliston into the airport, or a more direct route on the line that is currently proposed as the heavy rail link between the airport and Gogar.
Do you have any examples of other people-mover options of similar length at airports?
There is one in Zurich, of which our chairman, John McCormick, has direct experience. He was very impressed with it. He is on holiday this week, which is why I am appearing at committee.
Can you say any more about the general reliability of people movers and their approximate cost?
I am not a technical expert on people movers. I am sure that we could get more information about the capital and running costs for you from Zurich—our chairman has contacts at Zurich airport.
That would be helpful. Thank you.
I have questions for TRANSform Scotland. Throughout your written submission, you cite the unacceptable consequence of longer journey times as a consequence of the EARL scheme, although the increase would seem to be just a few minutes here and there. Does that matter?
It would matter to somebody who lived in Dundee or Aberdeen who wanted to travel to Edinburgh by train and who found that 6 and a half minutes was going to be added to their journey time: people now realistically expect that journey times will be speeded up. Most people in that part of the world would regard that as unacceptable.
So, one of your basic objections is that, by building the airport link rather than using the Gogar and Turnhouse junctions—which you mention in your written submission—we would delay mainline trains.
That is one of our objections.
What are your concerns about the role of the Edinburgh airport masterplan and the delivery of increased modal share of passengers arriving at the airport?
We are obviously concerned about the modal split. We would like there to be a higher public transport share, but we note that in the past two or three years, while EARL was originally projected to increase the public transport share from 16 per cent to 18 or 19 per cent, Lothian Buses' airlink bus has already pushed that share up to 20 per cent of all access to the airport without any cost to the taxpayer. There are some fairly significant issues about value for money in achieving that projected modal share.
Your submission is fairly scathing about the consultation on the Dalmeny chord and the Gogar and Turnhouse options. It acknowledges that the promoter has analysed the Turnhouse option but says that you still
The Gogar option has not been examined. In a sense, TIE should not be blamed for that because it goes back to what the Scottish Executive laid down originally when it commissioned the original consultants to consider a variety of options, all of which were based on the idea of a heavy rail terminal or station at the airport terminal.
Am I right to say that that would not only get rid of the problems with the main-line trains being delayed, but would be a lot cheaper?
We think that it would be cheaper because it would avoid massive tunnelling.
Do you have an idea of the savings that would be made if that was the chosen option? I do not know whether I am supposed to ask that.
We do not claim to be technical experts. TIE should consider the Gogar option and cost it professionally using consultants. TRANSform Scotland is a campaigning group, so we could not pretend to cost that option accurately.
How would your Gogar station option address the disadvantages that the promoter identifies for the Turnhouse option, such as the safety, economy, and non-public-transport user benefits?
Following what Tom Hart said, a Gogar heavy rail and light rail interchange would be a key public transport hub in the west of Edinburgh. That links to the point about social inclusion. It would be a sound way to proceed, but the costs and benefits have to be examined in detail and that has not been done so far.
Paragraph 3.1.4 of your submission points out that it is not all or nothing. It states:
Indeed. One of the issues to which we refer is the question of what can be done and how quickly it can be done. There is the possibility of phased development, which would achieve the aim of serving the airport from Edinburgh, Fife and Dundee without getting into massive infrastructure issues.
We have heard a lot about Edinburgh Park and businesses, and I note that your submission goes on to say that
That is my understanding.
That is certainly my understanding, too.
I move on to paragraph 3.3.3 of your submission. I understand that there is rolling stock that is part of the EARL project. Why do you believe that the cost of rolling stock should be attributed to EARL, rather than its being part of the development of the rail network?
It seems to us that, because EARL involves tunnelling at fairly steep gradients under the airport and adding an extra stop, there is a clear desire to mitigate the extra delay that will arise from that, so the possibility of new trains has been introduced. We think that the new trains and the electrification of the Scottish inter-city rail network are good ideas, but we believe that those projects should have priority over EARL.
You also think that they should not be part of the EARL project's costings. Would you do them first?
In terms of opportunity cost, a far better way of spending the money would be to consider a rolling programme of electrification in Scotland. Because of the way that oil prices are going, it is time to consider railway electrification seriously.
The Turnhouse and Gogar options would not give some of the benefits that it appears the airport option would give in providing an interchange between Fife services and services for Glasgow, for example. To what extent have you taken that into account in determining that the airport option is not the best one?
The Gogar option would provide a Fife interchange just as the airport station would, because people would change at Gogar from the Fife to Edinburgh trains to trains going to Glasgow, exactly as would happen at the airport station.
I would need to see the map to see exactly where you put the station.
I would like to come in on a related issue. What people in Fife would probably like above all is a direct train from Fife to Glasgow. There are one or two at the moment, but the idea of a faster and more regular service from Fife to Glasgow is attractive, and there are longer-term issues to do with the possibility of reopening passenger services through Dunfermline through Alloa and Stirling to Glasgow.
Speaking as a Fife resident and regular rail user, I say that the option of being able to change somewhere other than Haymarket is quite attractive, as is the option of having fast links to the airport. I am not certain that people in Fife will get the same benefit from your proposals for Gogar.
Our proposal would retain access from Fife to the airport and access from the Glasgow route to the airport. As Tom Hart said, it would also provide an interchange at Gogar, as opposed to Haymarket or Edinburgh airport itself.
It does not provide direct access to the airport, but a transfer to—
No, but it comes back to the overall issue of value for money and what benefits we get in return for the costs. In a sense, the jury is still out on that question. It needs to be examined but it has not been.
You also have to put it in the context of the disbenefits for people who travel on the Scottish rail network. As someone who travels to Aberdeen frequently, I have to ask what the disbenefit to me would be of six and a half minutes being added on to that journey compared with someone having to make one change to get into Edinburgh airport. We have to look at the issue in the broader context.
I am trying to do that. I am just trying to tease some of those issues out a bit.
In connection with Fife, you also need to remember that, under the EARL proposals, some of the Fife trains would not serve the airport but would use the present line, and passengers would not be able to change on to the tram system because there will be no interchange, unless they went right into Haymarket. With a Gogar interchange, however, there is the option of changing for the quick link into the airport or on to the tram to reach any other station on the west side of Edinburgh.
If all trains were to stop at Gogar, I presume that all trains would have a delay because every additional stop on the network will inevitably result in a delay or a longer service. What is your estimate of how much would be added to journey times by having to stop there?
A Gogar interchange would have a higher capacity than the airport station that is proposed, which would be sub-surface and would be an island with a platform on either side. It is anticipated that longer-distance trains with luggage and more passengers would need to be allowed about 90 seconds' stopping time, which would reduce the capacity of the route. However, a four-platform station could be provided on flat land at Gogar, which would improve reliability and reduce waiting times.
Every train that stops must slow down to stop, then start again.
If a station has four platforms—
The amount of additional journey time for EARL has been estimated, although I am not sure why it is estimated that Fife services will take three and a half minutes whereas Aberdeen services will take six and a half minutes to go along the same route. How much time would be added by stopping at Gogar? I just want to find out what the difference is.
The figures would be similar to those for the EARL proposal. Passengers would stop at the airport and change to Gogar.
I understand.
No extra time would be added. Because the additional curvature and distance would not apply, the travel time from Aberdeen to Edinburgh would not have the same increase.
The typical increase in journey time from stopping a train is about two minutes. However, if Glasgow trains were run via the Dalmeny chord instead of the Winchburgh tunnel, the speed restriction through Winchburgh tunnel would be avoided. Consultants must consider the net impact.
Do you wish to apprise the committee of any points that members have not touched on?
I will mention three points; I am sure that David Spaven will also have concluding remarks. We are concerned about the project's capital costs and some operational aspects. The project will be very expensive; the appraisal report suggested that it might take 10 years for income to cover the extra operational costs, which is a long time. Also, other projects in Scotland are more important. We want a strategy for transport and sustainability and we worry that the project could slow down progress on more important and less expensive projects. We want a project that fits into a sound national strategy for transport.
Although the committee is charged with examining EARL in isolation, your comments are useful because they put the matter in the national context.
To sum up, we support the provision of rail links to airports. We supplied written evidence on the Glasgow airport rail link project and we are very much in favour of that, although we suggested some modifications. We would like an Edinburgh airport rail link to be delivered but we do not think that the current project is the right one or that the process has been handled well.
I am sure that it would be. Thank you.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Our next witness this afternoon is John David Ede, who is one of the objectors. He has plans for an alternative project. Welcome to the committee.
Thank you for inviting me. It is nice to be here.
What are the main advantages of your proposed short-term Winchburgh and Roddinglaw alternative scheme?
The main advantage is that it allows the Executive to hedge its bets as to how domestic travel in the UK will develop in the future. The line affords a direct link between Edinburgh city centre and the airport, which would support aviation for the time that aviation continues to be the most popular form of transport, but we know that energy costs will increase and that aviation will decline.
That brings me to my next question. You propose a long-term dedicated rail link scheme, which would require an expanded number of tracks into Waverley.
That is correct.
What are the key benefits of that long-term scheme?
You have to understand the limited lifespan of aviation. It is well known that, in the next few years, we will reach a point called peak oil. World oil output will reach its maximum and, after that, the only way forward is for oil output to decline relentlessly. We expect petroleum output from crude oil to fall by 60 per cent during the next four decades. That will have a devastating effect on the world economy in general.
I get your point. To return to the benefits of the two parts of your scheme, what would be the cost of implementing the short-term and long-term schemes? Over what timescales would they be developed?
Given that oil will become scarce, the long-term scenario is to build a two-part railway. A railway would be built from Waverley to Haymarket—with new tunnels and new platforms at Haymarket—and on to Roddinglaw.
Yes, but I am asking about the costs and the timescale.
The cost of the tunnel between Waverley and Haymarket would probably be about £300 million. It would probably cost a little more than the proposed EARL tunnel because it is in an urban setting.
How long would it take to build?
I imagine that it would take the same length of time as the EARL project. It is a simple, straightforward tunnel. The Victorians built the existing tunnels 130 years ago and I do not see why there should be any added complexity.
You state that you believe that the contraction of passenger numbers at the airport by 2040 will result in a direct rail link to the airport being redundant.
Yes.
What would be the impact on your schemes if passenger numbers did not decline and there was continued passenger growth?
Continued passenger growth is very unlikely. We do not have the fuel resources to provide the energy for it.
What are the main changes that you would like to see made to the proposed tunnel at the airport in order to address your safety concerns?
The simplest thing is to move the junction from inside the tunnel to outside it, so that if a collision that involves a fire ever takes place at the junction, the fire will not occur in a confined space. It would be possible to move the junction north so that it is not inside the tunnel.
In your view there is quite a serious problem with the design.
Yes. The Turbostar trains have fuel tanks that expand almost to the limit of the loading gauge on the train. If there was a collision and the tanks were ruptured, there would be a serious fire that would probably involve spraying fuel, which would expand with the heat of combustion. That would engulf the wreckage, so injured people might be burned inside the trains in the tunnel.
Surely the design would have to comply with legislation about tunnel safety and so on.
That is for you to ask TIE. Common sense indicates that it does not make sense to put a junction inside a tunnel. Historically, it was never done. The risk from fire in train collisions is now as high as it has ever been, because there are diesel multiple units with a fuel tank on every carriage.
This may be a silly question, but are there junctions in other tunnels?
Not that I am aware of in the United Kingdom. There are occasionally points at the mouth of tunnels. For example, there are points at Queen Street station in Glasgow, but the running speeds are very slow. There are not converging tunnels and junctions on the remainder of the network. It is just not done.
With regard to journey times, could you go into detail about the comments that the reliability of trains on the rail network will decrease as a result of the EARL project? Do you know of any other recently constructed airport links where that has been an issue?
The link to Charles de Gaulle airport in France is a world-class scheme. The line is connected to the peripheral railway that runs round Paris. It is a high-speed railway, which has a top speed approaching 190 mph. All the mainline stations in Paris are connected to the line and all the junctions on the line are grade separated, so if a train leaves Gare du Nord and runs round to the south side of the city it can leave the station and go through five or six junctions without ever having a traffic conflict.
And there is only one grade separation in this project.
There is only one. The other junctions are flat.
Do you accept that new rolling stock would mitigate some of the concerns?
Modern rolling stock is no faster than older rolling stock if it is held at a danger signal waiting to pass a junction. It will accelerate up to line speed but, once that level is reached, the train is governed by the geometry of the track and the signalling headway in the system. That means that you save perhaps 30 seconds while the train reaches 90mph, at which point it is no faster than other trains. Because EARL diverts existing traffic before returning it to the main line, there is a chance that a train that is delayed on EARL could end up being out of course, which might mean that it has to run behind a stopping service and would have no opportunity to make up time.
Coming from Fife, the convener and I know all about getting stuck behind stopping services.
And junctions.
Well, yes. Actually, the problem is to do with a lack of junctions that enable trains to pass each other.
It would. Passengers on the east coast main line would enjoy the same reliable timetable that they do at the moment, so they could make a quick transfer at Haymarket to one of the trains to the airport, which would leave every 10 minutes or so.
That is the point that I am making. There is no direct connectivity.
Your point relates to the 20 per cent of passengers who would want to go to the airport. The other 80 per cent of passengers would find that their timetable would be as reliable as ever and that they would not be inconvenienced at all.
But 20 per cent of passengers would be. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Yes, but, at the same time, if the timetable runs reliably, are they going to be inconvenienced just because they have to change trains? If the EARL proposal ended up with our having unreliable trains, would that be an advantage?
What would you say to the argument that, at present, many people do not use public transport to get to the airport from Fife and the north because they have to come into Edinburgh and go out again, which adds at least half an hour to the journey? Even with a fast train from Haymarket, that would still be the case.
You would have to look at the costings and the number of passengers who will use the service to determine whether it would be justifiable to build a standalone line for that volume of traffic. Do enough people in Fife want to travel to the airport? If there were no scheme for connecting Edinburgh to the airport, would a standalone scheme to connect Fife to the airport ever cover its costs?
I do not think that I was talking about a standalone scheme for Fife. I am just trying to clarify that your alternative does not provide any improvement to the service that is currently available to passengers from the north.
It requires a change of train at Haymarket. That relates to my main point. Whether the scheme costs £650 million or £750 million, all it will do is divert the existing railway capacity and provide a stop at the airport. We know that the life of the airport will be limited to 20, 25 or—at a push—30 years and that, after that, the aviation industry is going to collapse because of fuel starvation. What we are going to do with the railway network when the airport closes? That is the main disadvantage of the EARL scheme. It involves spending a lot of money on relocating railway tracks to the airport and creating infrastructure that will be completely redundant and will need to be abandoned when the airport closes.
That is fine if you are coming from Glasgow.
I thank John David Ede for giving evidence this afternoon.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.
I welcome everyone back to the meeting—thank you for your patience.
I will start off, as Christine Grahame cannot think of any questions. I was just thinking that having Paul McCartney on the team should solve the funding problems.
I am just about to get divorced.
We also have a John Inman. That is a very starry name.
Let us have some decorum, colleagues.
My apologies.
As happened last week, perhaps Susan Clark will direct the question to the most appropriate panel member.
I will kick off. TIE believes that EARL and tramline 2 provide complementary services. The tram will provide a service for people within the city who want to get from locations within the city to the airport, whereas the service that EARL will provide will connect Scotland to Edinburgh airport.
As the airport grows, bus services will also continue to grow; patronage will increase from current predicted levels. We were heavily involved with the tramline 2 team in carrying out modelling at the airport. In fact, we showed that the complementary nature of EARL and the tramline 2 proposals would produce passenger numbers that were slightly better than those that were envisaged originally.
One of the stated aims of EARL is to reduce congestion to and around the airport. How does that objective sit with the comments in paragraph 397 that the airport station may be used as a secure park-and-ride facility by those who want to access the national rail network? We heard evidence this morning from the Association of British Drivers that people in west Edinburgh in particular might use the airport station instead of Waverley station.
One of the policy objectives of the bill is to reduce congestion. The bill therefore makes no provision for additional car parking. If car users wish to use the car parking facility at the airport to access the rail network, that would be their choice.
One of the concerns is that, if you do not control the number of car drivers who use the airport, the benefits from EARL will be fewer than projected. Are you in discussions with BAA about its long-term car parking strategy—or money-making strategy, as some people might see it? BAA could simply increase the number of parking spaces.
I will bring in Marwan AL-Azzawi and then John Inman.
The demand modelling was carried out in consultation with BAA. In fact, BAA supplied us with information on its existing parking strategy, including its fare structures, and its future plans for car parking at the airport. Therefore, the demand modelling takes cognisance of BAA's view of how things will develop in future and uses BAA's data. I emphasise that point.
From the council's point of view, we have linked the growth of Edinburgh airport closely to the achieving of sustainable modal share. That was the nature of our comments on the draft master plan. We have not yet seen the final master plan, but we expect that it will have clear modal share targets that will assume the existence of EARL and the trams and will also assume a certain amount of travel by car. The city council will not be able to support the growth in the master plan unless we are happy and comfortable with the modal share targets, including assumptions about car parking.
What is the prospect of EARL becoming part of a transport hub at Edinburgh airport? Paragraph 403 of the promoter's written response states that the transport hub concept is very much dependent on the BAA master plan for the airport. When is it anticipated that the promoter will receive the master plan? How will the promoter ensure that EARL can fulfil its full potential of becoming part of a transport hub if BAA has different objectives, such as increasing the number of parking spaces rather than encouraging opportunities for transport interchange?
TIE, the council and the Scottish Executive have all commented on the draft master plan, which was published last summer. We made comments on modal shift and so on. Along with a number of the stakeholders involved in the EARL project, TIE has been in discussion with BAA and we have had several workshops about development of the transport hub concept as part of BAA's work to develop the master plan. BAA has concept drawings about how a transport hub could work as part of that overall master plan. The concept integrates EARL, tram, bus and taxi use as well as the private car. Work has gone on with BAA in trying to develop that concept.
Are cycles also part of that hub concept?
SESTRAN has quite an intensive programme for providing additional cycle routes. About £1.1 million will be spent on those in the next two years, with a further £3.6 million following on. I understand that one of those projects would link the airport to the A8 cycle route that has been developed by the City of Edinburgh Council. I am sure that that will be quite a high priority when the £1.1 million is spent.
How much money will EARL contribute towards the creation of the transport hub?
EARL has not identified a specific pot of money for the transport hub. EARL creates a station in the vicinity of which a transport hub could be created. Our capital cost estimate for the station and the approaches to it is a total of £41 million.
Given that the station will be some distance from the main terminal, how will it improve access for disabled people?
The station will be about 100m from the terminal building. The current design is based on having lift, escalator and ramp access to ensure that there is disabled access. We will work with mobility organisations to ensure that it is fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. At the moment, the scope of the project is to ensure full DDA compliance.
The promoter states that Transport Scotland has assumed responsibility for rolling stock upgrades and is concentrating on performance characteristics. How confident is the promoter that issues of access and luggage space will not be overlooked when Transport Scotland considers other aspects, such as procurement costs?
Transport Scotland has a representative on the EARL project board along with other stakeholders, who are keen to ensure that issues such as luggage capacity and performance characteristics are all taken on board. Those key stakeholders include BAA, First ScotRail and Network Rail and they update the project board every month on progress with the rolling stock strategy. We understand that Transport Scotland will finalise a diesel rolling stock strategy by the autumn and that a procurement process will start early next year. We will feed in, and have fed in, specifications to that.
The same rolling stock will be used for train services straight through. Will some passenger seats be sacrificed?
I think that I mentioned last week—perhaps I did not—that TIE facilitated a session with the world's rolling stock manufacturers in Edinburgh early this year. We invited manufacturers to hear about the overall specification for rolling stock so that they could start to think about innovative ways of balancing the competing needs.
Are you talking about adaptability of trains?
Yes.
Am I to understand that you think that nothing suitable is available in the rolling stock marketplace now?
We believe that the rolling stock market will adapt to the requirements of EARL. I am sure that members have travelled on the Heathrow express and have seen what is available in the market. We need to ensure that the product that is delivered for EARL is fit for purpose, not just to serve the airport, but to meet other needs, such as those of commuters.
Talking to manufacturers implies that you are looking for a new product. You would talk to rolling stock companies, which I understand are all owned by banks, if you were thinking about procuring rolling stock off the shelf.
We are looking for a product that has enhanced performance characteristics—a product that is comparable to the Virgin Voyager but does not include its weight. Some models are on the market, but we want to open up the opportunity to ensure that we bring the innovation that we require into the project.
Are you comfortable with the notion that you might be the first to use a new generation of rolling stock? You do not mind being a guinea pig.
I have been involved in the introduction of new rolling stock and I understand the pitfalls.
So have I—I have the scars to prove it.
So have I. That is why we started considering performance characteristics a year ago.
I defer to Charles Gordon's knowledge.
TIE operates the one-ticket integrated ticketing system on behalf of the south-east Scotland transport partnership and has done so for the past four years. That system involves an integrated ticket for rail and bus services in the Edinburgh area. Since its introduction, the service has grown year on year. It is not accurate to say that, overall, the ticket is more expensive if someone goes for the integrated solution. The overall cost of buying a rail ticket with a bus ticket added on is lower than that of buying two individual tickets.
You say that an integrated ticketing system already operates in Edinburgh. Does that involve all the bus operators and not just Lothian Buses?
It involves a range of bus operators.
Would the cost of £3.75 that was floated about be added to the normal cost of a rail ticket?
No. I will let Marwan AL-Azzawi explain some of the detail, but that figure is an average fare from Edinburgh to the airport.
Yes, that is correct. That is the fare that you would pay; it is not a supplement or a premium. I want to nip that misconception in the bud. It is not anything over and above what you would have paid already.
Will air passengers be able to purchase an inclusive ticket?
We could consider that in the future. I know that Prestwick operates such a scheme.
What discussion, if any, has the promoter had about extending concessionary travel schemes to EARL? I should declare that I have an interest in that regard—pensioners travel on buses for free, you see.
EARL does not introduce new services; it diverts existing services via the airport.
The rail concessionary schemes are a matter for individual local authorities. At the moment, the national concessionary scheme is applicable purely to buses. Some rail concessionary schemes are half fare and some use a fixed fare, such as 50p. The scheme that you are eligible for depends on the local authority area that you reside in.
Have you had discussions with the various authorities about concessionary fares?
No.
I assume that the fares to the airport from other stations in Edinburgh will be calculated in the same way that fares in the network are calculated at the moment.
The fares have been outlined in the current business case. The actual fares policy is a matter for Transport Scotland and the franchise.
If I were going to the airport from, say, Ladybank, would I pay the same to go to the airport as I would if I were going to Edinburgh, or would it be slightly less?
Sorry, I did not catch all of your question.
If I were catching the train to the airport from Ladybank, for example, would I pay the same fare as I would pay to get to Edinburgh just to go to the airport, or would there be a different fare?
If the cost of your travel to the airport is less than £3.75, you would pay £3.75. If the cost of your travel to the airport is more than £3.75—if you were travelling from Glasgow, for example—you would pay what you are paying already.
I am sorry—I am trying to understand that. Are you saying that the calculation of the fare to the airport from places outwith Edinburgh, such as Glasgow, Dundee or Aberdeen, would be based on the current fare to Edinburgh?
Yes, based on the current franchise assumptions.
Thank you. I am sorry if my earlier question confused you.
If someone wanted to go to the airport, but was on a train that did not go to the airport—for example, a Glasgow train or a north-east main line train—and had to transfer at Haymarket to go back out to the airport, would they have to pay an extra fare or would that be included in the price of the ticket that they had already bought?
In theory, they would just pay the difference. There is a very flexible arrangement at the moment. It is early days yet and that is a detail that is yet to be ironed out, of course.
I know that we should be asking First ScotRail that question rather than you, but I just thought of it—three hours too late.
We can provide an answer to your question in writing.
Earlier, we heard about the possibility of the line being electrified at some point in the future. Are there any costings for how much money would be required to upgrade the line to the standards required for electrification? I know that we talked about that last week.
In our capital costs estimates, we have allowed for the future electrification of the route. The tunnels, the structures and so on are all designed to meet the standards that would be required to cope with future electrification. We have not included the costs of electrification, however.
I have a few questions about the evidence that we heard this morning from West Lothian Council—I think that you heard it because you were in the public gallery. The council mentioned its concerns about the code of construction practice and the enforceability of the mitigation measures that are proposed in the environmental statement. Will you elaborate on those? If the scheme goes ahead, how will you ensure that lots of people—particularly those who live around Winchburgh—will not be clamouring at our doors complaining about undue noise pollution from lorries?
We met both West Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council—which are the two planning authorities within whose areas the project will take place—and agreed that we will work with them on finalising the code of construction practice. We saw what happened with the tramline bills and the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill and the enforcement of environmental mitigation. Section 46 of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill goes some way towards addressing the matter, but we propose to refine that to ensure that there is enforceability by third parties and that the promoter or authorised undertaker complies with the environmental mitigations. We can provide the committee with a briefing note on how we intend to do that.
That would be useful.
We have worked closely with West Lothian Council. Indeed, we did some timetable simulations on its behalf to examine whether it is possible to construct a station at Winchburgh after EARL has come on stream. Network Rail stated in its comments on the West Lothian structure and local plans that a station can be built at Winchburgh only if EARL goes ahead because that would give it a better chance of fitting into the overall timetable. I can provide an extract from Network Rail's comments.
So the issue that was raised about engineering works does not preclude the possibility of a station at Winchburgh.
In engineering terms, we can still construct a station at Winchburgh. We have spoken to West Lothian Council about options for that and the council has changed the local plan to take account of both the construction phase and the operational phase of EARL.
Does the promoter have any plans to include future cross-country franchise services, as Virgin Trains suggested in its submission?
The provision of services is a matter for the timetable bids as we get closer to the introduction of EARL. Obviously, we have spoken to Virgin Trains, which is keen to run services via the airport. However, it is for Network Rail and Transport Scotland to decide what services will run.
Virgin Trains expressed concern that, if network change rules are not followed, the future cross-country franchise could be financially affected. Do you intend to use your influence to ensure that the infrastructure engineering work follows the rules?
I am sure that we have given Virgin Trains a commitment that we will follow the routine network change processes. We have an agreement in place with the company.
Do you intend to address the concerns that have been expressed about sustainability and the impact on the local environment of the disposal of waste material?
Last week, I spoke about the environmental impact of the construction phase and we talked specifically about concrete and cement production. In the environmental statement we assume a worst-case scenario for the disposal of waste. We are setting up a small task group to consider how we can reduce the impact of the disposal of waste and comply with the hierarchy of reducing, reusing and then recycling. We are considering what we can reuse on the project when we build up embankments and so on and what other on-going construction projects in the local area might use some of the spoil from the project. We will consider how we contain the impacts of anything that we need to dispose of off site.
Have you considered the impact of increased fuel costs on growth at Edinburgh airport?
Yes. Since the feedback that was given to the committee last week, we have examined the impact of the growth in air travel not reaching the levels forecast in the Department for Transport white paper. Marwan AL-Azzawi can give you some details on what that would do to the overall cost-benefit ratio.
First, the answer to your question is that the air transport white paper included the effects of increased costs on not only the industry, but on travellers in the production of the future forecasts. You heard evidence at last week's meeting from Edinburgh Airport Ltd that even its own calculations and estimates are usually lower than the growth in passenger throughput that it has experienced. It may interest the committee to know that, despite the fact that in the past four years there has been a trebling of aviation fuel costs in general, passenger throughput at Edinburgh airport has been growing at 9 to 16 per cent per annum. In fact, comparison with the figures for all the other airports in Scotland indicates that passenger throughput at Edinburgh airport has been growing at a much higher rate than it has across Scotland as a whole. It is important to bear that in mind. I reassure the committee that the air transport white paper's forecasts took into account future growth in costs as well as passenger fares.
I thank you for that comprehensive answer, but I dare say that committee members will scrutinise your sensitivity tests closely. Believe it or not, other witnesses and sources forby those that you cited have an even more pessimistic—if not in some cases a cataclysmic—view of those matters.
One of the members of the next panel will be able to address those issues in detail. In summary, we have had a number of meetings with Her Majesty's railway inspectorate over the course of the development of the project. We have a letter of no objection to concept from HMRI. The inspectorate has worked with us and it is happy about the concept, including the crossovers within the tunnel. Gary Coutts will be able to provide much more detail about issues such as the engineering, the legislation with which we need to comply and the risk assessments.
Although crossovers in tunnels are not unusual, an earlier witness claimed that the promoter plans to have a junction in the tunnel. Is that correct?
That is correct. We can provide details on the risk mitigation that we have built in and on similar schemes that have been developed elsewhere. For example, London crossrail is being developed with crossovers within tunnels.
With respect, a crossover is not a junction. Is the railway inspectorate comfortable thus far with the concept of a junction in a tunnel?
Yes.
That brings to a conclusion this part of our questioning. I thank Mr Haugen and Mr Inman for their attendance this afternoon. We will now have a slight pause as they are replaced by Gary Coutts, who is railway engineering manager for Scott Wilson Railways, and Alan Somerville, who is commercial manager for heavy rail at TIE.
Okay. Having phoned my friend, I will now let him take the committee through the difference between a crossover and a junction and some of the EARL project's technical design features to mitigate risks.
The difference between a crossover and a junction is, as Charlie Gordon knows—
Yes, I know this.
But the rest of us do not.
The rest of us are waiting. We have had the trailer; now we want the film.
A crossover allows a train to pass from one single line to another, usually adjacent, single line. A junction allows two converging lines to join. Operationally, the potential for a conflicting move—that is, the potential for the train to be in the path of another train as it moves over on to the other line—exists at both crossovers and junctions. We apply the same safety principles to both situations.
After the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, John Prescott reminded people that the first, second and third priorities in the railway industry should be safety. The proposed design incorporates a tunnel for diesel-powered trains, which is apparently without precedent. Does that put safety first?
You are right: safety has been enshrined in development so far. We have complied with the guidance and procedures in development so far and will continue to do so. As I said, work will be undertaken to develop the railway safety case as well as the technical approvals for the scheme, which will require approval from HMRI to bring the system into operation. We will continue to work with HMRI and Network Rail on developing the safety case and the technical approvals. As I said, we have complied with requirements so far and will continue to do so.
For completeness, I ask for a rough timescale within the ambit of the proposed EARL scheme for when the railway safety case is expected to achieve clearance and for when HMRI will in effect sign off the design.
We will go through incremental stages of design sign-off. We have just started work on the next phase of design, which is an outline design, and we aim to finish that work by December this year. HMRI, Network Rail and BAA will be involved in that next phase of design, after which the design will move forward into detailed design. At each stage, we will work with Network Rail, BAA and HMRI. We will have to appoint a notified body as part of the new interoperability regulations to approve EARL before it goes into service.
If HMRI does not sign off the design, that is a show-stopper.
HMRI has given us a letter of no objection to concept.
Yes, but we are at the beginning of a lengthy and complex design process.
My questions are about route selection and alternative options. Alternatives to EARL appear to have been considered on the basis of the north Edinburgh rapid transit feasibility study, which did not explicitly examine heavy rail. How confident is the promoter that using the NERT study is a fair way to assess the viability of other options?
I will probably pass over to Paul McCartney in a second. The promoter is confident that the proposed runway tunnel option for EARL meets the policy objectives that are set out in the promoter's memorandum.
A few years ago, the Scottish Executive considered several options for the alignment to the airport, including the Fife spur, the Edinburgh spur, a surface diversion, diversion of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route and a runway tunnel. Those options went through a fairly robust and rigorous process that used the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. There was a two-part process that involved qualitative analysis to narrow down the options to a shortlist, which was considered in much more detail using quantitative analysis.
I am sorry to interrupt you in full flow, but would you take us back a step and explain why the heavy rail option was preferred to light transport alternatives?
It has been mentioned that the objective of providing a rail link between Edinburgh and the airport is not only to link those two places, but to connect the airport to the national rail network, which will provide national benefits. It was therefore decided at an early stage that a heavy rail option should be considered, as the other options would not achieve that objective. The aim is not to provide a short connection between Edinburgh and the airport, but to connect the airport to the rest of the country and distribute economic benefits. Since the options were considered, several studies that have looked at the tram, bus and light rail options have been produced on which the other members of the panel can elaborate. Those studies have agreed that the desired objectives would not be met with those options.
Committee members understand that we are talking about a national rail scheme, linking the airport with the rest of Scotland, the desire for a transport hub and so on, and we will ask more questions about that. You said that early on a heavy rail option was considered to be the best way forward. I was trying to get at what appraisal was given to other schemes, not to deliver the national network link, but a transport link to Edinburgh airport.
Are you talking about other modes of transport?
Yes.
The consideration was qualitative. Whether other options could achieve the desired objectives was considered, but not in detail. The other options were rejected early in the process. The objective was not to reduce congestion in the west of Edinburgh, for example, but to bring national benefits to Scotland. Is that okay?
Yes.
I was talking about the runway tunnel option. That option provided the highest level of connectivity to nine cities and major towns in Scotland. Earlier, we heard about the benefits of connectivity to 62 stations in 14 local authority areas and 3.2 million people. The option provided the greatest national benefits—which is what the scheme was intended to provide—and the greatest net benefits. The net present value, which is arrived at by comparing total benefits and total costs, was £250 million. The option also provided the greatest accessibility across the country and the greatest decongestion benefits in the local area.
In paragraph 492 of your response, you say that the fact that the north Edinburgh rapid transit feasibility study "concluded that only a" light rail
Are you asking whether we are confident that no funding constraints will emerge that mean that only part of it will be built?
Yes.
I am sure that when he gives evidence on 27 June the minister will talk about funding. However, EARL's benefits will be delivered by implementing the whole package, as that will provide overall connectivity and allow the project's economic benefits to be dispersed throughout Scotland.
This question also relates to an earlier witness's comments on optimism bias and inflation factors. In the figure for capital costs that has been bandied about in the written evidence, we have allowed for risk, contingency and optimism bias. Indeed, the promoter asked for those cost inclusions. As Susan Clark has pointed out, despite all that, the business case is still positive.
How can the NERT study, which led to the selection of the tram option, lend support to the construction of EARL on the one hand but on the other enable the promoter to claim that EARL and the tram scheme support different travel markets?
I shall begin by reiterating the benefits of both projects and then one of my colleagues will talk about the NERT study.
In its consideration of a number of different routes and options, the NERT study identified a number of common themes including segregation, modal interchange, benefits for capacity, frequency and reliability and improvements to accessibility as well as the usual benefits for ridership quality, passenger comfort and convenience and so on. The study concluded that such themes are not dependent on geography but can be easily transferred to another location if the proposed scheme has the same mix of ingredients. As a result, the NERT study is quite applicable to EARL, as the project contains not only all those characteristics but—dare I say it—others.
I return to tunnel safety, which is an important point. Railway tunnels are inherently dangerous places. What do you say in response to the accusation that has been made in previous evidence that, because you will have a junction in the tunnel, it is clear that common sense and the simple approach have gone out the window and been replaced by cleverness and reliance on technology and procedures for safety?
I reiterate the fact that we have the letter of no objection from HMRI. We are also complying with current legislation and "The Railway Group Standards Code" to ensure that we manage the risks that are associated with the junction in the tunnel.
Is it cheaper to have the junction in the tunnel?
There is a range of issues to consider. Gary Coutts has tried to describe the complexity of the surrounding topography, line speeds and ensuring that we get a timetable that fulfils the project's overall aspirations. We have not assessed cost as a driver to put the junction in the tunnel.
To echo what Susan Clark says, as I outlined, the technical constraints of the local topography are quite challenging. To move the junction further north would impact directly on the running times, as it would make the line to Fife longer and slower. Constructing that newer, longer line would also have environmental impacts. One of the advantages of the north-eastern line that we propose is that it uses part of a former railway. If we were to move the junction further north and reduce the line speed, we would have to generate an entirely new railway.
I am looking at the figures in paragraph 551 of your response—the Sinclair Knight Merz report. Such calculations are not my forte, but I think that I have understood this one. The present value of costs for the runway tunnel option is £427 million or thereabouts and the present value of costs for the surface diversion option is about £133 million—that is a heck of a difference. The net present value for the runway tunnel option is £250 million or thereabouts and, for the other option, it is just about the same—there is not a huge difference—but the benefit cost ratio is substantially different: 1.59 for the runway tunnel and 2.88 for surface diversion. How can the runway tunnel option be value for money when there is such a difference?
Those figures demonstrate that both options are economically viable because the benefits that they generate are greater than their costs. The net present value—which is the total benefits minus the total costs—is the same for both, so they both generate significant net benefits. The benefit cost ratio for the surface diversion option is higher than that for the runway tunnel option, which shows that, for each pound of costs, we would get greater benefits back. It is important to emphasise that a range of aspects is considered in the appraisal apart from those quantified elements.
I have looked at those too. At paragraph 547, you list other benefits that will come. You compare the decongestion benefits between the two alternatives, and the tunnel comes out better, but that is over 30 years.
Yes. What those figures do not capture are issues such as the fact that the surface diversion option results in increased journey times for those people who are not using the airport but travelling through. The Scottish Executive felt at the time that selecting that option would send out the wrong message. Increasing journey times for people commuting in from Fife to the centre of Edinburgh would go against the grain of the Executive's policy of trying to encourage modal shift and would probably result in those commuters getting back into their cars.
Paragraph 545 of your submission gives the example only of a lengthy rerouting of the Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh Waverley service. Are you saying that the surface option would have meant that lots of other services would have had longer journey times too?
The main reason why the runway tunnel option was selected, rather than the surface diversion option, was that the surface diversion option would have increased journey times significantly for a number of people who were not using the airport.
Do we have information on that somewhere in our papers? Have I missed some information about the knock-on effect of the surface alternative on all the journey times?
I am not sure that you have that information, but we can provide it.
We can ensure that it is sent to you.
I understand that the Sinclair Knight Merz report concluded that the surface diversion option might be able to attract significant private sector involvement, whereas a runway tunnel will need a lot more public sector funding. On that basis, if I were picking one option, subject to what we find out about journey times, the surface diversion option seems to be a better deal—the more private money that can be levered in, the better for the Parliament.
At the time, the decision was taken because of transport policy, because selecting the surface diversion option would result in increased journey times for people, which would send out the wrong message.
Do we know how much private sector funding might have been levered in if the surface diversion option had been chosen?
I do not know. I do not have that information.
I do not think that any analysis was done of how much private sector funding might be found. It is important to note that that option was discounted because of the significant increases to journey times, particularly on the Edinburgh to Glasgow route.
I understand that. What you are saying is that the main reason for not going for the surface diversion option is the significant increases on the Edinburgh to Glasgow route and on other routes. Other things being equal, if nothing had altered, the surface diversion route would have been an option. It is a lot cheaper and you might have levered in private funding. Am I misunderstanding you?
No, your summary is right.
I would like to continue on that point, if any of the witnesses can assist us. Given the operational disbenefits of a surface diversion option, why did the SKM report suggest that that option would lever in greater private sector financial involvement? That seems counterintuitive.
I do not have an answer to that question. I do not know whether Paul McCartney does. We could look into it and come back to you.
Christine Grahame has another question.
I am getting muddled up thinking about the figures. The alternative schemes that the Scottish Association for Public Transport and TRANSform Scotland have put before us would be cheaper and would not entirely preclude the creation of an Edinburgh airport hub but would allow one to be developed in the future. In how much depth did you examine those schemes in the appraisal process? Those organisations seemed to suggest that their proposals were dismissed pretty quickly.
We have reviewed in detail the Turnhouse option, which would involve putting a station at Turnhouse on the existing Fife line and linking that with the Edinburgh to Glasgow route through a chord from the Dalmeny line. We have produced a full report on the costs of that option, have done timetabling analysis on it and have carried out a STAG level 1 appraisal.
You said, "the Gogar option that is emerging."
The Gogar option has emerged from recent discussions with the SAPT about creating a station that would be nearer Gogar and establishing an interchange through the use of a people mover out to the airport. From the initial discussions that we have had, our understanding is that the concept does not differ greatly from the Turnhouse option, so the costs, impacts and so on will not be strongly dissimilar from those of the Turnhouse option.
You will not be doing a separate appraisal of the Gogar option.
We will consider by how much it differs from the Turnhouse option and assess whether we need to do a full appraisal of it. If we find that the two options have significant similarities, we might be able to apply the STAG appraisal that we have done for the Turnhouse option to the Gogar option.
When would such an appraisal of the Gogar option be available?
We will have to consider how long it might take us to review the differences between the two options and, if necessary, to conduct the appraisal. We can come back to the committee with a timescale.
That would be useful. We are considering the option that is in the bill, but other proposals are coming in. We are assessing the value for money of the promoter's proposal to achieve something that we would all like to achieve.
Absolutely. One of the important points about both the Turnhouse and the Gogar options is that they would remove accessibility from Edinburgh Park. This morning, Keith Rimmer of City of Edinburgh Council told us that the Waverley route would make not just the city centre but Edinburgh Park accessible from the Borders for employment purposes. The Gogar option and the Turnhouse option would not allow Dunblane services that went via the airport to stop at Edinburgh Park, which would mean that any through services from Dunblane to the Borders could not stop at Edinburgh Park. The Gogar and the Turnhouse options would not provide such accessibility and connectivity.
It might be helpful if you could provide the committee with a summary of the key advantages and disadvantages of the Gogar option. You have said that it is very similar to, but not exactly the same as, the Turnhouse option. A brief summary of the similarities, the disadvantages and the advantages would help us to get our heads round the issue.
We could provide that.
Have you finished, Christine?
Yes, I think that I have run out of steam.
We will never see the day when Christine Grahame has run out of steam.
I will pass that question on to our in-house expert, Marwan AL-Azzawi.
The short answer is yes. The model was developed using existing data and historical trend data. It was based purely on industry-standard procedures and tried and tested methodologies—there was nothing new in it. As part of Government procedure, it is a requirement to carry out a validation and calibration exercise to examine the model's robustness, make adjustments and test the model against independent data to ensure that, within certain tolerances, it represents the situation on the ground. That exercise must be carried out before any future forecasting is done.
You say that the modelling conforms to industry standards, but has it been tested independently?
Yes. A working group was set up in TIE that was comprised of people from TIE, the consultants who were developing the model and other external consultants who were advisers to TIE but who were independent from the people who developed the model. Those advisers examined, scrutinised and tested the modelling process. That is standard practice.
According to table 52.2 in the response, which is on the geographical distribution of EARL trips, the modelling predicts a 0 per cent distribution of EARL trips for west Edinburgh. Why is that?
That is for the area of west Edinburgh that is within the bypass. The reason is mainly that there are no stations in that sector.
That is a reasonable explanation. I thought that that might be the answer.
Perhaps people could jump from a moving train.
How was the catchment area for EARL determined and what is the predicted percentage of people in the area who will use EARL?
The catchment area that we used in the model covered as wide an area as possible to match the catchment area of the airport. In the modelling, we exploded certain parts of the catchment area to improve connectivity, even to places such as England. For example, people travel from Newcastle to use the airport. Therefore, the catchment area was as close to a national one as we could get. It may interest the committee to know that, when we considered population connectivity in the model, we found that about 95 per cent of the population coverage in Scotland was captured.
Paragraph 519 of the response provides a breakdown of the proportion of revenue for the bus shuttle, travelator and driverless shuttle options compared with the runway tunnel option. Can you provide the proportion of revenue as a percentage of each option's capital cost? Can you also provide the net present value and benefit cost ratio of each option?
I cannot do that today, because I do not have the figures to hand. The analysis was carried out in the STAG part 1 report, in which we did not carry out a detailed and quantified transport economic evaluation. We followed the methodology for part 1 of the STAG process. As Paul McCartney said, that issue has a qualitative element. However, the figures show clearly that if EARL produced £1 of revenue, the bus shuttle would produce about 30 per cent of that. Therefore, the bus shuttle would not give anywhere near the value for money that EARL would give. We followed the normal STAG process.
Why did the promoter choose to examine only the Turnhouse option, rather than the option of bus links from South Gyle and/or Edinburgh Park railway stations?
I will answer that initially. The reason why the promoter did a detailed study of the Turnhouse option was because that option emerged during the consultation phase.
We considered sensitivity tests for buses. I said in my evidence last week that we carried out a sensitivity test in the modelling to see what would happen if the station were to be developed into a multimodal interchange with bus feeder services. The additional benefits that would accrue were identified. In keeping with Government procedure, there had to be a robust business case assessment that said what would happen, on a conservative platform, rather than trying to build things in. The central case in the economic appraisal does not allow for consideration of the additional benefits that we would get over and above those that would accrue from the current proposals.
In comparing the Turnhouse option with the runway option, measures such as benefit-cost ratio and net present value were compared over 60 years. What are the respective figures at 10 and 20 years?
It is not Government procedure to assess those things in such short time periods. With such major projects, the benefits take a certain amount of time to accrue. I do not think that it has ever been Government policy to assess benefits over such a short time.
The methodology outlined in the guidance is clear that assets should be appraised over their lifetime. The capital investment in this case lasts much longer than 10 years.
I see.
I am not sure what appraising the assets over 10 years would tell us because, at the end of the 10 years, there would still be what is called an opportunity cost, which is the capital value of the asset at the time. That would have to be taken into account in any appraisal.
It might help the committee to know that certain parts of the EARL project have a much longer lifespan than 60 years; they will be around for 100 years at least. One could argue that even 60 years is quite a short period for a scheme such as this.
I want to return to the evidence that we heard from the SAPT. What consideration was given to interlinking the rail and tram, which we heard about this afternoon? What is your opinion of the viability of the SAPT's proposal to use South Gyle station for the Glasgow to Edinburgh trains to access the airport, thereby doing away with the need for the Roddinglaw to the airport connection?
I will pass over to Alan Somerville, who has been working with the SAPT on its proposal.
Before I come to that, I will explain how we came up with the option in the bill. About three years ago, we set up a committee, which TIE chaired, involving the Scottish Executive—before Transport Scotland was set up—Network Rail and First ScotRail. We tried to evaluate the minimum infrastructure enhancements that would be required to deliver services via the airport. SKM speculated that four-tracking would be required between Saughton junction and the Edinburgh Park to Roddinglaw area. We considered additional crossovers between the north and south lines. We even got to the stage of considering four-tracking the Saughton area, which would have meant not only knocking down people's houses but knocking about the new Edinburgh Park station that had just been opened and interfering with the city bypass. We found that an unattractive option.
Thank you for that answer. I am sorry, but I have to ask you to repeat part of it, because I missed something. You mentioned Fife and I pricked up my ears. You said that the SAPT proposal would have an effect on Fife trains and you mentioned South Gyle. Could you explain that again?
It is an artifice, if you like, arising from the way in which AEA made the timetable fit. The only way that it could do that without giving rise to long-term performance implications was to remove the connection between the airport and South Gyle. The airport stopping trains from Fife would go straight through South Gyle station. Because AEA was trying to achieve a balanced timetable, it removed the stop on the northbound route. The proposal would mean that people who work and live in the South Gyle area would suffer a loss of utility in terms of accessing Fife and the north.
So the proposal would make it much more complicated for us in terms of which train we would get on and so forth.
Yes. It is ironic that one of the few aspects of the scheme that John David Ede approves of is the flying junction at Roddinglaw, which is the thing that the SAPT wants to take away.
Okay. Thank you.
I return to the issue of the flying junction at Roddinglaw. In his objection, John David Ede says that the existence of flat junctions at all the other points in the scheme would be likely to lead to performance problems over time. In particular, he says that, if a train were delayed somewhere in the system, it would cause serious knock-on effects because of the number of flat junctions. Have you looked at that?
I take you back to the beginning of my previous long answer. We approached the problem with the philosophy of going for the minimum enhancement necessary to keep costs down. It would be lovely to have flying junctions everywhere in the country; that would improve performance no end.
I thought that the rail industry had moved away from pulling levers.
May I add something on the potential grade separation of the other junctions?
As long as it is quick.
Yes, it will be quick.
Before we conclude, I ask Susan Clark whether she has other comments that have not been covered in today's evidence.
I just want to highlight the transport benefits that EARL will deliver. One of its clear benefits will be its positive contribution to inward investment and economic growth. In 2004, the Scottish Executive's refreshed "Framework for Economic Development in Scotland"—or FEDS—confirmed that transport underpins competitive business in Scotland and it is a prerequisite to successful enterprise. That can be achieved only through an integrated package of measures to improve public transport and encourage people to move to alternative modes of transport. The Scottish Executive's transport policies focus on economic growth by improving the effectiveness of the transport network. EARL will greatly assist in achieving the objectives.
Thank you. I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that that concludes our oral evidence taking for today. I sincerely thank all the witnesses who gave up their time to give evidence.
I look forward to seeing you all next Tuesday afternoon at 1.30.
Meeting closed at 16:51.