Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, 18 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Monday, September 18, 2006

Official Report 87KB pdf

---

Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill: Preliminary Stage

Good morning, everyone. I formally open the fourth meeting in 2006 of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. This is our third oral evidence-taking meeting. We have full committee member attendance again—to date, we have had 100 per cent attendance.

Following the first meeting of a parliamentary committee in Airdrie last week, this is the first time that a parliamentary committee has held a meeting in the Whitburn and Bathgate area. We are delighted to be in these comfortable surroundings. We had a little problem with the lights this morning, so I am grateful to the individual who sorted it out for us. I also thank the rest of the hotel staff for their assistance in enabling us to hold the meeting here in the Strathearn suite.

The purpose of today's meeting is for the committee to continue its consideration of the general principles of the bill—in other words, to consider the need for the railway. Specifically, we will hear evidence from the promoter and a range of other witnesses about accessibility and railway integration with other modes of public transport, patronage forecasting, project costs and risk management.

We are grateful to everyone who responded to our request for written evidence. The site visit that we undertook along the route of the proposed railway helped to broaden our understanding of the issues surrounding the railway and the general location of the track, stations and some of the properties that are close by.

We hope to break for lunch at about 12.30 pm. Members of the public are, of course, welcome to leave the meeting at any time, but I ask them to do so quietly. Although the meeting is being held in public, it is not a public meeting; it is the formal work of the Parliament, therefore I would appreciate the public's co-operation in ensuring that today's business is properly conducted.

The three whole-bill objectors have withdrawn the whole-bill element of their objections. Therefore we will not hear oral evidence from the two witnesses in panel five. However, we still have a full agenda. We will ask succinct questions and we expect succinct answers.

I ask everyone to ensure that all mobile phones, pagers and so on are switched off.

The first panel was to have been the witnesses from south-east Scotland transport partnership, but they have had a technical hitch. I am grateful to Mr Samson from Passenger Focus and Mr Hart from the Scottish Association for Public Transport for taking their place. I understand that Dr John McCormick, who was also due to give evidence, is unable to join us.

Good morning. Will the railway noticeably reduce road congestion? If so, how?

It depends what you mean by noticeably. With big projects, it takes some time for the full results to become apparent. A lot of people are unaware that, last year, total road traffic in Scotland—certainly car traffic—did not increase at all, although it rose on some routes. A lot of our members have cars and they want more opportunities to transfer easily to improved public transport. They want more capacity on the trains, better car parking, bus feeders and improved services.

The M8 corridor has congestion problems, which tend to be more acute on the approaches to Glasgow and Edinburgh and the routes through those cities. We are convinced that, as part of a Scottish transport strategy, the Airdrie to Bathgate railway project will contribute to a reduction in the growth of car traffic on those corridors, where there is still growth, particularly at peak periods. For several years, we have emphasised that the problem has got worse at peak times mainly because there is still a large number of single-occupant cars. If we can persuade more of those people to shift to public transport and persuade some of them to car share, we will not need to spend money on major road projects in the way that we have in the past. We will be able to move to more sustainable, inclusive transport, which will also help the economy. We definitely see a role for the railway project in that.

There is a more controversial area, which deserves further study. To get a greater degree of shift, it is desirable to consider new forms of road pricing in central Scotland. It might be possible to do that more quickly than was thought even last year, because Douglas Alexander has been talking about a bill, which could apply in Scotland, to allow authorities in pilot areas to consider local road pricing at peak times. Such pricing would produce some funding and would also result in a better playing field when people are deciding whether to use a car or public transport. We should bear it in mind that people in Scotland—and in Britain—have been quite used to peak surcharges for rail travel, particularly on the Edinburgh to Glasgow route. Local road pricing would encourage a greater shift to public transport at those crucial periods. However, we recognise that the issue is debatable and does not involve the bill.

We support the Scottish Association for Public Transport's comments. Many factors encourage modal transfer from car to train, one of which is park-and-ride facilities at train stations. We carry out a national passenger survey twice a year. Our latest results show that only 53 per cent of passengers who use Scotland's rail network are satisfied with current park-and-ride provision, so such provision is an essential element of the proposals. Indeed, where possible, the number of available spaces at all station park-and-ride facilities should be increased and their security should be improved, so that passengers will be satisfied that their cars will be safe where they leave them and will be in one piece when they return. Many factors, including journey times, attract people to change their mode of transport.

Are the park-and-ride proposals adequate? Are you happy with the number of car parking places at each proposed station?

We are satisfied with the proposals for most of the proposed stations. We know that more than 300 spaces have been identified for Drumgelloch, for example, but we are concerned about the provision at Airdrie station, where it is proposed to increase the number of spaces from 150 to 166. Currently, the car park at Airdrie fills up—the Scottish planning assessment showed that all the spaces are taken during the morning peak. There might be transfer from Airdrie to Drumgelloch, but people might not drive up to Drumgelloch—they might simply drive all the way to their destination. The limited car parking at Airdrie station is therefore one of our major concerns.

We agree that a significant increase in car parking spaces is needed, particularly at stations with the most frequent services. Network Rail has produced a route utilisation strategy for Scotland—on which there will be consultation until the middle of November—which identifies a car parking issue. Several sites are now badly congested. I know that if I want to catch a train and get into a particular car park after 9 o'clock, it will be full. People park in surrounding streets, which annoys residents and might put people off parking altogether. Network Rail has suggested that, as well as considering multistorey car parking, which is expensive, people could consider peak pricing in car parks as part of packages.

There is another issue that members might have questions about. We suggest in our evidence that the bill tends to be preoccupied with providing extra parking spaces. However, one of the Executive's policy objectives is to improve social access. We are talking about an area in which a substantial number of people do not have access to a car or they live in households with only one car that one occupant drives away early, so other people in the household do not, in effect, have a car. In our evidence, we argue that it is important to organise good bus links to the stations from the day the line opens.

You have pre-empted my next question. I was going to ask whether the scheme will maximise for local communities the potential that exists for good integration of different forms of transport.

I must reply no to that, partly because legal difficulties are involved in rearranging bus services, although those difficulties are not insuperable. Indeed, the Executive is currently considering the issue as part of the national transport strategy. However, there have been too many examples of people taking the easy route of expanding station car parks while forgetting the real problems that face people who do not have a car.

I live in a town of about 7,000 people in Ayrshire, about 2 miles from a station. In the evening, many people run down to the station to pick people up, because the bus service is so infrequent. Others have to pay for taxis in addition to the cost of their journey. There is a real issue, which we would like you to mention in your final report on the bill, so that it can be addressed before the trains start operating. An amendment to the bill is not required, but action in other areas is required.

We recognise the legal difficulties with integrating bus and rail, but there should be a one-ticket solution on this line. There should be initiatives such as one timetable for the bus and rail and some facility whereby if a train is delayed for five minutes, the passengers do not get off the train only to see the bus leaving the car park, which happens in many places in Scotland just now. There has to be good walking access to stations and provision for cyclists—even though they might be only 1 or 2 per cent of passengers—such as storage lockers and cycle paths, as well as well-lit walkways, which will cater for passengers whichever way they access the stations.

I want to add a point about what integration means in practice. You are talking about integrating rail with other modes of transport, but in our evidence we draw to your attention the problem in the Monklands area, particularly in Coatbridge, where two rail lines cross but there is no physical interchange between them. We are not saying that the bill should be delayed until that is sorted out, but nothing should be done that would prejudice the creation of a good interchange between rail and rail in the Coatbridge area, as well as interchange with bus connections. That is an important issue, because integration applies within rail as well as between rail and other modes.

Our other concern is the possible impact of the extended policy for free bus travel for those aged over 60 and the disabled, which now applies everywhere in Scotland. Many people are looking for free local travel, which they do not have on rail. Has the extent to which the extension of free bus travel might reduce the potential usage of the Airdrie to Bathgate line been assessed? We would like the committee to recommend that the Government considers bringing certain rail services within the scope of the free travel scheme, as part of an integrated approach.

On peak-time pricing, you suggest that there are arguments—which do not fall within the remit of the committee—in relation to peak-time travel on the roads. You also refer to peak-time travel on the railway. You say that perhaps there could be peak prices in the car parks. Given that some people have no choice about when they travel, and that we are trying to get people from cars on to rail, would peak prices in car parks not be detrimental?

It depends on the package. If there were also peak pricing on road travel, I suspect that some people would prefer to use the car park, which would be cheaper to them overall. The other issue is fairness for those who do not have a car, who often have greater problems accessing work.

I accept that, but I was asking specifically about car parking. We are trying to get people to come to railway stations to join the train. Would higher car park prices not be detrimental?

On their own, with no change in road pricing, they would deter some people, but they might also make them shift to another car park that is not as congested and could be expanded more easily. It would not necessarily shift them back to using their car for the whole trip.

Mr Hart referred to Network Rail's route utilisation strategy, which is out for consultation. One of its options for consideration is car parking charges. As part of our response to that consultation, we are carrying out research with passengers who use the park-and-ride facilities, to test their sensitivity to car parking charges. We are concerned that if the charges are set at a high level, that might have the negative effect of taking people away from the rail network. That still has to be borne out by the evidence, but we will respond to Network Rail's consultation with the survey results.

What advantages does the proposed railway offer that improved bus services do not in increasing wider access to job markets, increasing inward investment and improving local economic performance? Would a better bus service not be able to deal with those issues?

Better bus services are as yet nowhere near offering the journey times that rail can offer, particularly for people who are within easy walking distance of a station or who can take their car and park there. That is one of the problems with buses, and those problems get worse in Glasgow and Edinburgh, where a lot of the job opportunities are.

There are busways in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but they still do not give the travel times that rail or, for that matter, the proposed tram in Edinburgh can give. That is a difficulty for buses. Bus services on the M8 could be improved and some of them could be allowed to make detours so that there is not just a Glasgow to Edinburgh express bus. West Lothian Council has considered that in the past. We are certainly not saying that there are no opportunities to help some people by improving the bus service.

I have been part of the central Scotland transport corridor study group, which continues under the name of DIG—the delivery issues group—a sub-group of which has been considering bus services. It is a pity that the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK was not able to come along today. The sub-group was involved with considering extended car parking at some points on the M8, where people could park their cars and move to the bus. However, that also involved the issue of connecting buses, where someone could get a local bus that had a guaranteed link to the express bus, in the same way as with trains.

There is the question of whether the buses could be allowed to run on the hard shoulder to help their journey times, but there have been long delays in getting any decision on that. There is a range of issues that do not affect a segregated railway.

The Scottish Association for Public Transport wants to see combinations of rail and bus with easy walking and cycling access. The total package must be examined. If attention is not paid to the package, there could be problems for people living in, for example, the Monklands area or the east side of Glasgow, who see work opportunities in Livingston that are not beside any of the present railway stations. It is critical that if we get the Airdrie to Bathgate service running—I hope that it is running a year earlier than the present target, rather than later—we provide good connections between Bathgate or Armadale and the employment centres. I am sure that people would use a guaranteed good link, especially if the ticketing did not involve a penalty compared with using a through bus. Robert Samson emphasised the point about through-ticketing.

In answer to earlier questions, you spoke about access. What would you like the promoter to do to improve and encourage sustainable access to stations for passengers?

There is mention of walking and cycle access, but our impression is that much more money is being allocated to improve the car parks. You might argue that we could expect contributions from councils or the new regional transport partnerships to improve the overall package.

There is a need to find more funding for improved bus feeder services, which might also be a question of partnership. A subsidised service could come into conflict with an existing one that is not subsidised. That is one of the issues that are being considered in the Scottish transport strategy, and it is also being considered on a UK basis.

Given your answer, would you support additional stations at Plains and Blackridge?

Our evidence focuses on the need for good connections to the proposed new stations and the relocated ones. We discussed that again in our committee, and we recognise that, particularly if it is difficult to develop the kind of bus feeders that are wanted, if there is a community right on the railway there might be a case for providing a halt there. That would have timetable implications. Early in our evidence, we say that we hope that the committee procedure can be completed more quickly than was originally intended, so that the project can move to contracts more quickly, the work can be done and the railway can open a year earlier. That would give the greatest benefit. After that, there is the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill, which should make it easier to consider whether to add an extra halt and where such a halt would be justified.

I came by car this morning, because it would have been difficult to get here on time from Ayrshire any other way. I came along the old route from Airdrie and passed through Blackridge. There is an opportunity for a halt, but we should get the line up and consider the possibilities after that. A halt would be better than having a bus feeder for people who live along the route.

If stations are not placed in Plains and Blackridge at the start, might it not be more difficult to argue for them in the future?

I do not think so. On the Ayrshire line from Glasgow, which is the one I normally use, a number of stations were shut after the Beeching report, but most of them are being reopened, albeit slightly relocated. One that opened recently is Howwood, which opened in association with some housing expansion—although not a huge amount of new housing—as a contribution from the housing developer. Unfortunately, because of track capacity constraints, Howwood has only an hourly service for most of the day which, although there is a car park at the station, means that some people take their cars to Johnstone station, which is badly overcrowded. It is a matter of going ahead at maximum speed to get the project up and running. Within two or three years there will be the possibility of adding more halts, which could be influenced by land-use plans and where housing is most wanted.

My local station in Lanarkshire is Shieldmuir, which Strathclyde Passenger Transport reopened a few years ago. The number of stations that have been reopened is into double figures, so it would be possible, once the line has been built, to have stations at Plains and Blackridge. The difficulty is that passenger numbers at Blackridge in particular are quite significant—in excess of 50,000 a year. That has to be balanced against what the design appraisal work says and whether the increase in journey time would have a negative impact and reduce overall passenger numbers. That would have to be considered carefully to determine the impact.

A balanced judgment has to be reached. We would like stations at Blackridge and Plains, but what delay would they cause to the project? What additional cost would they involve? What land acquisition and public consultation would they involve? I would have liked to be in a position to say that it is great that four new stations are being opened, but there are only two. I do not know whether the project budget will allow for an increase in the number of stations, but I recognise the difficulty for Blackridge and Plains, which will have all the pain of the line being built and will see trains hurtling by their windows but will have none of the gain. There are difficult decisions to be reached in relation to the overall budget and the increased time that extra stations might add to the project.

If the plan goes ahead with a view to opening the additional stations that people are arguing for at Blackridge and Plains in the future, will it mean that those stations will never be opened?

Over the years, we have been contacted by a number of organisations that want stations in their local communities, some of which have been successful. Such stations have to go through the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process. We know that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, which is giving evidence later today, has aspirations for a number of additional stations. With public support and with the support of the local authority, regional transport partnerships and train operators, such stations are possible.

I do not rule out the possibility of stations at Blackridge and Plains post-completion of the project. I would rather have been here today with all the stations in place, but we are not in that situation. I am trying not to sit on the fence when I say that, although we see the need for both stations, we are concerned about the overall impact that any delay would have on the project costs.

Will the promoter's passenger forecasts be reasonably accurate? Will the pattern of services and stops that is suggested be attractive to the people who are expected to use the proposed railway?

Experience has shown—particularly since the recent reopening of Bathgate and Larkhall stations—that patronage forecasts tend to be on the negative side. Larkhall is a success story with patronage of 34 per cent above the forecast. Services every 15 minutes on the proposed line should meet the needs of most passengers who transfer between the two cities and there will be a 30-minute service at other stations, as well as parking.

We are concerned about the western route from Airdrie and Drumgelloch into Glasgow. Many new passengers will travel from Bathgate to Glasgow and we know that services from Airdrie to Glasgow are busy during the morning peak. We wonder whether the rolling stock—the class 334s, which are the base case—will be sufficient. The class 320s that run the route currently have about 20 per cent more capacity than the 334s. Is a six-car formation big enough or should it be increased to seven, eight or nine cars? We also have concerns about potential overcrowding on evening trains from Glasgow Queen Street to Armadale, Airdrie and Drumgelloch.

It is important to have a range of forecasts, because they are influenced by the assumptions that one makes about road pricing, for example, and whether there are a lot of new developments in the surrounding areas. We are confident that use of the proposed line would range from good to very good.

That leads us on to the question whether existing passengers on other routes would be affected by worse overcrowding, because the trains would run on to those routes at both ends of the line. The forecast ties in with thinking about train capacity and reliability. We might need to consider using longer or additional trains from Airdrie into Glasgow, a route that could create a greater overcrowding problem. We must also remember the Executive's target, which is that no one should be forced to stand for more than 10 minutes, although it has not set a date by which that target should be achieved. We think that it is overambitious because when people travel shorter distances, we often find that they are happy to stand even when seats are available. Rolling stock can be designed to have good standing room. We certainly do not want people to have to stand regularly for more than 15 minutes, which is a bit of a relaxation of the Scottish Executive target. Our figure, together with a 2010 delivery date, is more realistic.

Rail passenger growth in Scotland has been much higher in the past five years than road traffic growth. That brings nearer problems of overcrowding and capacity pinch points that we need to address or we will not be able to accommodate the forecasts that we would like. This month's Modern Railways magazine has an article—I was unable to make photocopies of it—on Transport Scotland's plans for improving rolling stock capacity and introducing longer trains. The article says that we can expect fairly imminent decisions from Transport Scotland on how to expand capacity. That needs to be tied in with new lines coming on stream and with the evidence on the growth in usage of existing lines. We badly need orders for more rolling stock because it is at least three years before it is delivered. That article is in the September issue of Modern Railways, a photocopy of which I can provide for the committee.

I want to tie in that issue with Cathy Peattie's question about stations at Plains and Blackridge. There is a tension between the number of places that the service will stop at and the overall journey time, which depends on the kind of passenger that we want to attract on to the railway. Is the line for people who want to travel from somewhere to the west of Glasgow right through to Edinburgh, or is it for people who want to make shorter journeys?

Mr Samson was right to say that when it came to whether we should have stations at Plains and Blackridge, his evidence sat on the fence. I notice that the SAPT is suggesting that we should try not to prejudice future stations at Newbridge and Boghall. How many stations can we put on the line before it becomes totally unattractive to people who want to make substantial journeys on it?

We tried to make that clear in our evidence. We said that we regarded the route as regional rather than national. It was not designed to take people quickly from Edinburgh to Glasgow. There are many people who want to travel quickly between those two cities, but it is not the intention to abstract them on to the Airdrie to Bathgate line. There are separate plans for improving journey times between Edinburgh and Glasgow, such as the proposal to construct new sections of high speed rail line or the more immediate solution of improving the Shotts route to provide a fast service between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh. Such a service is lacking just now, even though the route serves significant areas of population around Hamilton, Ravenscraig, Motherwell and Livingston. We would want those plans, which would ease the pressure on the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line, to go ahead at the same time as the Airdrie to Bathgate line.

We view the Bathgate line as serving the intermediate traffic. Because we do not consider it to be the fast route between Edinburgh and Glasgow—it has never been viewed in that way by any of the consultants—opportunities exist, in time, to think about putting more stations on it. However, there is a need to balance that against the extent to which progress can be made by having really good connections to key stations from fairly small communities.

Ultimately, it is possible to have separate local and faster services, but that creates considerable timetable and cost problems. I view the Airdrie to Bathgate route as being for local to regional traffic rather than as the main link between Edinburgh and Glasgow. That makes it easier to think about putting more stations on it in time.

The Newbridge proposal is considered because of an assumption that significant employment—as opposed to housing—opportunities will develop in that part of the country. Alasdair Morgan mentioned the possibility of a station at Boghall, which has been considered. There are car-parking opportunities there and it would be possible to create frequent bus connections into the employment centres in Livingston. People would be able to make the link from Boghall more quickly than they could from Bathgate. At no point are we talking about having stations every mile or every half mile.

I have another point about journey times between Edinburgh and Glasgow on what some people would term the flagship service on the main line. I believe that when a 30-minute frequency of service was introduced in the early 1970s, the journey time was 40 or 41 minutes. Today it is 50 minutes. That is because of the demand on intermediate traffic at places such as Croy and Falkirk. As a result of the need for more stops and the desire of people in local communities to access the job markets in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the service now takes 50 minutes. That shows that the situation that is affecting the Airdrie to Bathgate proposals has arisen in the past.

Network Rail has suggested that there will be a significant level of abstraction of passengers from the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk service on to the Airdrie to Bathgate line, particularly of people who travel to Edinburgh from outside Glasgow. It is said that they might find it easier to change at the low level in Glasgow Queen Street or to stay on the train that they are on and continue through to Edinburgh that way. I think that the figure was 10 per cent. Are you implying that you are a bit sceptical about that?

I have not seen the detailed breakdown of where the abstraction is likely to come from, as distinct from traffic that is generated more locally or shifted from bus or car. I would stick by the view that I do not think that this route will take a significant amount of Edinburgh to Glasgow traffic. There is a suggestion that the trains would run through to Balloch and Helensburgh. Some people would do that but most people would be quicker changing at Queen Street station. Too much through-running might create viability problems. We suggest that the trains should perhaps not run as far as Helensburgh and Balloch. I would be interested to hear the views of Network Rail on that.

Network Rail's consultation document on route utilisation refers to the Airdrie to Bathgate line but it also refers to the introduction of a half-hourly express service between Glasgow Central station's high level and Edinburgh via Shotts, which would offer an attractive journey time and have fewer stops than the present service. That would abstract to a greater extent from the Edinburgh-Falkirk-Glasgow route than the Airdrie to Bathgate line would and would help to ease the severe overcrowding problem that exists on the trains on the Falkirk line, which go into a station that has quite a short platform length.

You talked about the need for longer trains but am I right in thinking that the platforms on this extension will be suitable only for two or three-car sets?

Yes.

Do you think that that might be regretted fairly quickly? Can you imagine a time when nine cars might run the whole length of the line?

I think that that would be unlikely. I would like to reserve a final judgment until I see more of the timetabling work that is going on. The service that is being proposed—four trains an hour—is quite frequent. You could ease the situation by providing more trains from Airdrie into and through Glasgow in the morning and evening peaks. That could delay the need to lengthen the platforms—bearing it in mind that it is not only those on the route that would have to be lengthened, but those west of Airdrie.

Is the line capacity sufficient to cope with those extra trains from Airdrie to Glasgow, given that there would already be four trains an hour?

I think that the line between Airdrie and the Bellgrove area has sufficient capacity. The big issue is to do with how many trains are going on to Queen Street station's low level. However, that gets us involved in another issue that is not for the bill, which is the development of a crossrail service in Glasgow on to which trains could divert over what used to be the St Enoch bridge.

There are a number of stations between Airdrie and Glasgow that are currently on the 15-minute service. Is there room in the timetables to put some of those stations on to a half-hourly service? Would that help the situation and allow additional stations to be accommodated on the Airdrie to Bathgate route?

I would certainly want that to be considered as part of the timetabling exercise. We have one fairly firm plan for an extra station between Airdrie and Glasgow, at Parkhead. We could consider the skip-stop pattern, whereby not every train would stop at every station.

You could consider having a skip-stop service from Airdrie to Glasgow. However, you should bear in mind the fact that the suburban network in Glasgow has been a success as well and that passenger numbers on that are growing year on year. The knock-on effect on SPT travellers going into Glasgow of such a skip-stop service must be considered carefully and balanced with a consideration of the new stations at Plains and Blackridge.

Given your caveats about capacity on the western approach, what do you think would be an accurate growth forecast for this line?

I would be reluctant to say that there could ever be an accurate growth forecast. There is a range of forecasts, from quite high to considerably higher than that. The route is one of the best in Scotland to reopen in terms of patronage. It serves a good corridor, where there is growing employment at both ends. It is desirable to promote access to that—and that also brings in the Executive's social inclusion agenda. There are good prospects for growth along this corridor.

I, too, would hate to state a figure. Those that we have received from Network Rail at the meetings that we have had with it suggest that the patronage figures will be among the best for the reopenings that have been taking place in Scotland around this time.

You might have seen some of the evidence from last week, when we were discussing the capital and revenue costs. Do you have any comments or concerns about the projected costs, both capital and operating?

There is a small section in our written evidence about that. There were earlier estimates in the central Scotland transport corridor study, which was the originator of the proposal before us. At one point it was stated that, provided the capital costs of the infrastructure were covered, the line could show an operating surplus, which could contribute towards its financing. Since then, the estimates have been modified a bit. The capital costs are higher than they were in the original estimate. That is a feature of nearly every scheme, however.

Along with Transport Scotland and Network Rail, we are now making progress to control costs. Some of the increase is simply down to forgetting the fact that forecasts are made on a different basis in different years, with allowances for inflation. The change is not as big as it looks. The Treasury has been looking for quite a big optimism bias, which I sometimes treat as being a pessimism bias—it thinks that the costs will be higher. In fact, there is now a better prospect that we will not need to use up the extra allowance. The money could then be used to speed up other schemes. We are not too concerned about the capital costs.

Some of the money that ScotRail gets in its franchise effectively goes back to Network Rail to cover infrastructure costs. I have not been able to get it clear in my mind whether—if we assume that the infrastructure costs are covered—the line is expected to cover its operating costs from income. If it does not do so, it will at least be closer to doing so than any of the other lines that have recently been reopened. The Larkhall line came in on budget eventually. It took a long time to get it off the ground, but it showed evidence of costs being controlled.

I do not have a great deal to add to that. At meetings with Network Rail, we have been reassured that the capital costs are adequate. We hope that the project comes in on budget and on time. If there is any delay to the project, however, that might add to its costs.

I thank Mr Samson and Mr Hart for coming along and for their advice and comments.

I invite Councillor Imrie and Mr Haugen from the south-east Scotland transport partnership to the table. Welcome gentlemen—I am glad you managed to get here. We will move straight to questions with a couple from me.

How well does the proposed railway fit with SESTRAN's regional transport strategy objectives? Is there anything that the promoter must improve to make the scheme a success?

Thank you, convener, and I would like to offer the committee a sincere apology—I tried to get into the Parliament but I have been blocked again.

But to be serious, the question was on the regional transport strategy, which we are working on just now. The Airdrie to Bathgate line will play a pivotal role in the integration of rail services within our transport strategy. In our written evidence to the committee, we said that having a station at Blackridge—if that was possible—should be considered. We are not on the fence, but are coming over to one side. The rationale for that comes from consideration of the social inclusion agenda, from which Blackridge could benefit. Car patronage in Blackridge is low. The railway would give people opportunities for economic participation and would also give them access to health services and education, whether tertiary or secondary. We therefore regard the line as an important part of what we are trying to do as a regional transport partnership.

I agree with Councillor Imrie. Our objectives had already been approved by the partnership as we arrive at the strategy that we are working on. This rail scheme meets all our objectives to do with the economy, accessibility, the environment, and health and safety.

The second part of your question was whether anything could be added to make the scheme an even greater success. I would mention the possibility of linking the service from Glasgow to Edinburgh with the North Berwick service. Both those services are electrified, so there could be a genuine crossrail service for Edinburgh, just as Glasgow presently enjoys. Linking the services could link the tremendous population growth in East Lothian with the increasing employment centres of west Edinburgh and Livingston. That should be considered as an addition to the present proposal. However, make no mistake; we very much support the present proposal.

If the scheme were to be extended through to North Berwick, would that not have a considerable effect on timetables, and would that not work against the arguments for a station at Blackridge?

Extending the scheme would increase the number of stations that would be served—from Helensburgh and Balloch through to North Berwick. There are ways to remedy any effect on timetables. At present, the Motherwell, Larkhall and Lanark services, which go through Glasgow, terminate at Dalmuir. There is no reason not to consider terminating the North Berwick service at Dalmuir as well, and then extending some of the other services to serve Helensburgh and Balloch. If that happened, no one's service would be reduced, but the number of stations to be served would be more manageable.

Is there not a great danger of increasing the unreliability of the service if you extend it through to North Berwick? Any delays in getting on to the east coast main line would have a knock-on effect all the way through to Glasgow.

I think that I am right in saying that Network Rail, in its route utilisation strategy, is talking about stopping a service that goes through Newcraighall in Edinburgh and having a different service carrying on. That would be done to increase reliability.

At present, the Newcraighall through service really has to be terminated, because it is not electric. Also, the scheduling at Newcraighall is not very clear—it is part Bathgate service and part Dunblane service—and it is not a genuine crossrail service that people can rely on.

You are right to suggest that the more stations you add and the more distance you cover, the greater the chance of disruption. However, on the other hand, Edinburgh Waverley station is under tremendous pressure, and the more trains you terminate at Waverley, the more capacity you use there. Running services through Waverley should ease the pressure, which might allow it to accommodate other terminating trains.

The committee has quite a bit to consider, but North Berwick is not really part of our considerations. The issue was raised and we were tempted into the trap.

An issue that is part of the committee's considerations is Blackridge. Councillor Imrie, you have made a plea for us to tackle the problems that are currently faced there. Given the longitudinal spread at Blackridge and that much of the argument for a station there is based on proposed new build, would having a station at Blackridge tackle the social issues to which you referred if there were adequate bus services to Armadale?

I will deal with the point about bus services first. As you well know, all the regional transport partnerships have been asked to deliver regional transport strategies to the Minister for Transport—by next March, I think. One of the aspects that our consultants are considering as part of that process is passenger usage of trains and buses. It is enlightening—it certainly surprised me—that for short journeys, people who do not have access to cars tend to use the bus, whereas, for longer journeys, people tend to use the train. We have an opportunity for the proposal for Blackridge to be considered. As our written evidence states and as we have said today, we should at least consider an additional rail station. We are not going to die in a ditch over the issue, but the station should be considered, given all the benefits that it would bring to the community.

As the convener mentioned, West Lothian Council's development plan contains opportunities for an awful lot of new build in the area. If we are planning for the future and trying to get people out of their cars and on to some form of public transport, the station should be put in from the outset. Who knows whether a station will be built, but if it is, it should be included from the outset, because the public tend to use facilities that are there and it is more difficult later on to move them from what they have become used to on to another form of transport. That is why we have said that the proposal should be considered and, dare I say it, costed.

You mentioned getting people out of their cars. Will the railway make a noticeable contribution to the reduction of congestion on the roads?

It will be an alternative to the existing options. People who tend to go by public transport try to go with the fewest changes possible, because, whether we like it or not, as soon as changes are introduced, people tend to think that it is just as easy to use the car, because, even through congestion, they can still get from A to B without changing. If there was a station at Blackridge, people would be able to get on the line and go east or west to do whatever they have to do, whether that is to do with employment, health or education. That is a real opportunity to make people think before they do. Students, because of their financial situation, tend to use public transport. Therefore, if the links were available, they would be able to make choices about where they went for their education, which we think is important.

How will the railway maximise accessibility for communities and maximise the potential for integration with other modes of transport?

At the moment, the bus service that connects with Bathgate station, certainly in the SESTRAN area, is first class. However, no matter whether we are talking about people coming into Bathgate on the bus to catch an eastbound or westbound train, or about people getting off the train at Bathgate to travel on to their place of work or a place of leisure, we must ensure that services are integrated and accessible.

I am not going to pretend that we will manage to get every single person out of his or her car, but we will need the kind of park-and-ride facilities that have been successful all along the existing route and which allow car drivers to use public transport for at least part of their journeys. Such opportunities will be available at the stations along the line. After all, it is reckoned that people who live within 500m of a train station are likely to use it; if they live within 1,000m, that prospect might be iffy; and if they live further away than that, there might need to be—dare I say it—a bus service that would pick them up from a car park and take them to the train station. When people get to Edinburgh, there are bus interchanges at Haymarket and Waverley stations. The two modes of public transport already gel very well.

We see a tremendous opportunity to increase accessibility to employment, education—university education, in particular—and leisure from places in North Lanarkshire to Edinburgh and from West Lothian to Glasgow.

What advantage will the proposed railway have over an improved bus service in increasing access to job markets, increasing inward investment or improving the local economy? Would a better bus service have the same effect?

In preparing the regional strategy, consultants carried out a lot of research into the best market for buses and rail. There is no doubt that buses can be competitive up to a distance of 10 miles, but the sad fact is that, beyond that, their competitiveness tails off. In the SESTRAN area, very few bus services that cover a distance of more than 10 miles capture a significant part of the market. With rail, the longer the journey, the more of the market it captures. The bus is not a real alternative for journeys from West Lothian into Glasgow and from North Lanarkshire into Edinburgh. Such a service might well be attractive for people who live next to a bus stop, but over such distances, rail definitely beats the bus and is also the only mode of transport that will allow us to make a serious attempt at getting people out of their cars.

How will the railway impact on local bus services? Will communities in the railway corridor have better services?

The journeys that will be generated on the railway will be new ones or will be a result of people deciding not to use their cars. Given the current length of journey times, relatively few journeys are taken from North Lanarkshire into Edinburgh or from West Lothian into Glasgow. I cannot deny that some express bus services will be affected, but those services are closer to rail services and do not pick up many people anyway. Again, the sad fact is that people would rather use the train than use the bus.

The annual cost of the project includes a figure of up to £1 million that Network Rail will put into bus services. How should that money be spent? Previous witnesses have pointed out difficulties in cross-border arrangements between North Lanarkshire and West Lothian. Should a proper integrated service be provided by SPT or through a partnership, or should it be contracted out separately by the operators of the railway? After all, the promoters will provide a substantial sum of money to bring that about.

It is quite a set picture for investment and integration. Investment in railways is now part of Transport Scotland's remit, so it is important that all the partnerships and local authorities have close relationships with it. When we talk about integration, we obviously mean other modes integrating with railways rather than railways integrating with them. Railways are the top level, so to speak, and are not as flexible as other modes. Essentially, the rail pattern is set and other modes must integrate with it as much as possible. That is where regional partnerships and local authorities have a significant role.

My great belief is that we have a real opportunity through the railway service being prepared to invest money in a bus service. It may be that legislation already passed by the Scottish Parliament could be utilised, by way of a quality partnership or, if it came to it, a quality contract—that extra step might be necessary.

If we are trying to get people to make a step change in their choice between taking the car and going by public transport, there is an important opportunity presented by a linking bus service. If there is a dedicated bus service—it is perhaps better to call it that—that feeds into the railway stations, people will be prepared to jump on the bus and then use the train.

If money is to be made available, it should be used wisely. There is an opportunity through existing legislation, so we should have another look to see whether we can use it. It might be that the quality contract is the best route to go down because it would tie people in for a time.

In our area, we have been utilising an integrated ticketing scheme. That has been used only on buses thus far, and I have to say that it has been difficult to get different operators involved, but it has happened. The scheme will be extended to trains later this year so that users can buy a ticket that will take them on the bus, perhaps for the first or last part of the journey, and the train. That will mean that they will not have to buy a bus ticket for bus usage and a train ticket for train usage. There is an opportunity to build on that and, with the money that is coming in, to progress integration.

Following that, have you had dialogue with the promoter about transport modes to and from the proposed stations? I am interested in what you said about use of the money that has been allocated for bus use.

We have not had any such contact; indeed, I thank the committee for asking SESTRAN for a view. First you asked for written evidence, and now you are giving us the opportunity to give evidence. When the promoter initiated the bill, we were among the organisations that were not invited to the party, which was a lost opportunity.

We have not thus far taken the opportunity to speak to the operator, but as a transportation partnership, we would be delighted to talk to it about the best way to develop integration. It is clearly a sensible idea, and it covers all of what we as—dare I say it?—politicians and as the public are doing to make people shift from the private car to public transport. We will take that suggestion up. We have not done that thus far—the reason why is that we were not included at the beginning of the journey.

I am sure that the promoter is listening to your comments today.

We heard earlier about improving access to stations—sustainable access for passengers is obviously important. What are your views on how that can be improved?

We have worked closely with West Lothian Council and we conducted a major study last year on how to improve integration of services throughout the SESTRAN area. We are now putting money into buying up land at Uphall for car parking and parking for other modes, such as cycling. I am sure that the strategy will include other elements that will be necessary as the bill progresses, so we can add to the scheme to the benefit of everyone through improved access at stations.

You have talked about and mentioned in your submission your support for a station at Blackridge. I know that it does not fall within your catchment area, but in respect of the strategic position of the line, a station at Plains has been called for in evidence. What is your view on that?

We know less about Plains than we do about Blackridge, but I accept that the arguments about social inclusion and accessibility are similar, so we cannot say that only Blackridge should be considered. I am sure that arguments apply on the other side, too.

Do you go along with the passenger numbers that the promoter projects? How would usage be split between shorter and longer journeys over the line's length?

I admit that I am not fully aware of the total projection, but there is no doubt that, as has been said, passengers will be intermediate passengers—they will not travel from Edinburgh to Glasgow on the line, because the journey time will not compete with that of the main line. There is no doubt that the mainstay of passenger numbers will be journeys from West Lothian to Glasgow and from North Lanarkshire to Edinburgh.

Will the pattern of stops and timings between stations be attractive to the people whom you expect to use the service? I notice that in paragraph 3.11 of your submission you talk about potential to reduce the overall journey time by missing out a lot of stops between Airdrie and Queen Street station.

The density of stops between Airdrie and Queen Street station is quite high and passenger numbers at some stations on that section are not as high as those at other stations, as would be expected. Given that, there should be room to speed up and to take out some of the stops between Airdrie and Queen Street station, which would make the journey time from West Lothian and from Edinburgh to Glasgow more attractive to car users particularly, to encourage them out of their cars.

Do you really think that your opposite numbers in the west will, in order to speed up the journey for your people, cut out stops that they operate and clearly think are desirable?

At present, Airdrie to Helensburgh and Balloch is a local service, so it is expected to stop frequently. However, the new service will be a regional service—it could be argued that it will be an interregional service—so consideration must be given to speeding it up. The suggestion is not that no stops should be made at those stations, but that some stations might not require four stops an hour, which is quite a generous amount in Scottish terms. Some stations' having only two stops an hour would not be a major reduction. Consideration should also be given to reinstating additional local services to Airdrie just to serve the local market. I cannot comment on the capacity of that line, because signalling and other matters would come into the picture.

Such a move would affect the scheme's economics, because we would be talking about running many extra trains, even if we assumed that the capacity existed, which I suspect it does not towards central Glasgow. At present, four services an hour are, in effect, to be extended to Edinburgh. You are talking about having those four trains an hour plus four express trains, which would be a lot of extra trains.

Some sections of the Glasgow suburban network have up to 16 trains per hour, so such capacity is not unheard of, but obviously signalling plays a major role in capacity. It should be noted that Armadale and Caldercruix will get two trains per hour, so it is not the case that there must be four trains per hour throughout the route. The principle has been set that some stations should get only two trains per hour.

We are aware that we have to be careful because we are trying to attract new passengers. Part of the rationale for the project is to encourage people to use alternative means of transport. However, if we make the journey time from one end to the other too long, we will not get people to make that change. We need to strike the right balance between a regular service and an intermediate service. A lot more work needs to be done on the number of passengers who will use the service and on the stations at which it is appropriate for trains to stop. There is a fine balance. If we increase the journey time past a certain level, we will not achieve the modal shift.

Is the implication of your evidence that we are in danger of reaching that level? Do you think that journey times will be too long?

I mentioned the proposal for a station at Blackridge. We should consider that and ask what the benefits would be, but we have to remember that, if everybody gets a station, we will never get people using the service. That is the difficulty. We have to strike the right balance and ensure that the end-to-end journey times are suitable. For example, the project might get me out of my car, but would I end up spending longer on the train than I would spend if I went by car? I use myself as an example because if I do not use the service, I do not think that anybody else will. We have to be careful that we get the journey times spot on.

I have one final question about costs. I asked the previous panel the same question. Last week, the minister mentioned the capital costs of £299.7 million. That is the Executive's contribution and, essentially, that is where the funding stops. I acknowledge that the promoter has not contacted you, but does SESTRAN—

We do not have a blank cheque.

Do you have any concerns about the forecast capital costs, given the experience of other projects?

I am happy to say that I concur with Mr Hart. The estimates are more robust than they were in the past. With the inclusion of an optimism bias of 44 per cent, it is now easier to trust the forecasts. I am confident that the estimates are realistic.

I thank Councillor Imrie and Mr Haugen for coming along and making their comments. I am sure that, on another occasion, the promoter will remember that you exist.

I welcome Mr Malcolm and Mr Mitchell from West Lothian Council and Mr McDove, Mr Baxter and Mr Mackay from North Lanarkshire Council and invite them to take their places at the table. Some—perhaps not all—of you have been here before. We will move straight to questions.

What improvements will the railway bring to evening bus services and timetabling? We have talked quite a lot over the past few weeks about how bus services will be improved to link to the train service. How will that benefit communities?

The introduction of the rail service will encourage bus operators to provide additional evening facilities. Bus services are currently rather thin on the ground in the evening and in some areas are almost non-existent. They depend on a subsidy from the local authority—the council funds almost all the evening services in West Lothian—which will continue, but train passengers will want to catch connecting bus services. That should enable the bus operators to get more revenue, which may make some services expand and operate at a profit rather than at a loss.

The local authority will still be able to subsidise evening bus services, which would encourage people to use the train service. It would work both ways.

Our funding is fully controlled. We spend £1.442 million subsidising bus services in West Lothian and no more money is available to subsidise additional services. Therefore, the introduction of the railway will require additional patronage to enable services to run. On our current funding, we cannot fund evening bus services in addition to what we run now.

Do you think that the bus service that you currently run is adequate for the needs of the proposed rail service?

I believe that the bus service will need to be better, given the number of trains that is being talked about. The service is what we can afford to run in the evening. Most services run hourly, although some are slightly better and some are slightly worse. Improvements in the service would be required when the trains are running, but the funding to provide such improvements is not necessarily available from the council.

In North Lanarkshire Council, SPT provides the subsidised services. The council's rural transport grants and other grants are given to SPT, which determines the level of subsidy and decides which routes will be subsidised. The council also has proposals for community planning projects in relation to bus services, but those are aimed at specifically targeted groups. We would therefore ask SPT to answer that question on our behalf.

In general, I reiterate what the representative from West Lothian Council said. The evening bus service in North Lanarkshire is very poor. People have different work patterns and might have to work longer hours so there should be better services in the evening, particularly in the early part of the evening, to enable people to gain access to employment. Many service proposals go before SPT—some are approved and some are not. We must recognise the amount of funding that is available for subsidised services.

I think that the rail network will generate bus use. As I said at the previous meeting, I hope that that will be on feeder routes, which for us means north-south movements in our communities towards the railway line. It will be a challenge for SPT to provide additional subsidy. The question whether the railway line will generate additional traffic is yet to be tested, but additional requirements might be placed on the subsidy. The figure of £1 million has been mentioned for connecting bus services, but if that figure is divided by the number of stations, it quickly starts to diminish. Someone mentioned a service exclusively for the railway line, but £1 million might not be enough to meet that challenge.

What is your view of the cycle and car parking facilities that are proposed at the various stations?

The bill promotes a significant increase in the current car parking provision at stations in West Lothian. Obviously, Armadale station will be a new station, but the bill provides for close to 200 spaces, which we feel is a good starting point. At Armadale, we will also have the opportunity, through core development area sites, to secure more parking. We envisage such parking being provided to the south of the tracks.

The bill provides for a significant increase in parking at Bathgate, where parking is currently at capacity. We will see increased patronage for Bathgate and we feel that the promoter has made a very good effort at increasing parking in the area.

The council has recently increased parking at Livingston North station by more than 200 spaces, as part of the public transport fund scheme. There will be no real further increase at Livingston North, but we hope that what we have put in recently will see us through the bill.

At Uphall, the promoter has applied for approximately 150 spaces to the north of the existing railway station. We feel that that is a particularly important site on which to start parking. It is a future park-and-ride site where the transfer of traffic from the M8 will become quite visible through time. Councillor Imrie referred to SESTRAN—we hope that we will be able to include the Uphall parking as a SESTRAN scheme and to work with the council in the future to expand it. However, as a starting point, 150 spaces is about right.

The second part of the question was about links for pedestrians and cyclists. From the start of the promotion of the bill, it has been recognised that the main thing is to secure the railway line and that other things can be done once that main provision is in place. That is certainly the case at the new Armadale station where there is not, as the committee has discussed, very much in the proposed station's vicinity, so cycle links and footpaths are rather limited. However, once again, through core development area sites, the networks that come from the layout of the housing will be strengthened. When it is talking to the developers, the council will be mindful of making that important link to the station. We at Armadale are optimistic about the provision for cycle links.

Bathgate station is in the centre of the town and has good footways. The bill provides for the alterations that will be required to secure the main links there. Not much will be required at Livingston North because it is well served by pedestrian and cycle links. Uphall has good links from the Broxburn area in the north up through Pumpherston. Uphall station also serves the industrial areas to the east of Livingston, particularly Houston industrial estate, and what is known locally as the railway path makes a key strategic link to Uphall station. On the whole, footpaths and cycle links to the stations are pretty well served by the bill.

From the North Lanarkshire point of view, there are two parking issues, although we have recently made good progress in respect of the problem at Airdrie. The model identified that 110 spaces would be required in Airdrie; that requirement was diluted slightly when the multistorey car park option was proposed, but the option was then dropped because of cost. I recognise that that was a high-cost solution and that at-ground parking, if it could be provided, would be a better and more cost-effective solution.

Network Rail had a meeting with our chief executive and confirmed that the proposals that it has for introducing parking in the siding would bring the total car parking for Airdrie up to what was previously proposed for a multistorey car park. That is good progress as far as we are concerned, and represents a positive move on Network Rail's part.

Members have visited the station at Airdrie and they know that the current situation is not good. We have parking surveys, which we can give to you, that show that the car park is at 85 per cent saturation by 8 o'clock. By half past 8, the car park is full. That can also be seen in other town-centre car parks. The Aldi car park quickly becomes full. A unit there has been vacant for five years now and the developers found it difficult to get an occupant, and they have now gone for bowling use for outwith shopping time. Hopefully that will get developed.

There are other opportunities in Airdrie. The Government has just released more money to us for a schools replacement programme, so it is likely that land will become available very near the station at Alexandra primary school. On Friday, we got a letter from Transport Scotland, agreeing that it would accept in principle a bid from the council to provide additional parking at the station. Network Rail's contribution and Transport Scotland's indication that it would speak to us favourably about additional parking are positive moves, which we ask the committee to take on board.

The other parking issue concerns the stations to the west of Airdrie, at which there are already considerable parking problems. SPT is doing a park-and-ride survey at the moment. We would like improved park-and-ride facilities at the stations to the west of Airdrie. North Lanarkshire Council and SPT hope to work together to provide that parking. That is not covered by the bill, but the council will have to provide that in the future.

The council gets about £600,000 a year from the Executive for cycling, walking and safer streets. We would use part of that money, perhaps £100,000 a year, for investment to provide safer walking and cycling routes to the stations. The Plains housing development already has cycle links to the older housing area. If the line goes ahead, as we very much hope it will, we would like to examine proposals to improve cycling and walking links.

David McDove has been working on the Gartcosh interchange recently and, to give you an idea of the type of work that we have done, he can tell you about the cost of bus subsidies and the cycling infrastructure that has been put in place along the route.

Before Mr McDove does that, can you clarify how many spaces are now included under the current proposal for Airdrie station? How is that different from the previous proposal?

The original proposal was for an additional 16 spaces. There will now be about 50 additional spaces. That will bring the total up to nearly 200, which is the number of spaces that were going to be provided in the multistorey car park. That additional 50 spaces compares with the additional 110 spaces that the model originally showed. It is a good step forward, however. There is also the possibility of space at Alexandra primary school coming into play. There is a further small section of land that the council owns, which could help to push the figure up. I am a lot more confident that we can get—

So talks are continuing about the possibility of the figure being higher.

The cycling and walking routes are generally quite good in the immediate environs of the new stations, following our discussions to date. It will probably fall to the council to provide anything beyond that, along with any related developments.

Gartcosh station has been mentioned. It was opened last year as a multimodal transport interchange. We put in place temporary and permanent bus facilities as well as a park and ride. A temporary bus route development grant is currently in place to extend one of the existing services to feed Gartcosh station. In addition, we included cycling and walking links as part of the contract, and we are currently extending some of those links further out. The process is evolving. We will react to new housing developments using the moneys that have been referred to, namely the Executive's cycling, walking, safer streets budget, the safe routes to schools budget and the home zones budget.

I return to Ms Hughes's first question about evening bus services, concentrating on North Lanarkshire. There has been discussion about Plains station—or the lack of it. Last week, we heard an impassioned speech from the local councillor, explaining the local circumstances. It seems to me that if the railway line goes ahead, it is essential for the people of Plains to have evening bus services—if, indeed, a station at Plains is not provided for. What are your views on that?

I back up what was said. The best option would be to get the station at Plains. You will appreciate that there are difficult decisions to make on overall patronage levels. We see the railway line going ahead as the top priority. If Plains does not get a station and the bus service is not commercially viable, the bus service would have to be subsidised so that it operated during the evening to allow the people of Plains to access the employment and leisure benefits of the railway. It will take a lot of money to make the jump from the existing, very poor situation to having, as Network Rail said, a reliable service.

David McDove mentioned the bus subsidy grant that is being given to Gartcosh, which is £100,000. We estimate that it might cost £120,000 to provide a reliable service that runs in the evening. If each station is looking for that amount of money, the proposed £1 million will dissipate fairly quickly. We need assurances that funding will be made available to SPT to provide additional subsidy for services. That is the way in which we could secure a bus service in the evening. I do not think that the existing ring-and-ride service—or dial a bus—provides a good enough opportunity for people to access employment. People have to book the service the day before and they will not get it if someone else has booked it. Therefore, how can people rely on it to get to regular employment? If Plains does not get a station, some significant subsidy will have to be put in place to provide a better evening bus service.

The £100,000 for Gartcosh is this year's figure out of a decreasing amount of about £225,000. The concern is that there is only three-year funding to provide a four-year service. There are quality contracts and quality partnerships for the bus, but implementing them has involved a lot of difficulty. Again, the issue is the long-term guarantee.

In North Lanarkshire, there are 37 or 38 bus operators, which makes it difficult to tie things down and get longevity in the services. The concern is how we guarantee evening and weekend services for outlying communities as well as for Plains.

Has either council applied for a bus route development grant to provide or safeguard bus routes to the proposed stations?

West Lothian Council has not made a route development grant bid for any of the station sites because the line is not due to open for several years. We think that it is unnecessary at the moment to bid for funding that we could not tap into for many years.

We currently have a service from Blackridge to Livingston that comes under the route development grant. When the line opens, it is our intention to look to that source of funding to ensure that links are available to the new Armadale station.

I must stress the short-term arrangement of the route development grant. Funding lasts for four years, after which the bus operator can decide what to do, including whether the service is commercial to run. It certainly would not be commercial to run a service 18 or 19 hours a day. We will be looking for a route development grant nearer the time.

We can give similar assurances. In partnership with SPT, we are looking to subsidise services and apply for start-up grants. However, I add the caveat that we are concerned about the short-term nature of such grants.

What impact will the railway have on existing bus services, both those that are local and those that go to the main cities? What will each local authority do to guarantee not just that there will be no reduction in existing bus services but that there will be notable enhancements of and improvements to those services, particularly to encourage people to use the proposed stations?

I believe that the opening of the railway will affect the remaining express bus services that run from West Lothian into Edinburgh. It is worth noting that there are now just five direct buses a day from Bathgate and Armadale into Edinburgh, which go on the motorway. The effect of the railway from Edinburgh to Bathgate is that the market share has gone from bus to train. I think that the five remaining journeys will probably be under threat.

I am reasonably confident that the railway will not have a direct effect on the local bus network. As other speakers have said, bus travel is fine for short distances, and there will continue to be a demand for short journeys throughout West Lothian. For example, I believe that the Blackridge to Livingston route will continue to prosper. However, the bus fails in relation to the train when it comes to longer journeys. That is why, as I said, I expect the bus service to Edinburgh to suffer.

In North Lanarkshire, that situation applies between Airdrie and Glasgow, where the rail and the bus services already compete. We do not foresee any changes to that. As members are aware, there are no bus services between North Lanarkshire and the east, so there will be no diminution of service in that regard.

What plans do the local authorities have to serve the local villages? Obviously, there has been a strong lobby in relation to Blackridge and Plains, but other local villages will have no station. What plans are afoot to enable local people to access the stations that are closest to them?

Some of the places that we are discussing are served by commercial bus services. Four buses an hour pass through Armadale, for example. Realistically, funding will be required from some authority to enable communities that do not have a service at the moment to get to Armadale. West Lothian Council will not be able to make that funding available without jeopardising the rest of the network in the council area. I stress that we spend more than £1.4 million on that at the moment. We are trying to safeguard what we can and encourage operators to develop commercial services by telling them about the benefits of the railway.

How much funding might be required?

If you want to enable people in Whitburn, the Blackridge area and so on to get to every train departing from Armadale, it will cost not far short of £1 million, gross. If services do not meet every train, that will diminish the benefit of bus-rail connections. We would look to route development grant money to fund that because we certainly do not have that resource.

We hope that the market will respond and feed services into the line. Certainly, the bus route development grant and subsidies can play a part in that. Particularly in the Monklands area of the line, there are communities in social inclusion partnership areas such as Greengairs that are not within walking distance of the line and which could benefit from services that could be started up with bus route development grants.

As we see it, there are two corridors for bus routes. One is the A89 and the other, which would be suitable for express buses, is the M8/A8 corridor, which was mentioned earlier. I have talked about Harthill already, and we propose to ask SPT for a grant for a further bus park-and-ride service in Newhouse. We do not think that those services will be diminished as they serve different markets.

You can appreciate that most of the evidence that we have received has raised concerns about connections. We have seen what is proposed in the costings for the bill with regard to the £1 million but there is no mechanism for delivering the services. You have highlighted some of the difficulties that there might be. However, as far as I understand it, that is an annual sum rather than a start-up grant. It would be used to configure permanent services for the railway.

Can you come back to us with details of how you would configure the bus services to serve the railway in the form that is proposed by the bill, which is to say without the stations at Plains and Blackridge? You could perhaps include your thoughts on having a quality contract or partnership that, as Councillor Imrie of SESTRAN said, would provide a dedicated service.

I am doing preparatory work on that subject and can forward it to the committee.

We could do that, but it would be better if we did it with SPT. It would be very much a desktop exercise because the real answer would involve sitting down with the bus operators and finding out what they are willing to provide. Many operators have a commercial interest. In putting a proposal to the committee, we could be enhancing or adversely affecting those commercial interests, so it would have to be considered purely as a desktop exercise for the purposes of the bill. We would be happy to do that, but we do not want any of the operators to be too concerned about their business before we go ahead.

Given that the operators will be providing some of the services anyway, their concerns will be diminished.

Last week, we heard from one of the local MSPs concerns about services between North Lanarkshire and West Lothian. What is the mechanism for delivering cross-border bus services, if I may call them that?

We have a relationship with SPT, and we regularly discuss cross-border issues. We can jointly fund the arrangements that we discuss together. Are you asking about connecting every station on the line by bus, or just Armadale and Coatbridge stations?

I think that it would be all the stations. We have heard this morning that £1 million for connecting bus services will not be enough. We are looking at the proposal before us for all the stations, and we must consider how the service can be fully integrated, so that is why we are looking for bus services that connect to all stations.

Our evidence today is based on our experience of similar situations. At Gartcosh, it was estimated that adding to existing services would cost £100,000, and we have also done a quick exercise to estimate the cost of a dedicated bus service for Plains, which we think would be between £100,000 and £150,000. We could do similar exercises for the other stations, but they would be very much estimates.

I would appreciate that, and I think that the committee would find it helpful.

Do the witnesses think that the promoter's projected patronage figures are robust? Where do the witnesses expect most of the passengers to come from and what kind of journeys will be most common?

We have no reason to disbelieve the patronage figures that have been used in the model. We have no expertise in running such models, so we have to rely on Network Rail to do that. As I said, Network Rail has done a good job of the modelling and the STAG appraisal, which shows a good cost benefit ratio of 1.81 coming back to the project on capital costs. The patronage figures tip 12,600 in a 12-hour day, but my concern was about the suggested reduction of 800. We heard earlier that the Caledonian express line, in partnership with SPT, will provide a high-speed service between Glasgow and Edinburgh, so some of the patronage lost from one line might be taken up by the other. We also heard that previous models have underestimated the actual patronage levels, and we need only look to past experience at Larkhall and at other stations that have been opened to see that that is true. However, the model is the model, and it is the best available tool that Network Rail has. We have no major gripe with the model. I know that we mentioned housing, but the proposal for 600 housing units is almost speculative, as it depends on the railway line opening. I think that the model as it is, showing the existing patronage figures, is a reasonable model, and we have no reason to distrust it.

I do not think that there is much more that we can add, other than to state our general support for the figures that have been prepared for the bill. The promoter has split them into figures for individual stations, with additional boardings. The figure of 12,000 has been mentioned, split along the line with 1,800 at Armadale, 800 in Bathgate, almost 1,600 at Livingston North and 250 at Uphall. Those West Lothian figures relate to our earlier discussion about park-and-ride facilities and the number of parking spaces provided. You must remember that the model is for a 12-hour period, so there will obviously be boardings between the peaks, and it is important to remember that that is one of the benefits of the railway—it will be not only commuters who will use the service, but people who need to access health, education and leisure facilities. We need to look at the figures in that light.

Will the suggested service pattern, number of stops and timing maximise the benefits that the railway will bring to the type of people who are likely to use it? The previous witnesses raised concerns that the number of stops and the journey time, particularly on the western part of the line, might be verging on a disincentive for people to travel in that direction.

As North Lanarkshire Council is a partner in SPT, it would be concerning if we as a lone voice said what the stopping pattern on the line into Glasgow should be. We are members of SPT, along with Glasgow City Council and other authorities. SPT will have a view on the stopping pattern in the Glasgow area. However, I can say that the nearer people get to Glasgow or Edinburgh, the more travel choices they have, compared with the choices in the middle of the country. That is the social inclusion aspect that we have asked the committee to consider. There are experts in the room who have a lot more experience in timetabling than I have, but opportunities are available to consider the timetable in the Glasgow area and through the Queen Street tunnel. The committee has asked for information on patronage levels at existing stations. I accept that those patronage levels should be considered to find out what the overall benefit of the timetable should be.

On timetabling, from West Lothian Council's point of view, it is important to bear in mind that all the stations from Bathgate to Edinburgh will have a service every 15 minutes, rather than every 30 minutes as at present. That will bring many benefits: it will be better for accessibility and integration, and people will become more comfortable with using the train. At present, if somebody just misses a train, they have to wait for about 30 minutes, but in future, they will have to wait for only 14 minutes. That will start to build confidence in the service.

On the stopping pattern on the new line, Armadale will have a half-hourly service, but arguably, West Lothian Council could fight for a service every 15 minutes. However, we acknowledge that Armadale will be a new station and will therefore have to build up its patronage over time. The current proposals on timetabling are probably pretty close for starters.

I accept the point about Bathgate, but we could increase the frequency of services from Bathgate to Edinburgh without building a new railway line. The point that has been made is that, for people going west from West Lothian, even when they get to Airdrie, they will have another 10 stops before they get to Queen Street station, which is not necessarily the most attractive railway journey in the world.

It will certainly not be one of the most attractive railway journeys, but it will be far superior to the road journey, which people will bear in mind. The new facility will be competitive. I do not believe that the timing will be detrimental, because the service will be so much better than what is available now.

There must be a limit to how many stations can be added on to a train journey before people think that they will just go in the car.

That is a possibility, but I do not know what that limit might be. We would have to take into account the convenience of train travel—for example, people can work on the train, but they cannot work when they are stuck in a traffic jam. The benefits that accrue from rail travel are not available to people in the area at present.

The choice that Alasdair Morgan mentioned is available only to car owners. For people who do not have a car, the railway will still be the most attractive way of getting to Glasgow.

We need to think about the existing situation. The train service to Glasgow has high patronage levels with the existing journey times. If there were more opportunities, more people would use the service. I mentioned the stations to the west of Airdrie. Certainly at those in North Lanarkshire, there is a lot of congestion and overspill parking. If we met that suppressed demand, patronage on the line, even with the existing stops, would increase. As I said, the majority of the traffic on the line will be from West Lothian westward and from North Lanarkshire eastward. On the westward part, the evidence from the existing line is that the journey times are attractive.

Is the type of rolling stock important in attracting people? Earlier, we received evidence that the high patronage levels on the Glasgow part of the line might necessitate rolling stock with a fairly high number of spaces for standing passengers. I cannot envisage people working on trains that are of the type that have a lot of room for standing passengers.

That is true, although it is unlikely that people will have to stand all the way from Armadale to Glasgow. There may be a problem west of Airdrie, but I anticipate that everybody who is going westbound from Armadale will get a seat.

Mr Mackay mentioned SPT. Witnesses from SPT and First ScotRail will give evidence as the next panel, as the whole-bill objectors have dropped out, as I said earlier. I now suspend the meeting until 1.30. I thank the witnesses from West Lothian Council and North Lanarkshire Council for their evidence.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

Good afternoon, everyone. I welcome a fresh panel. Mr Montgomery and Mr O'Hanlon are from First ScotRail and Ms Martin and Mr Halliday are from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. I remind the public and members of the panel that mobile phones should be switched off.

Cathy Peattie has the first questions for the panel.

How can the railway maximise accessibility for local communities to ensure that they reap the purported benefits of the scheme? Will it maximise the potential that exists for integration with other modes of transport?

Good afternoon. Our experience in SPT is that such rail projects open up communities and are a boon for accessibility. SPT wants to maximise their benefits, but quite a lot of supporting strategies must be in place to do so. Bus services that will feed train services and open up communities are important, but there is no doubt that attracting feeder bus services to stations is difficult. However, the mere fact that there is a rail service will attract people on to trains.

We would expect to get involved in such matters at a slightly later stage in the project. We already talk to bus operators and participate in joint ticketing arrangements, and we expect to develop such arrangements as the scheme progresses. However, it is early days. We need to know about the timetable for the railway first; it will then be easy to see how buses could fit into the scheme.

For a long time, SPT has issued zone cards, which allow commuters to benefit from bus and rail through journeys, and over time we have invested in cycle and park-and-ride facilities and bus links to stations. Rail links help to improve overall accessibility.

What advantages does the proposed railway offer that improved bus services do not in increasing access to wider job markets, attracting inward investment and improving local economic performance? Would not a good bus service do the same as the proposed railway?

As you heard earlier, bus services tend to be local in nature and we broadly concur with that. Longer, express services can be developed, but the capacity of trains provides a better service. Buses are local services—someone earlier mentioned a maximum distance of 10 miles, and you might need to have a closer look at the work on that.

In our experience, long journeys are best served by railways. A couple of components make them attractive, one of which is the frequency that they afford. Buses might try to give the same frequency, but there is also the question of reliability. The one thing that a rail service gives is a reliable service, which a bus service tends not to.

In 1999, SPT made a bid for funding from the Strategic Rail Authority to operate a bus service on the route. The bid was turned down because it was felt that the project would not be worthwhile or generate sufficient patronage. It has to be recognised that journey times, accessibility and connectivity in this corridor would be much better with a rail route than with a bus route.

For people who are near a railway station, of course.

What is your assessment of a railway line's impact on local bus services? What will it mean for local communities along the railway corridor?

It is difficult to say exactly what the impact will be. Our experience shows and you have probably heard from other people that there is an 800m walk-in catchment, so bus services are needed to extend the catchment area and provide extra accessibility by means of public transport. Park and ride potential can also be built in, and this project has focused on that.

The combination of factors around having a station must come together to maximise the benefits. Some of them are within our control, such as the park-and-ride scheme that is being promoted. Bus services are more difficult, considering the current legislation and how we can support the development of bus routes. You have probably heard other evidence about the development of services.

Commercial bus operators will be attracted by the fact that there is a station and may be a demand for services. It is a question of persuading them that there is an opportunity that they want to take up. Other opportunities through the bus route development fund may also be used to support services.

There is not much to add, other than to say that we already spend £3.5 million on subsidising buses in our area. That money is fully committed to keeping socially necessary services running. In addition, we fund the dial-a-bus and ring-and-ride services, and from grants we fund rural services and some bus development grant services.

We make a major contribution to linking socially excluded settlements and integrating them into the full network. I note that £1 million a year has been put aside to provide the necessary connections to the stations if commercial operators do not do so. If part or all of that funding was made available to us, we could certainly put it to good use.

Do other panel members have a view?

It is not something within our control. We would obviously encourage integration with bus operators for new services.

Evaluating the impact is not our particular area of expertise.

Mr Halliday, you used a phrase that others have used, which is that long journeys are better—or, let us say, more popular—by train than by bus. One of the controversial issues surrounding the rail link is the fact that there will not be a station at Plains. At the same time, bus services to Plains are virtually non-existent in the evenings. What can SPT do to alleviate that situation if Plains remains without a station?

That is a difficult issue to tackle. As my colleague Ms Martin mentioned, we have a budget for subsidised services, but it is already stretched. Supporting a service to Plains might require taking a service away from elsewhere, so there is a choice to be made. We have many contacts with the commercial market and we encourage it to explore whether the potential for a commercial service is there. The Scottish Executive's bus route development grant is the other option. Commercial services that would be self-sustaining after a four-year period might require a bit of pump priming and the bus route development grant is there precisely to give commercial services an opportunity to test the water to see whether there is enough demand to be self-sustaining thereafter.

Can I ask you bluntly whether SPT would support a station at Plains, or is the issue so complex because of surrounding matters that you would prefer not to say?

The issue is complex and is about choices. Over many years, we have been successfully promoting the provision of new stations on the rail network and we are proud to have opened quite a number of stations. Promoting new stations is about understanding what the timetable can support and what the disbenefits as well as the benefits are.

Journey times are a major concern, but the issue needs to be considered in the round. The SPT rail network is the most extensive outside London and is a successful commuter network—people use it as a convenient means of travelling to and from work. All the evidence of the issues that face local networks that serve dense populations is there. There are 181 stations in the SPT area and it is a successful network, but when it comes to considering longer journeys, journey times are critical, and there is a complicated interplay between the benefits that are afforded by providing more stations and the disbenefits of longer journey times.

Have you had any dialogue with the promoter about transport modes to and from stations? If so, what was the outcome?

I can answer that, at a higher level, yes, we have had dialogue with Network Rail about the project and specifically about stations and park-and-ride facilities. I will ask Ms Martin to talk about the detail.

We have been involved in detailed work with Network Rail on various issues, but we have not yet had extensive dialogue on bus links. My bus colleagues would welcome further dialogue on what is and is not achievable.

What would you like the promoter to do to improve and encourage sustainable access to stations for passengers?

From First ScotRail's point of view, there are park-and-ride facilities and bus links, but it is the patronage at stations that will dictate what facilities are demanded. As Network Rail's modelling becomes more complete and we understand a bit more about that, detailed work will be done, which will take a bit of time. Obviously, we have to provide basic facilities at every station, but the detail of what facilities would be provided—for example, toilets or manned stations—would have to be worked up once we understood the patronage.

I take it that you agree that things can be done to make stations more attractive and accessible to encourage people to use them.

Of course.

We have done things within the franchise such as provide secure cycle storage at just about every station. We expect that sort of issue to be taken up in the design of the new stations.

It is an evolving process. When the Larkhall branch opened, we provided stations that were fit for purpose, but in conjunction with First ScotRail we have identified further investment that we believe should be made. First ScotRail and ourselves, as the partnership for our area, will work together to add any facilities that are required subsequent to the new stations' opening.

There is a raft of issues. Clearly, the new facilities that are provided will be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is also a move to provide cycle lockers and dry facilities—it is fine to have a cycle rack, but it needs to be covered. Simple things such as that can be very attractive to people, as those are safe places to leave what are sometimes expensive cycles. Signage to stations is also quite important in linking them to the footway network, the cycle network and the roads. It is also important to make timetable information available to people, and the First ScotRail franchise is doing well at that and on ticketing promotions.

All those issues are in the melting pot. We are familiar with them and the franchise is doing quite well in respect of them.

Currently, we have nearly 200 secure cycle lockers at almost 50 stations. As part of our transport strategy, we are looking specifically at cycling as a mode. I have no doubt that there will be further investment downstream.

Mr Montgomery said that you were beginning to understand the modelling of Network Rail. Are any of you in a position to say anything about the patronage forecasts that Network Rail has produced? Are they realistic? Where will that patronage come from?

On the basis of the figures that we have been shown and the experience of previous modelling, the forecasts appear to be realistic.

On integration of the different modes of transport, especially bus services, does it concern you that, from what we have heard so far, the availability of bus services to some of the proposed stations is far from clear? It appears that the money that has been cited as being available to pay for bus services is nothing like the cost that will have to be met if we are to have buses to meet every train at some of the stations.

We would be concerned if that was how it finished up, but it is early days in the project. The lead time for the development of bus links is much shorter than the time that is needed to design, develop and build a railway.

I think that one can put a figure on how much it costs to subsidise a bus service, and we appear to be being told that the money is not there to subsidise the bus services to the extent that would deliver a genuinely integrated transport service.

That is not an issue that we have been involved in, and we would not expect to be involved in it at this stage of the project.

So, you just run the trains, and if people can get to the stations and get on them that is fine, but if they cannot get there—

It needs to be considered as part of the project, but it is not our area of expertise in the project at the moment.

Integrated transport is a difficult area in the UK. We have a commercial bus arena that is expected to deliver services, but the bald fact is that communities in some areas are let down, which means that we must consider subsidies to support some services. In recent months and years the SPT area has suffered badly from commercial services being withdrawn. The upshot is that the public purse has to pick up services for communities that need public transport.

From our perspective, integrated transport is not an easy issue. The community as a whole must address the issue of what public transport can be provided for certain areas.

One of the committee's difficulties is in evaluating the social and other effects that the scheme will have on local communities. We repeatedly hear the message that it is a bit too early to cement bus services, but they are an integral part of the scheme. That is particularly the case for places such as Plains and Blackridge. If they do not have rail stations, it is imperative that they have bus services. I find it difficult to separate the issue of bus services from that of train services.

I make it clear that we support the bill as promoted and are certain that people will be attracted on to the train service. I guess the issue with which the committee is wrestling is whether stations at Plains and Blackridge should be included in the scheme. The dilemma is that including two further stations will lengthen the overall journey time, which will make the service unattractive for some people. There is a balance to be struck and the principal point that must be addressed is whom the line will serve.

We have no doubt that the bill as promoted will provide a good scheme and that people will be attracted on to the train service. Presuming that the scheme is put in place and the patronage develops, I guess that the secondary question is whether additional stations should be opened at a later date. My earlier evidence pointed to the fact that we have been successful in opening stations where patronage can be identified.

I accept that, but a major aspect to be considered is the level of social exclusion in areas of relatively high deprivation. To be honest, areas such as Plains and Blackridge need a guarantee on bus services. Plains has virtually no bus service in the evenings. If no bus services were provided, the railway line would be of little benefit to a large proportion of the people in those communities. Is not it the job of SPT and, partly, First ScotRail to ensure that such people are not isolated?

SPT takes its role in that area seriously. As Ms Martin said, we have a significant budget to support bus services that require such support, but it is not an infinite pot, so decisions would have to be taken. Plains, for example, would be a new area for SPT to consider. We have a clear policy in that regard, so it would be an operational choice about the money that was available to support bus services and alleviate problems in the areas in question. For example, there could be a supported bus service from Plains to Drumgelloch, or on towards Airdrie.

What discussions have you had with the promoter on the impact of the railway on other schemes in Strathclyde?

We have had fairly high-level discussions—I would not put it any higher than that—with the promoter about the impact on, for example, crossrail, which is not a committed scheme but one that is likely to happen. The Glasgow airport rail link will probably not be affected by this project as things stand, but it might be affected when there is crossrail.

Our major focus with the promoter has been on rolling stock and stopping patterns on the line.

I have a couple of questions for the First ScotRail witnesses. As a train operator, what has been your involvement in the development of the proposed scheme?

Network Rail has involved us in discussions.

We were meeting Network Rail almost every two weeks up until the project was, if you like, frozen for the bill. We have had many discussions.

That is good.

You have highlighted potential operational and timetable constraints on the wider network should the Airdrie to Bathgate route be introduced. Are the difficulties insurmountable? Is there a way round them?

Network Rail has shown us a timetable from the promoter, which appears to be workable, although we would need time to understand it fully. However, it will be 2010 before the new rail line is introduced, so the present timetable might not show the final pattern.

The project will develop in stages and a significant amount of work remains to be done, but as Steve suggests, we do not think that any difficulties will be insurmountable.

So you have something to work with. Thank you.

My question is not really supplementary to that; it is totally different. In your written evidence, you say that the "appropriateness" of the maintenance depot is "yet to be tested". Does that mean that the maintenance depot might be in the wrong place, or of the wrong kind?

No, that was not what we were trying to say at all. Perhaps the wording we used was slightly confusing.

At the moment, there is a set of assumptions about how the railway will work. We have had many discussions with Network Rail about the nature of the depot at Bathgate. We have been consulted and Network Rail has taken account of our comments, and we are happy with that.

We do not know what the rolling stock will be, so other investment might be required in depot facilities, although that would not come within the scope of this bill. Additional equipment might be needed at Shields, but that will depend on the decisions that are taken on rolling stock.

So you are saying that the depot at Bathgate will be necessary.

Yes.

But it might not be sufficient.

Depending on the choice of rolling stock, the depot might have to be supplemented. There will be a need for other maintenance equipment.

I want to ask Mr Halliday a question that he asked us: what purpose will the line serve? With or without your professional hats on, would you say that the service will be a local North Lanarkshire and West Lothian service, or would you call it a point-to-point service? The kind of service that it is will impact on bus service configurations and wider national services. Is there a bias one way or another?

The genesis of the project came from the notion of a supplemental route between Edinburgh and Glasgow. However, given that a route with stations along it has been chosen, stopping patterns must be chosen, too.

The service probably has two purposes and it becomes difficult to differentiate between what the service does for each of them. Some people will use the service as a way of getting straight from Glasgow to Edinburgh, but many people will always use it for local commuting. That is certainly true of the part of the line that runs from Airdrie/Drumgelloch through the east end of Glasgow into the city centre. There is already a service on that route, which people will continue to use. I guess that that is why we have concerns about capacity and ensuring that people have an attractive service. Journey time is crucial for people who want to use the service to make longer journeys. To be attractive to them, the service must offer a journey time that makes it a good alternative to the existing option.

Have you done your own modelling or forecast work? The promoter has given us some of its estimates on patronage levels, which suggest that the service would be local and would not take traffic away from the main Edinburgh to Glasgow shuttle. Have you done any such work or have you taken all your figures from the promoter?

We have not undertaken transport studies of that nature. The key reason for that is that such studies are highly involved and technical and take up a massive amount of resources. Although SPT has the high level of data and modelling capability that would be required, it would be extremely expensive to deploy it. As far as we are concerned, we are content that the modelling is robust and that it provides the right output.

The systems that we have for evaluating revenue changes work on incremental changes to the existing timetable. We do not have systems or expertise in modelling large-scale additions to the network. We would have to buy in consultants to do such work.

I was going to ask whether you had any view on what growth there could be on the line but, in effect, you have just answered that question.

From the figures that the promoter has provided, does SPT have a view on whether there is scope for growth or whether the existing predictions represent optimum levels, given the constraints, practicalities and caveats that we have heard about, such as timetabling issues, the capacity of the existing service and the route's attractiveness?

My view is that the route will be attractive and that people will want to use it. For me, the starting point is whether the models represent fairly accurately what will happen. That is always the $64 million question. I suspect that, in the long run, patronage will be better than has been predicted, but I can base my opinion only on professional judgment. It is always difficult to make predictions because one must base one's evidence on technical analysis, but I would have thought that such a route would prove highly attractive.

Our experience with the Larkhall to Milngavie project is that it has been rather more successful than we had anticipated from the modelling. I am referring not just to the stations—although the success of the Larkhall station, in particular, has been above expectations—but to the service itself. It should be borne in mind that there was a full recast of the timetable when the new service was introduced and quarter-hourly services were implemented throughout the core network. The growth has been substantial—much greater than we anticipated.

With the Larkhall to Milngavie project, things moved on between the introduction of the order and the opening of the line. In that regard, many of your earlier questions were highly relevant, because substantially larger amounts of park and ride have been provided than were anticipated when the order received approval. Schemes evolve and our experience with the Larkhall to Milngavie project is that we have overachieved.

Let us be optimistic; I am a Lib Dem, so I am instinctively optimistic. It is possible that all the forecasts are not robust in the sense that they underestimate the patronage levels. We have heard how passenger numbers exceeded modelling expectations by 34 per cent on the Larkhall to Milngavie line. As proposed, the Airdrie to Bathgate service simply would not have the capacity to meet that level of additional patronage. I think that First ScotRail has already indicated that unless the rolling stock issue is fully resolved, the service might be less attractive because of the limited capacity on the existing trains. Journey times, inability to park at the stations and a possible lack of connecting bus services are all factors. Is it possible that there is not enough capacity in the network to accommodate the potential patronage levels?

That is an interesting proposition, but from my perspective, having a successful and full service is a happier position to be in—better that way than the reverse. I have no doubt that the committee has taken evidence on existing options such as higher frequencies and longer trains. Underestimating patronage is a happy position to be in; any subsequent capacity problems can be dealt with from there. You can do only as well as your forecast, but if things are much better, you can deal with that situation when it arises.

Does First ScotRail have views on capacity if the forecasts underestimate patronage levels?

As I said before, we do not have the resources to estimate patronage levels so that is not an issue for us.

You highlighted in your written submission that if patronage levels going west into Glasgow were higher, it might put pressure on existing services if the rolling stock issue were not resolved.

It is true that the rolling stock issue has to be resolved.

What are your views on the promoter's indication of the outturn of the capital costs and the on-going revenue costs?

I would not presume to get involved in the detail of a hugely detailed and complex issue. I think that I echo another witness when I say that the current process—the STAG evaluation and the treatment of the Treasury green book rules on optimism bias—tends to give us greater certainty than we had before by capturing the costs, and more significant, the risks. I would have thought that the proposed scheme was simple enough, if one could describe it as such, to give us assurance that the costs are probably accurate.

One can be fairly certain that the costs of this kind of scheme will be as estimated, because most of the unknowns are known within the industry. We are not getting into hugely complex areas of completely new design.

Does First ScotRail have a view?

We do not have a view on the costing; we are not heavily enough involved with it.

I apologise if there is a little overlap, but I have a specific question about buses. Has SPT made any application for a bus route development grant to either provide or safeguard bus routes to the proposed stations?

Bus route development grants are not open to SPT; an operator normally submits an application for the grant and we tend to support that application. I am not aware that any such application has been made to date; I suspect that it would happen after the fact. The dilemma is that the operators will probably wait to see the station before they make applications for the grant. I am not aware of that having happened, but we could do a bit of research then come back to the committee and confirm that in due course.

Dialogue between you and the promoter would be helpful to clarify that situation. I thank all panel members for coming along to give their evidence.

I invite the promoter's witnesses to take their places. Welcome again, gentlemen. The first panel will answer questions on accessibility and the railway's integration with other modes of public transport. The witnesses are Mr McAulay, Mr Macmillan, Mr Cook, Mr Magee, Mr Baggaley and Mr Barnard.

In your evidence, you refer to increased corridor accessibility. However, evidence from witnesses has revealed low levels of car ownership and poor bus services in some areas. What precisely will you do to improve accessibility and make it easier for people to get to the train station?

We have planned a number of things within our proposals. We already have plenty of park-and-ride facilities to get people to come to the station and leave their cars behind. Within the close environment of the new stations, we are ensuring that there are good walkways and routes for cycling and we have tied the new cycle path route into the new stations. Those are all ways of linking things in.

In addition, we return to the issue of link buses, which has been discussed at length again today. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the funding that we have included in our estimates of operating costs will be sufficient to provide link buses. However, I have been struggling with the arithmetic that I heard from some of the players. If SPT spends about £3.5 million on bus subsidies throughout its entire area, £1 million seems to be more than enough to cover the project.

Those are the things that we are looking to provide. John Baggaley might want to add to that.

I agree with Ron McAulay. The pool of money is there to be used to supplement what the market is providing when the railway opens. To put the figure in context, the figure across the whole of West Lothian is £1.4 million. We are talking about injecting two thirds of that into the corridor.

People have talked about all the communities along the route. The key communities largely lie along one road, so it might be a matter of providing not a series of separate bus services but a couple of links that loop between stations on the line. My experience of integrated bus services, which goes back some 25 years, suggests that that would probably be the best way of doing it. A bus would run from Airdrie and would serve Drumgelloch and probably Plains station before going on to Caldercruix. It might then run from Caldercruix through Blackridge to Armadale.

I think you mean that it would serve Plains, rather than Plains station.

Sorry. I meant Plains.

I thought that we had got a bit of good news, there.

Bus services would run to that sort of pattern.

You talked about £1 million for the Airdrie to Bathgate corridor. Is that sum targeted into that area?

I will be clear about what the £1 million is for. We have put £1 million into our operating costs to be available for the Scottish Executive to call on; it must be remembered that the funding comes from the Scottish Executive, so the decision whether to spend the money is up to it. Within the overall project, the business case will support £1 million a year towards measures such as a bus subsidy. That is what the funding is intended for.

If the decision were taken to provide additional stations in line with some of the objectors' and witnesses' wishes, could some of the £1 million be used towards that? Those stations might reduce—or on the other hand increase—the requirement for bus services.

The straight answer is no, because the £1 million that we have included is within continuing operating costs rather than any capital costs.

Will the money be made available to ensure that every one of the trains at 15-minute intervals is met by a bus service or do you expect an alternate service?

I hesitate because I am not an expert on bus timetables.

The train is timetabled to run every 15 minutes. Will you be able to provide buses to meet it?

The service at stops such as Armadale, Caldercruix and Drumgelloch will be half hourly.

Bus services already run in those corridors—at least during the working day—so we are not talking about providing such a level of service at all times. When the service is half hourly, the aim is to meet every train with a connecting service. Once the service is quarter hourly, the aim is to match the frequency but not necessarily to connect directly, because that involves meeting a quarter-hourly service in each direction, so connecting precisely with every train is a much more difficult matter.

That is clear enough.

What priority in access to stations has been given to pedestrian, cycle and bus passengers over car passengers? We have heard much about park and ride, but what discussions have taken place about access by others?

We have had extensive consultation with much of the cycling lobby and with organisations such as Sustrans and Railway Paths Ltd. We have met and spoken at length to the cycling representatives who gave evidence in Airdrie last week. We have tried not to speak to one and not the other—we have spoken to all the people who would use the stations.

We have tried to strike a balance with getting people out of cars by giving them plenty of opportunities to park. We have tried to provide bus turning and access facilities at all the new car parks so that they are attractive to bus companies to use. We have provided taxi stopping and dropping-off points and will provide cycle lockers at each of the new stations. We have tried to provide for reasonable walking access into stations, all of which will be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. All those measures are in the pot together to be fed in—one does not have higher priority than another.

Can you give recent examples of how railways and local buses have integrated and of the impact that new services, such as the Larkhall service, have had on local bus services?

The immediate answer is probably no. If you give me some time to think about that, I will come back to you later, but I cannot give recent examples off the top of my head.

I know that buses and timetabling have been discussed a lot and that it is probably early days to ask some of the questions, but I am interested in whether you have discussed with SPT or local authorities bus route development funding to safeguard bus services or to provide new services for the proposed stations.

We have had a number of meetings and discussions with the councils to encourage them to take the matter forward.

So that is the answer to that question. Have you thought of an answer to my earlier question?

No, not yet. I might have to come back to you on that. As I said, I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head.

Mr McAulay, you said earlier that you were a bit unsure about certain figures that other witnesses had mentioned. However, those witnesses are the very individuals with whom you said that you have had contact. Given that you have had such contact, why should there be so much uncertainty over this £1 million figure?

We regularly meet local councils and SPT and have consulted many different people. I have to say that today is the first time that someone has come up to me and said that £1 million will not be enough.

So no doubt you will be discussing the matter in future.

Absolutely. More meetings with the people involved have been scheduled. As I have said, we have regular sessions with them.

We have discussed the situation at Plains and Blackridge at these meetings, but other villages along the proposed line will not have direct access to a station. Can you guarantee that bus services in those communities will not be reduced but will in fact be improved?

As you know, Network Rail operates the rail infrastructure. As we do not have control over bus services, there is no way that I can guarantee that there will be no reduction or indeed any improvement in bus services to other villages. That is simply not within my remit or control.

However, as I have said before, the railway line will be a permanent feature on which bus companies can hang a good service and from which it can begin to provide links to stations. My gut instinct tells me that there will be an overall improvement in bus services, especially given that we have allowed within our estimates funding to subsidise and kick-start some of those services. That said, as I am not a bus operator, I do not have that kind of control and cannot give you the guarantees that you seek.

I understand the point that you do not operate bus services and that that is a matter for local authorities. However, you want to build the railway line. People in villages along the route are concerned that their bus services might be reduced because of the railway. Have you considered that matter in your discussions with local authorities?

We have been talking to local authorities about buses. As has been said several times today, it is still too early to carry out the overall detailed planning of matters such as potential bus routes and bus route development grants. After all, this service might be introduced in about four years' time. I would expect to discuss such details with bus operators through organisations such as SPT, North Lanarkshire Council and West Lothian Council when the service is much closer to being introduced. It is still too early to say for certain what the bus service or the timetables for the different train services will look like.

I am just trying to get my mind round precisely what you have said. I would have thought that, as the promoter, Network Rail would have come forward with a complete thought-out scheme that considered all the peripheral issues. On that basis, surely bus services and how they integrate with the line are very important issues.

They are, but if I were to speak to bus operators today about providing services four years from now, I would not have all the answers to their questions. There would be question marks over, for example, the price of diesel in four years' time or the business health of the operator in question. At the moment, there are so many variables to consider that it is just too early to hold detailed discussions on the matter.

I have a little bit of sympathy with that viewpoint.

The Parliament is currently considering the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill. If that project does not go ahead, what impact will it have on this scheme as far as accessing Waverley station is concerned?

In respect of accessing Waverley, it would not impact on this project at all.

Would it be beneficial?

The Edinburgh airport rail link will not increase the number of trains that go into the west end of Waverley. As we mentioned in evidence about two weeks ago, the project to increase the capacity of the throat at the west end of Waverley is on-going. The increased capacity will be delivered in 2007-08.

Does the work that you are planning take account of EARL with respect to services coming through Newbridge, Winchburgh and Haymarket? Is the work based on the assumption that EARL will go ahead?

Let us not forget that Newbridge and Waverley are two separate locations and two separate issues.

EARL will not increase the number of trains that come into Waverley station. Whether EARL happens should not impact on the Airdrie to Bathgate service in respect of overall capacity. You are perhaps alluding to the issue at Newbridge junction, where the Bathgate line meets the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line. If EARL goes ahead, a number of trains will be diverted away from that junction. That means that although it will be a busy junction, it will not be the busiest on the network.

The committee has heard concerns about competitive ticket pricing. We cannot forecast what services bus operators will provide along the route, but they may wish to have competitive services along all or part of the route. We have heard about the potential impact of such services given that some passengers travel free on buses because of the concessionary scheme for the elderly, which in future may be extended to students. What impact might that have on patronage? Have you considered those issues in your forecasts and modelling?

We have not specifically examined a scenario in which there is determined and outright competition against the railway and a bus operator or group of bus operators sets out to compete vigorously with the new train service. Our modelling has included the impact of pensioners already travelling for free. They are already included in the average yield, if you like, from each passenger. Our experience has shown that, in general, things that lower the cost of travel, such as cheaper fares for a certain group, increase the total amount of travel. Over time, an operator gets back their share or more; usually, they get back a share of a bigger market.

I was not asking whether you had incorporated into your planning the fact that pensioners travel free on buses, but whether in many communities pensioners might not use the train service at all because of the bus service. Is that the same impact?

That is the same thing and it is included in our modelling.

In effect, such travel is not free because you do not get that money from the Executive. What I am getting at is that if someone who can get free travel on a bus takes that option, the money for the fare goes to the bus company rather than to you.

Yes.

I am a little surprised that you did not consider the possibility of buses running competitive services. Mr Morgan and I were on the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee. That scheme incorporated some forecasts that included competitive services. Is that not the norm? It is obviously not.

We did not consider anything over and above what exists now. There is already an extremely competitive bus network on the M8 and at both ends of the route a competitive bus network has established itself. As we heard in the evidence this morning, the number of express bus services eastwards from Armadale and Bathgate has gone down over time. The competitor has therefore slowly pulled back from that market.

That means that the transport options have been reduced for a large section of society—older people and students who can travel free on buses but not trains.

Yes, slightly.

What is the definition of "slightly"?

The options have declined over time as a result of people not using the services.

The existence of a train option only is far less attractive for people who have to pay more. Social inclusion will therefore be harmed in some areas. Would that happen all along the proposed route?

Is there not a chicken-and-egg situation? Is the railway line or the concessionary fares policy responsible?

We have heard that the Bathgate to Edinburgh railway has harmed social inclusion because not only has its competitiveness helped to reduce normal services, but people who can travel free on buses have consequently not had the option of travelling on them.

I think that you will find that concessionary travel—which applies to perhaps a third of all bus travel, and significantly more outside the peak periods—supports bus services in a way that it did not in the past.

But not in the situation that you have just outlined in which services are being reduced.

I am simply repeating evidence that West Lothian Council gave this morning. It said that some express bus services from Armadale and Blackridge—which were largely peak period services only—have been reduced over time because people have taken trains.

Okay.

I want to ask about the stations on the route. At what stage will there be more detailed designs for those stations? There are outline designs, but what about the designs for facilities such as waiting areas and security features? Will the designs be complete before the bill completes its parliamentary stages? Perhaps Mr Magee would like to answer those questions.

We have developed the designs to the outline stage, which is sufficient to make costings and identify the land areas that are required for each station. Network Rail is in the process of tendering for the further development of the designs; I understand that it will be letting a commission soon. The detailed design and the further discussions with First ScotRail, SPT and other stakeholders will be taken forward at that stage.

Roughly what kind of timeframe is involved?

I would have to ask Network Rail to answer that question.

May we answer the question when the panel changes? Our senior project manager on the job is on the next panel and will be able to give you more details.

Okay. Who is that?

Hugh Wark.

Okay. We will ask him that question. That is my final question for the moment, convener.

I have a question for the panel before we finish with it. This morning, SESTRAN suggested that the promoter had not got in touch with it prior to moving into the current phase of deliberations. Why did the promoter not contact SESTRAN?

I must take SESTRAN to task slightly. In July, I sat opposite one of the gentlemen who was on the earlier panel at a meeting at which we briefed SESTRAN on the project, so it was a wee bit surprising to hear that we have had no contact with it.

We regularly meet SESTRAN representatives. Meetings with officers cover a range of issues. Obviously, we must do more to ensure that we keep SESTRAN fully briefed, but there is no sinister reason why it has not been brought up to speed. In fact, we have had a meeting with it, as I said.

The bill was published before July. I think that SESTRAN complained that it had not been contacted prior to then.

That is fair comment—there was an oversight on our part. However, I should point out that we have had numerous meetings with West Lothian Council which is, in effect, a member of SESTRAN. I could provide the committee with a list that shows when those meetings were, but the dates would be almost too numerous to list.

I am sure that there were numerous meetings. I got that impression.

We will take up the matter with Trond Haugen.

Okay. At this point, we come to a witness changeover. We will lose several members of our panel, but we will gain Scott Leitham. We will move on to the issue of patronage.

What impact do you think that the introduction of through services will have on the existing services at each end of the line?

Let us look at the line in parts. On the east end of the line, going into Edinburgh, we are talking about doubling the frequency of the service. That, in itself, will have both an impact on the generation of patronage and benefits to existing passengers, who will have shorter waits for trains. At that end of the line, we are talking about a significant enhancement of the service. At the west end of the line, from Drumgelloch to Glasgow we are talking about no increase in train frequency but, within the operating costs, we have allowed for further trains on that route to be lengthened from three to six coaches in the peak period.

Do you think that that will be sufficient to allay the concerns that the SPT witnesses raised in their evidence about the overcrowding that they feel might be experienced in the morning peak period going into Glasgow from Drumgelloch onwards? They fear that trains will turn up at Drumgelloch already with a fair number of passengers on them. Even the trains that currently start at Drumgelloch are fairly busy.

A couple of trains on that route are already fairly busy. Two trains out of Airdrie in the morning peak period at the moment are scheduled to be six-car trains. We are seeking to lengthen more of those trains to six coaches to allay those concerns. The issue of increasing passenger numbers on that section of route goes beyond just the Airdrie to Bathgate project. There are already signs of passenger growth on that section anyway, which must be addressed in any case. Even if the proposed line did not go ahead, there would be issues to be addressed. That is part of what a number of witnesses have said over the past couple of weeks about the rolling stock strategy and the Glasgow suburban rail network strategy.

It is difficult for the committee to be sure about that, given that we do not know what the rolling stock is going to be. We heard evidence this morning that suggested that certain suburban stock might be more suitable for the pattern of usage on the western part of the line, but that would not necessarily be the most desirable stock for the eastern part of the line.

We are very much in the hands of Transport Scotland and the rolling stock strategy that is being pulled together for the whole of Scotland. One of the witnesses this morning mentioned something about information being available soon and quoted an article in one of the trade magazines. We expect to see information on the outputs of the rolling stock strategy fairly soon, which will help to provide greater clarity on the issue. The rolling stock strategy is addressing not just the Airdrie to Bathgate line, but all the major projects throughout Scotland.

Yes. We have a copy of that article, which talks about four-car units and even five-car units. Will all the stations that you are going to build be capable of taking six-car units? Is there also land reserved to extend them to take nine-car units?

That is correct. There is land at the new stations.

Where do you expect most of the passengers to come from? What kind of journeys will they be taking? I know that we have figures for patronage at each station, but do we have information about short journeys and long journeys?

Since last week, we have provided updated figures on who will be using the line and where they come from and go to. Approximately one in five people travelling on the new section of line will be travelling between the local authority areas of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Did you say one in five?

Yes. It is to do with the mix of point-to-point travel and more local travel that was mentioned earlier.

Our figures suggest that up to 60 per cent of users will be commuting, which is in line with what is seen in various station surveys across central Scotland.

The one-in-five figure is quite interesting. You say that they are going between the Edinburgh and Glasgow local authority areas, which means that they must get on the train by Haymarket station at the latest and not get off until Easterhouse at the earliest. That is 20 per cent of your traffic.

Yes, on the new section of the line. Obviously quite a chunk of new rail boardings on the line will be a result of the increase in frequency of trains east of Bathgate, but the new section of line will give a mix. The forecasting suggests that about 20 per cent of westbound traffic in the am peak will be going between Edinburgh and Glasgow local authority areas, about a third will be going between West Lothian and Glasgow, and about 15 per cent will be going between Edinburgh and North Lanarkshire.

We have heard a lot about the provision of bus services. Clearly, if there are going to be such services, through-ticketing will be an incentive to people to make the change. I know that that is not directly part of the bill, but what provision will there be for through-ticketing?

That is beyond Network Rail's remit, I am afraid. The train operating companies, Transport Scotland and the bus companies will have to develop that.

As there are no other questions to this panel, we will say thank you. I think that Mr McAulay and Mr Magee will remain with us and will be joined by Mr Wark, Mr Connelly and Ms Festorazzi. We will now address project management and competency.

I welcome the new panel. Mr Wark has already been advised about a question that is liable to come his way.

I have a question for Mr Wark about stations, which I am sure he is not prepared for. At what stage will the more detailed designs of the exact facilities be ready?

We plan to finish all the design development work for the scheme by July 2007. We expect the key elements of the station design to be developed by April 2007.

You will appreciate that much of the evidence that we have received has been about the facilities that will be put in place at the stations on which you have given assurances about DDA compliance, car park security and so on. It would be helpful for the committee if the work on that was done in advance of the bill completing its passage. I do not think that that would be entirely inconsistent—it might just mean that you would have to accelerate some of the work. That would be very helpful. Perhaps Mr McAulay could consider that.

I would need to look at the overall programme and assess what would be realistic, but I am certainly happy to consider it.

Thanks very much.

I have a question about the overall project costs. We have heard over the past couple of weeks that the promoter did not have in-depth discussions with SESTRAN in advance of the bill being lodged and that some of the information that you received from the local authority about housing was different from the information that has been presented to the committee and that you have received in the past—even today with regard to a disparity in the forecast bus subsidy levels. What assurance can you give the committee and the Parliament that the STAG process used reliable, robust core data at the beginning, and that the outturn figures are accurate?

I will ask Hugh Wark and Joe Magee to come in on different aspects of that. I do not believe that discussions or a lack of discussions with SESTRAN would have had a material impact on the overall costs. On the forecast of the bus subsidy, I do not believe that that would have had a significant impact on the capital cost either. I am trying to think what the third issue that you mentioned was.

It was on housing and the status of the plans.

In the course of estimating the costs, we have become aware of which housing might be impacted by the works. As a result of planning permission applications for plots and so on, we know how much land costs might be.

I was asking more about the overall STAG process and the forecasting of patronage and the economic and social benefits, which will offset the actual cost, will they not?

As I said last week, as far as the STAG process is concerned, we used the figures that were given to us by the local authorities. We have asked North Lanarkshire Council and West Lothian Council to provide us with up-to-date figures. We received replies from them on Friday evening, and we will be coming back to the committee on that quickly.

Going back to your initial question—or what I took to be a question—about what surety or certainty there can be about the cost, I would say that Network Rail has a long track record in delivering rail projects. Someone mentioned earlier today that the Airdrie to Bathgate project is not particularly complicated. It is not—it involves rebuilding a railway along an existing solum. It is about replacing bridge decks, which we probably do every day at some place on the network. It is about laying down track, which we do just about every day. It is about setting up signalling, which we do every day. We know how much it costs to lay a mile of track and to do those other things. We have used that information and experience to come up with the figures that we now have.

Having said all that, I am not sure whether Joe Magee or Hugh Wark will have much to add.

I would just like to clarify something regarding a previous question. A number of sensitivity tests were carried out under the STAG process. One of those involved considering a business case in which the population between Drumgelloch and Bathgate did not grow after 2001. That test resulted in a reduction in patronage of approximately 300 people in 12 hours. However, that had a very low effect on the business case, with the cost benefit ratio remaining at 1.81. A further test was done on the bus situation, taking the possibility of existing services reducing their fares by up to 50 per cent. That had a slightly greater effect on the business case, reducing the benefit figure to 1.75—but that is still a very healthy cost benefit ratio.

We followed the guidelines for the STAG process as is required and as we are used to doing. We are confident that we have addressed all the required issues.

You will have heard the minister being clear last week about the amount of funding that Transport Scotland will provide for the scheme. What will you do should capital costs increase?

We have been clear in our approach and we have taken a robust view of the estimate for the scheme. Members will be aware that we have contingency allowances for various known risks; we also have optimism bias. Therefore, we do not envisage problems with the costs of the scheme overrunning.

What do you do if they do?

They will not.

We monitor our risks every month to ensure that there are control measures to prevent the scheme from going over budget.

What are the contingencies if one element goes over? If I remember correctly, Scottish Executive and Transport Scotland officials said last week that the topographical and geological studies are not complete. When they are, they may cause changes to be made to the design that may or may not be outwith the contingencies that have been put in place. Would parts of the scheme not go ahead if costs increased, or is it all or nothing?

We have included in the estimate an allowance for unknowns such as mine workings and ground stabilisation. We have items in the risk register to address other unknowns, such as topography. Optimism bias also covers lack of knowledge about site conditions, so we feel that we are well covered.

One of the big opportunities for us is to use innovation and robustness in our approach to the engineering solutions to, for instance, limit the amount of earthworks required. We have identified a number of opportunities and risk mitigation measures to control areas of risk.

You have given your personal guarantee, Mr Wark, that the scheme will not go over budget and I am impressed by that. I am sure that we will get your signature at the end of this meeting. You are personally underwriting this.

I will hold him to that as well.

My original question, though, was whether parts of the scheme would not go ahead if costs went over budget.

We are not planning on that basis at all at the moment.

Part of the rail network in Fife has permanent speed restrictions because of mine workings. Is there a danger that such restrictions could happen on part of the Airdrie to Bathgate line? The scheme seems to be sensitive to the journey times from each end, to the extent that it is argued that that is why stations in certain places might not be desirable. Clearly, if you could not obtain 80mph running on parts of the line because of mine workings, that would have the same effect as having extra station stops.

It would, but we come back again to site investigation works. We will carry out such works to determine where the mine workings are and we will design remedial measures to address them. We have provided in our planning and estimating for the works that we believe will be needed. We have also included them in our risk register and we have put probabilities against them. We have a high degree of confidence that we will be able to open the line at the speed limits that we have indicated.

Just to be clear, if there is an area where there is a risk of subsidence and a need to reduce the speed, we would go in to treat the area and apply techniques such as grouting to seal up the mine workings.

I will supplement that by confirming that during the initial technical feasibility study a large programme of mineral bores and soils investigation was carried out, which was sufficient to identify areas of risk. Such work is by no means complete and Network Rail proposes to carry on with it. As we speak, investigations of ground conditions on the Bathgate branch are being carried out to add information to the store. There is also a full desktop study to identify workings and abandoned workings along the route.

My earlier questions were about the cost estimates that are under your control, but, as I understand it, the forecast that you presented to Transport Scotland includes a large window for rail or construction industry inflation, which might affect the outturn cost of £341 million. In 2006 prices, the Executive's commitment is £299.7 million. However, there are other major transport schemes in Scotland, such as the Edinburgh and Glasgow airport rail links, the tram lines and the Borders railway. There is perhaps an unprecedented level of construction in the rail industry. I would have thought that that would have a considerable impact on industry inflation, which may well change radically during the next three to five years and affect the outturn costs. How did you calculate your figures? Did you use a standard forecast of industry inflation?

We have done the calculations twice. First, we used Network Rail's standard cost indices. Since then, Transport Scotland has given us tender price indices, so we inflated the figures by a forecast of tender prices up to the point of contract award, and thereafter we inflated the figures for cost of living indices.

What are those percentages?

I do not recall them offhand, but the tender prices certainly outstripped the cost of living allowances. Within the tender price, there is obviously a forecast of some overheating in the construction market.

So that information was provided by Transport Scotland and reflects its forecast of industry inflation, given the other capital schemes.

That is correct. The suite of indices was given to us by Transport Scotland. Prior to that, we did our own calculation, using our own indices, and the revised total of £341 million is an increase on our original forecast.

If the other schemes go ahead and the figure is subsequently revised again, but there is no more money—

There are also opportunities in the project. Because a lot of the railway is off-track, there is an opportunity to open up the market to contractors we would not normally use on the railway. We have a greenfield environment, essentially, and there are opportunities in that. Also, because a lot of our work is done at weekends and at night, there are opportunities to use on the new railway resources that are not always fully utilised during the week. There are risks, but there are also opportunities to make better use of what is there already.

Inflation in the busy house building market is also considerably higher than it was five or 10 years ago.

Yes, but the resources that are required for house building are different from the resources that we need for building the railway.

It is also important to remember that an opportunity exists because Network Rail will be involved in some of the other projects that are being progressed through the Parliament at the moment. We will project manage the Airdrie to Bathgate project and we will also manage our own renewals programme, which places a heavy demand on resources. With careful planning, we can make sure that we minimise any risk of overheating in the market. I am talking about things such as signalling resources. If we plan the use of those resources carefully in the projects, we can help to prevent that from becoming a problem. That is about careful project management, quite simply.

Will you assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the bridges along the proposed route?

This has been the subject of much discussion with the various councils. My recollection is that any additional bits of road and the cycle path will be taken on and run by the local authority. The issue of who is best placed to maintain and manage the bridges over the railway is still subject to discussion.

When do you expect those discussions to come to an end?

The fact that we have got to a stage at which we are probably only talking about the bridges means that the discussions should conclude in the next couple of months. To be honest, I would not describe it as a major issue.

Although you might not be project managing the other schemes, I assume that you will be tendering for work on the Borders railway, the Edinburgh and Glasgow airport links and so on. What capacity does your organisation have in Scotland to go for those projects?

Network Rail is a huge organisation. It has lots of resources across Great Britain. Those resources are available to be used wherever they are needed. I have the luxury of being able to call on resources from elsewhere in the company, should they be available, if they are needed in Scotland.

There is no doubt that, outwith London, Scotland is experiencing the biggest investment of any area in Great Britain. We are in discussion with the promoters—or the undertaker, in the case of the Borders railway—of all of the schemes that you have mentioned about what the level of our engagement should be in the projects. Nothing has yet been signed up to or cast in tablets of stone, but the discussions are positive.

That concludes the committee's evidence taking for today. I thank all the witnesses for participating. Our next and final oral evidence meeting will take place next Monday in the Scottish Parliament.

As agreed, we will move into private session to consider the evidence that we have heard today.

Meeting continued in private until 15:16.