Official Report 270KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee's fifth meeting of 2006. Today we will continue to hear oral evidence on the bill's general principles and we will focus on the main policy objectives of transport, including interchange and rail operations as well as social inclusion.
We begin with oral evidence, for which I welcome Ron McAulay and Susan Anderson from Network Rail. Members have several questions and I will start. What impact will the Edinburgh airport rail link have on Network Rail's operations?
May I begin by saying a few words to set the scene? That might be useful.
That would be useful.
As members will be aware, Network Rail owns, operates, renews and maintains the rail network in Great Britain. That gives us a unique perspective as the asset steward of the rail infrastructure. We welcome the opportunity to support the committee's work.
Thank you. You have given us a number of issues that we might want to follow up on in our questioning.
Introducing new infrastructure into an existing operational railway, particularly in an area that is already heavily used, inevitably creates problems to do with fitting in new timetables and the desired train patterns. We have been working with Transport Scotland on how we can best establish the impact of the scheme on performance. We are developing a modelling tool called the RailSys model, which allows us to model different timetables and the impact on performance. The model will cover a much larger area than just the EARL infrastructure; it will cover much of the central Scotland railway network. Once we have the model in place, we will be able to assess more accurately the impact on the timetable. The model will not be ready for a number of months yet. Basically, it will allow us to play tunes—we will use it to come up with the best timetabling solutions.
On that point, I appreciate that the model will not be ready for a couple of months—
A few months.
In using the model, I assume that you are attempting to retain current rail patterns such as the 15-minute service from Queen Street to Waverley and half-hour services from Fife or Dunblane to Edinburgh as well as to build in a 15-minute service on the Airdrie to Bathgate line if it reopens. I assume that you are putting all of that into the melting pot to see whether you can do all of it.
Correct.
I will not hold you to any answer that you may give, but are you reasonably confident that that might be a possibility, or will the pattern of train journeys if not their timing need to be tweaked?
To use your words, I am reasonably confident that that might be a possibility. A lot of work has to be done before we can establish the overall impact of our attempts to get all those different trains through this set of infrastructure.
An answer that is more caveated than my question.
Frankly, it is too early to give you a definitive answer.
Okay. What sort of discussions, either in-depth or preliminary, have you had with Transport Scotland on the impact of the proposed rail link?
We have been in discussion with Transport Scotland. I will give an example. In the case of passenger demand versus available capacity, our forecasting suggests that we will very quickly get to the point where the Edinburgh to Glasgow line is running at capacity during morning peak travel times. We need to work with Transport Scotland to find a solution to that problem. The solution may be to lengthen the rolling stock to provide longer trains and lengthen the platforms between Edinburgh and Glasgow to accommodate the longer trains. Work such as that needs to be done and we are in discussion with Transport Scotland to take it forward. I should point out that that needs to be done regardless of whether the EARL project goes ahead.
As some members want to come in on that point, I will take their questions now.
I listened carefully to your scene setting. You said that the meetings that you have had with TIE were both late in the day and short and sharp. However, EARL is predicated to a great extent on Network Rail being able to say that rail systems will operate and timetables will run together properly. It seems that that cannot be done in time; you said that that would happen during the course of the project. Do you mean that it will happen while we are building the project?
I mean that it will require projects to run in parallel with this project.
Should all this background work not have been done in advance with Network Rail as the provider before we went ahead and considered spending more than £600 million?
It is not for me to say whether it should have been done in advance. As long as it is done within the timescales of the project, I do not see it as being an issue. It is work that needs to be done regardless of whether the EARL project is required, and it is work that we are in discussion with Transport Scotland about at the moment.
I heard you saying that, but my grasp of the principle—other members will correct me if I am wrong—is that if there is to be this sort of link or travel hub, all the timetables for trains from the airport and elsewhere will have to be predicated on that work. I do not hear that in what you are telling me. I hear that there is still an awful lot of talk about whether the project can be delivered. I am hearing about extending platforms because of the capacity on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line, and it sounds as if there is still an awful lot of work to be done by you.
There is an awful lot of work to be done, but I am not surprised that that is the case, because there are still five or six years before the project is due to be commissioned. I am sorry if that does not answer your question.
You are helping me along, but I am trying to understand why we are talking about it. I would not expect every i to be dotted and every t to be crossed, but I would have expected you, as provider, to be further down the road.
You commented on how I described the discussions that we have had—
Short and sharp.
The short, sharp review was an in-depth review involving quite a number of people over a period of about six weeks. To call it short and sharp may be slightly misleading; it was certainly an in-depth review of the project. In any project such as this, I would expect there to be things that would come out of such a review.
Did you not also say that you came in quite late in the day? I thought that I picked up something like that.
Network Rail's involvement in the scheme has been somewhat late in the day, and that is because of our history. Railtrack, our predecessor organisation, was consulted on some timetabling issues back in 2001, but it then went into administration for the best part of a year, until October 2002, during which time Railtrack was not engaging in enhancement-type projects. We were concentrating very much on the operations, maintenance and renewal of the railway.
Would the pattern that has been followed for the EARL project be followed for other projects of a similar nature?
Yes and no. Because we are promoting the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, our involvement and engagement in that project have been 100 per cent. The Glasgow airport rail link is a more straightforward project, which involves building a lot of infrastructure alongside our existing infrastructure. The bulk of the project involves a third line being laid alongside the Paisley to Glasgow Central line, so we have perhaps been more closely involved with that project for that reason.
What other discussions have you had about input into the design of the EARL project? I am thinking of the engineering works that will be necessary to complete the project, as well as some of the other options that have been discussed, including the Turnhouse option and the Gogar station option, which we heard about last week.
As far as the physical design of the project is concerned, the only proposal that we have really looked at in depth is the current proposal—the runway tunnel option.
Is that because the other two options—the other one, I should say, because it is really Turnhouse that we are talking about—were discounted before you were involved in the discussions?
I must admit to having read through the reports, or the executive summaries of the reports, that were produced on those options. My recollection is that the Turnhouse option was rejected because of overall passenger numbers and revenue implications. We have not been closely involved in considering the detailed design of those projects.
I would like to press you further on that point. In your view, is the scheme that is proposed by the promoter—the runway tunnel option—the best scheme to provide a rail connection to Edinburgh airport?
I am not convinced that Network Rail is the right organisation to determine whether that is the best option. I would describe the project as a strategic project that takes into account much wider issues than the rail network. It takes into account social inclusion and the economic benefit to the country as a whole. It is not our place to determine whether that solution is the best one. I suggest that that is for the Scottish Executive, Transport Scotland and the ministers to determine.
Forgive me if I am asking a stupid question, but is it possible that the rail link could be built but that, for timetabling or other reasons, trains would not use it?
I would have thought that that is extremely unlikely.
Use of the line will not just depend on train operators wanting to use it. I presume that Network Rail will have to give the okay because of the implications for the national timetable. I am trying to tease out what the relationship is between a train operator wanting to run a service and Network Rail allowing it, given that it will have an impact on other services that use the rail network. Do you see what I mean?
I think I see what you mean. It is probably unthinkable that we would build the rail link and not use it. The arrangements are yet to be confirmed, but I imagine that we would adopt the infrastructure and become the asset owner and operator. With the infrastructure in place, we would be as keen as anyone to make sure that it was used. Transport Scotland would contract with the franchisee—First ScotRail, at present—to run trains via the station. We would be able to accommodate that because we would find solutions to timetabling issues to make sure that the rail link worked.
Is the level of rail services that TIE proposes in the indicative timetable achievable?
It is extremely challenging. We will have to rely on the outcome of the RailSys model to confirm whether it is achievable, but I am an eternal optimist and I am sure that we will find a solution somewhere.
A number of people have said that there will be delays to some services as a result of the airport rail link. For example, services to and from Aberdeen might take three to six minutes longer. Do you have a feel for what impact that might have on patronage of those services by people who are not going to the airport?
You would have to direct that question to the train operators because it is they who will model the changes to patronage levels as a result of longer journey times. That is not something that Network Rail would consider in depth.
But, overall, you regard EARL as something that will increase the network capacity.
I see EARL as something that offers additional flexibility and additional infrastructure in the network. It will have benefits. For example, it will help to relieve some of the pressure on the junction at Newbridge because it will allow us to divert some trains from Winchburgh so that they go via the airport station rather than via Newbridge.
You mentioned Winchburgh. West Lothian Council is concerned about whether there will still be capacity to include a new station at Winchburgh, which is part of the local plan. Does Network Rail have a view on whether that will still be a feasible option if EARL is built?
I would not rule it out. It is always a possibility. However, we have to be careful that we understand the implications of adding stations, such as longer journey times. The Edinburgh to Glasgow line is a busy line already—
I am thinking more about the engineering aspects. West Lothian Council is concerned that there might be engineering reasons why it would not be possible to build a station at Winchburgh.
I know of no engineering reasons that would prevent that from happening.
You described the proposed EARL timetable as "extremely challenging"—
I used the word "challenging"; I do not know whether I said "extremely challenging".
We can check that in the Official Report in due course.
That is correct.
The committee heard that the proposed EARL timetable should be beefed up to enable people who come to the airport from further afield than Edinburgh to catch flights early in the morning and late at night. Would the timetable be extremely challenging if it were beefed up in that way?
I would certainly use the word "extremely" in that context.
When the convener said that work on the RailSys model would be concluded in "a couple of months", you said, "A few months." What is the difference?
There are different stages in the development of the model. We have to get the model operational for the existing network and then we must add projects such as the Airdrie to Bathgate line and EARL. We will probably not be in a position to have useful information from the model until towards the end of the year.
What concerns do you have about security in relation to the EARL scheme?
I presume that you mean that the introduction of an airport and rail interface might generate additional concerns about security. It is for the British Transport Police to address such issues on behalf of the industry.
TIE and Network Rail's security experts have been in dialogue to consider security. We are comfortable that appropriate measures would be taken that would alleviate all parties' concerns.
Are you worried that many people would be pushed through a tunnel? Currently, people who use the airport do not have to go through a tunnel.
There are tunnels throughout the network; operating a railway in a tunnel does not create unusual risks.
The proposed tunnel would have a junction in it. Would it be the only such tunnel?
No, it would not be the only tunnel to have a junction.
I thought that at last week's meeting members were told that it would be the only such tunnel.
There are junctions in tunnels in other locations on the network. An example that springs to mind is at Birmingham New Street station.
Is that a diesel operation?
There is diesel operation across those lines.
How dependent is the EARL scheme on additional infrastructure elsewhere on the network?
I highlighted the issue about platform lengthening. If no platform lengthening is carried out on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line, the trains will be full at certain peak times and there will not be enough spare capacity for passengers. We also need to ensure that the rolling stock that is proposed will perform as expected, given the proposed tunnel gradients. If current journey times are to be maintained, particularly on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line, rolling stock must be considered. Such issues need to be addressed and we should not underestimate their significance.
Is platform lengthening a straightforward procedure, or do you foresee problems in that regard?
Some aspects of platform lengthening would be pretty challenging—I am using my favourite word again—although other aspects might be straightforward.
I have a point about rolling stock. The committee has heard some evidence that the recommendation is likely to be for class 220 diesel multiple units. Do you have a view about the suitability of that particular type of train and its ability to deal with the challenges?
I am not going to sit here and claim to be an expert on rolling stock, because that is the responsibility of the train operator rather than Network Rail, although we do have experts.
Are we talking about off-the-shelf rolling stock? You described it as a hybrid and that sounds to me like an experiment with something that is not running on a network just now.
As far as I am aware, there is no version of this train running on the network yet.
The House of Commons Transport Committee recently reported its views on train fares and ticketing, and it commented that value for money for train passengers had deteriorated, with inconsistent fare prices across providers and fragmented and narrower restrictions on cheaper fares. How will Network Rail ensure that there is some consistency?
Setting fares is the remit of the train operating companies and not Network Rail.
So it has nothing to do with you.
No.
Is it possible that the train operating companies might use the EARL scheme in a different way from that envisaged by the promoter? Instead of having through trains that come from somewhere else, might they have a train going out to the airport and then coming back in again to Edinburgh?
Timetabling is never set in tablets of stone; it will change year on year. Train patterns will change and we have to be flexible enough to take into account changes in demand and so on.
I want to pick up on two points from your introductory statement. Could you elaborate on what you said about the scope of the project and the resource issues?
In effect, the review of the project picked up on a few bits and pieces that were associated with the airport side of the project rather than the railway side of it and which we felt had been missed out of the scope. We are in discussion with TIE about ensuring that those bits and pieces are included in the overall project. The concern relates more to what I describe as the enabling works of the project. Enabling works are the things that we have been discussing such as platform lengthening and making sure that the rolling stock is purchased and in place in time.
Is anyone—Network Rail or anyone else—prioritising those projects, or are we just hoping that they will all come to fruition?
We are not involved in the prioritisation of that programme. Transport Scotland would be expected to do that.
I listened to what you said about resources. Let us park the money side of it—although cost is a big issue—and talk about construction. Is it your position that there are too many projects in the basket for them all to be constructed within the timescale that is being set down?
To be frank with you, I was not even thinking about the money aspect of it.
I was—on behalf of the Scottish public.
I am sure that you were. My concern is more about ensuring that we programme the projects sensibly so that they can be delivered as efficiently as possible. I was thinking more about the resources to design, develop and construct all the schemes. I emphasise that my concerns are not insurmountable but are about things that will need careful management. I flag them up as issues that we all need to be aware of and need to address.
As there are no other questions, I thank you both for coming along. It has been very helpful.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome Jim Rafferty to the meeting and thank him very much for appearing today at short notice.
I thank Jim Rafferty for the written evidence he has provided and ask him to answer our questions to supplement it. I accept what he says about EARL not being a social inclusion project, but we are told that building the transport hub would have a large economic impact on inclusion, so I ask him to illustrate that impact in Edinburgh or beyond.
It is fairly straightforward and is not necessarily a complicated equation. My view, based on experience here and furth of Edinburgh, is that inclusion benefits generally derive from and are associated with economic development and prosperity. The most clear-cut link between the two is in the case of jobs, specifically sustainable jobs, that can be created through the project. The main benefits will derive closer to the facility. None of that is particularly complicated.
Do you think that the project is Edinburgh-centric and provides fewer benefits to the rest of Scotland?
It will benefit Edinburgh, south Fife and the rest of east-central Scotland. That is the logical geography of the airport.
Does a project of this sort provide the kind of jobs that lift people out of unemployment or very low-paid work?
It can. Because jobs will be provided on such a scale, there will be a lot of layering in the types of jobs that will be available. All of them are useful to people who operate in that job market. I am thinking not of the quick-hit construction phase, but of the jobs that will be associated with an enhanced, enlarged airport facility. If one impact of the rail link and the enhancement and enlargement of the airport and its effectiveness is an increase in inward tourism, the additional jobs that will come in that sector will be especially useful as entry-level jobs. There will be a wide range of jobs of the type that we can use well in this labour market.
I want to press you on direct employment at the airport. I do not know what the current figure is, but you say that it
The figure comes from questions that the committee put previously to the promoter. I have taken it from that background paper. The current figure is about 2,300. The medium term to which I refer is about 2013. Again, I am just citing the background paper. The longer term is 2030.
You may not know this, but how many of the 2,300 jobs are held by people based in Edinburgh?
I genuinely do not know that.
Perhaps we can pursue the issue. I would like to know what the current breakdown is.
In the second-last paragraph of your submission, you say that the increased accessibility benefits that the promoter asserts
Again, the answer is fairly straightforward. It relates to my primary point, which is that, in respect of social inclusion, the primary effects and benefits of the project are financial, economic and related to jobs. The addition of a rail link to the airport may benefit some people with mobility issues, but that is a much less direct and substantial foreseeable benefit. It will not do harm, but it will not provide a solid primary benefit.
Are the skills that are needed for the predicted new job opportunities that the promoter asserts will be facilitated by the EARL scheme already available in the area?
In my view, they are available in the immediate and surrounding areas. I suspect that the project will not create a large number of jobs that have skill requirements that cannot be met in the local labour market. That is part of its attraction. The main benefit of the project is that, if it is properly managed, jobs can be filled and tasks can be done by our tapping into an untapped existing labour pool within the working-age inactive population in and around the area of the airport.
In your view, what is the key job creation benefit of the bill?
Simply that—the creation of more jobs that can be planned and that are sustainable serving areas where the availability of those jobs can pull people into the labour market. The point is not complicated. I am tending to repeat myself, but that is the straightforward fact of the matter.
What actions do you suggest the promoter and the owners of the airport take to enhance the social inclusion benefits at the airport and from the scheme?
Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the issue goes back to managing the jobs and exploiting them to their best capacity. A managed, partnered process between the promoter, BAA and the public sector would mean that we could manage and plan the development of the jobs and match them to the population that we want them to match to—rather than just leave that to chance. That would maximise the benefit.
So you are looking for an opportunity for your organisation to sit down with the promoter and the airport operator to target the employment opportunities?
I will seek that opportunity if the project goes through and I think that others in my position should as well.
I might be asking you to repeat yourself, but can you comment on the benefits to people on low incomes of having the public transport provision that this scheme will bring about?
That depends on the price of the public transport, to be perfectly frank.
That was going to be my next question—I thought that I could get you to comment on the impact of integrated fares and the price of fares on social inclusion. Could you expand on your view?
I do not know how much I can say in that regard. I doubt that there is much harm that it can do. It will probably bring about benefits, but I have not seen a study that leads me to say how beneficial it would be.
In your organisation's operational experience of working with socially excluded people, does the price of accessing public transport come up as an issue for your clients?
It does, as does the ease of accessing a workplace. If the proposals affect access in that sense, that will be a benefit. If it does so at a reasonable price, that will be a benefit as well.
You have said that the benefits
They might, but they would probably come at the end of that list.
After the rest.
Those areas would benefit as much as the other areas that are not on that list. I apologise for the exclusion of those areas. The important point is to do with access to the line.
I am thinking of the Waverley line being part of the network, which would enable people to access work—
I have not taken that as a given at this stage.
Neither have I.
Are there any points that the committee has not covered that you want to stress to us?
No.
I thank you for giving up your time and coming to the committee.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.
I welcome everyone back to the meeting—thank you for your patience. The final panel for this afternoon's meeting comprises witnesses for the promoter. To respond to questions on transport interchange and rail operations, we have Susan Clark, the project director for TIE Ltd; Alan Somerville, the commercial manager for heavy rail with TIE; Gary Coutts, the railway engineer manager with Scott Wilson Railways; and Trond Haugen, the transportation manager with Fife Council and the chair of the south-east Scotland transport partnership rail group. I thank them for taking the time to come to answer our questions. As in previous weeks, we will direct the questions to Susan Clark, who will either answer them or pass them to the most appropriate person.
I refer to the evidence that we received a short while ago from Network Rail. Among other things, we were told that Network Rail cannot comment on the impact of EARL on existing railway timetables until it has completed the modelling on its new RailSys system. You will understand the potential difficulty that that gives the committee in relation to our timetable. Do you wish to comment on what Network Rail said and the implications for the project at this stage?
Yes, I would like to comment. I fear that Network Rail may have left the committee with the impression that it has been engaged in the project for only the past few weeks, so I would like to set the record straight on that. Network Rail, which was Railtrack at the time, commissioned the first report into the development of a rail link to Edinburgh airport in 1999. That first report, which was a feasibility study on what in effect was the runway tunnel option, was produced in conjunction with BAA. During the work on the subsequent report by Sinclair Knight Merz, which examined a range of options for rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, Railtrack and Network Rail—the work was done at the cusp, when Railtrack turned into Network Rail—were consulted on the options and provided advice to SKM.
Yes, indeed, and you have covered several additional questions that I had for you. Mr McAulay of Network Rail said in effect that most of Network Rail's concerns about EARL are on the airport side. Do you want to comment on that?
I think that he was referring to the reprovisioning of facilities such as aircraft stands and helipads at the airport. We have taken due cognisance of those facilities and provision will be made within the contingency fund to allow for their reprovisioning. The facilities would need to be moved as a result of EARL, but potentially also because of BAA's expansion plans.
Right, but what you describe are not show-stoppers in the context of Edinburgh airport's plans for the future of its terminal buildings.
No. Just as we have worked closely with Network Rail on the project, we have worked closely with BAA. We set up separate work streams to look at the impact of the project on both BAA and Network Rail operations. We have identified the facilities that would need to be reprovided to BAA.
I think that I am right in saying that Edinburgh airport still objects to EARL at the moment. Is what you just said likely to have any impact on its stance as an objector?
We will continue to work with BAA as an objector to deal with its concerns and to try to remove its objection.
The House of Commons Transport Committee produced a report on train fares and ticketing in which it described two pricing policies, both of which are geared to maximise revenue. Would the promoter recommend a high rate per mile or a lower, competitive, rate per mile approach to ticket pricing?
To date, the promoter has established a fare that maximises both revenue—as far as we can see—and patronage. We placed the fare at the point where we would get most people using the rail link and that would generate the highest level of benefit for the project. Perhaps Trond Haugen has something more to say about rail fares.
The proposed fares are lower than those for going all the way into Edinburgh, but not that much lower. They fit in with the existing fare structure and therefore with the policies of Transport Scotland and First ScotRail.
Are they consistent with the view that Mr Renilson gave the committee a week ago? You will remember that we questioned him specifically on ticket integration and other aspects of fares policy.
At that point, there was some confusion about whether an integrated fare was more expensive than two standalone fares. Whether buying a combined ticket would be cheaper than buying separately the rail and bus portions of the ticket was explored.
Okay. You indicated your expectation that the railway works will ultimately be vested in Network Rail. Have you considered the possibility that Network Rail might decline to take over ownership of EARL, or operational responsibilities, upon completion—or, indeed, agree to operate the scheme only in part?
I find it difficult to believe that Network Rail would refuse to accept EARL into its regulatory asset base. I know from experience that it is difficult to operate a network when a part of it is owned, maintained and operated by a third party. I think that Network Rail will share my view. It is our view that Network Rail is most likely to adopt the infrastructure. If the question were asked of Network Rail, I think it would confirm that view.
But do you have a contingency plan if there is difficulty in your negotiations with Network Rail?
There will be negotiations between Network Rail and Transport Scotland, which is the paymaster for Network Rail in Scotland. I do not think it is likely that a third party will own and operate a piece of the infrastructure that is so integral to the overall Scottish rail network.
I seek clarification. You have made what I would have to call a lengthy rebuttal of what Network Rail said. The RailSys report will not be available until December 2006. Can the committee recommend the general principles of the bill before that report is made public?
If I may, I will go back a bit. As yet, we have not fully developed the timetable modelling that we have developed in isolation. It has been developed using the standard industry tool that was in place at the time; Network Rail was involved in its production. We are confident that the timetable model that we have produced is robust. Mr McAulay outlined the need to look cumulatively at all the projects, to assess their overall impacts. Network Rail introduced RailSys fairly recently as its modelling tool. We have recently introduced it into the EARL project to ensure that we develop the timetable using the same standard tool as Network Rail is using.
Thank you for that full answer. Can I have a straight answer to my question whether the committee can recommend the general principles of the bill before the Network Rail report is made public?
You have had assurances from Mr McAulay that there are no insurmountable problems. He said that he sees no show-stoppers. We agree with him in that respect.
I have a follow-up question on the ownership of the infrastructure. I understand that Network Rail will take over the rail lines, signalling and so forth, but who will own and operate the station at the airport?
It is likely that the station will fall into the category that most other stations fall into, which is of being leased to and managed by a train-operating company.
So, in effect, it will come into the ScotRail franchise, whoever the current franchisee is?
Yes.
I will follow on from Charlie Gordon's question at the beginning of the session. Were you surprised at the answers that we got from Network Rail?
I am concerned that Network Rail gave you the wrong impression about its level of involvement. Obviously, because we work closely with Network Rail, we are aware of its concerns about timetabling and so forth. Network Rail is on the project board. I am concerned that the committee may be left with the wrong impression about its level of engagement.
That is exactly why I asked the question. You have said clearly that Network Rail has been involved in the project over a long period of time and that it is on the project board. I would have thought that any concerns that it had would have been well articulated at those meetings. The impression that I got—and, indeed, the impression that the rest of the committee got; I think that I speak for the rest of the committee—is that Network Rail has major concerns about the project. Its representatives did not make it sound as if Network Rail had been as involved in the project as you have suggested. We are struggling to understand why we should be given two such different versions of the story.
These issues are raised through the project board. That is all that I can really add.
Okay. Are there any other questions on the transportation aspect?
Convener, I wonder whether it might be appropriate to recall Network Rail either today or at some other point so that we can resolve the discrepancy—it might, perhaps, be inadvertent—between the two sets of evidence.
I suggest that we write to Network Rail about the issue, but we can discuss that later.
Yes, I just wanted to put the matter on record.
Okay. I thank Trond Haugen and Alan Somerville, who will now leave us. I thank them both for their attendance this afternoon.
I have a general question about the accessibility of other rail stations. How dependent is the accessibility of EARL on upgrades to accessibility at other stations such as Haymarket, where there is a long-standing issue about disabled access to platforms?
Our written evidence shows that 62 stations—69 stations if we include the Borders rail link that was approved last week—will have direct access to Edinburgh airport via EARL. At those 62 stations, we have identified the accessibility issues, such as the need for disabled access ramps. Station operators are required to ensure that their facilities comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Gail Jeffrey might want to expand on that.
Details on the stations that are accessible are given in table 9.1 of our written submission.
Which key new geographical areas of employment does the promoter believe will become accessible through the operation of EARL?
Employment will be generated at a number of levels. As we heard from Jim Rafferty earlier, EARL is not a social inclusion project per se but it will facilitate social inclusion through job creation. It will do that at a Scottish level by providing an uplift in the Scottish economy. Through that uplift, it will provide additional jobs throughout Scotland, especially in tourism, which provides eight jobs per additional 1,000 tourists. In Edinburgh city region, people will be able to access additional jobs, which will be created both at the airport and as a result of the economic growth pole that airports tend to be. In Edinburgh itself, people will be able to access those jobs.
I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence today.
Marwan AL-Azzawi might also want to add to what we have said.
I will add a little to Bruce Rutherford's comments about the benefits further afield. The analysis shows that there will be benefits to places such as Glasgow, Fife, the Lothians, Dundee and places further north.
Do you have any information on current patterns of where the people who work at the airport or who have jobs that are linked to the airport come from? Do you expect that catchment area or that footprint to increase with EARL?
I am not sure that we have that specific detail available, but I will pass over to Marwan AL-Azzawi.
Susan Clark is right: we do not have that information to hand, although we have the figures for that and we are happy to supply them to the committee. However, as a broad-brush answer, the accessibility modelling shows that the new services that will stop at the airport will increase the present catchment area for jobs by 17 per cent. At present, there are about 2,400 jobs at the airport, but the figure is set to grow to 9,000. Therein lies the crux of the issue, which is that the catchment area for jobs is at present restricted because of restrictions on the accessibility of the airport. When EARL plus some of the other projects that are in the pipeline are introduced, the catchment area will be widened. We cannot compare like with like when we start to look into the future.
One of the fairly obvious aspects of jobs at the airport is that they tend to start early and finish late. Obviously, travellers cannot come to the airport unless there are people there to deal with them. How will the workers who need to be at the airport early in the morning or late at night be serviced by EARL, if at all?
Not all the jobs at the airport start early and finish late. In the analysis with which we will provide the committee on where people come from, we will include information on the range of high-skill and low-skill jobs and on which of those jobs start early in the morning and finish late at night.
Your written evidence states that 64 per cent of the Scottish population in 14 local authority areas will have access to Edinburgh airport through EARL. What options will the other 36 per cent of the population have for accessing Edinburgh airport?
That figure takes into account locations that have a station that will provide direct access to Edinburgh airport. For other locations in Scotland, access will be possible, but with an interchange. For example, people in the south-west of Scotland will be able to travel to Glasgow and on from there. I am not sure that we understand what percentage of the population the possibility of interchange brings into the catchment area, but we have tried to demonstrate that, with EARL alone—without any connecting services—64 per cent of the population will be given direct access to the airport through a station.
The Disability Discrimination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations 2005 will come into force on 4 December 2006. Have you taken those regulations into account?
I will pass that to Gail Jeffrey in a minute. We have reviewed that documentation. We will ensure that the new regulations are considered in our work with Transport Scotland on the development of the rolling stock strategy. I have spoken previously about the rolling stock specification that we have given to Transport Scotland, part of which is that the rolling stock must be DDA compliant.
Those regulations are connected largely with rolling stock, but we should consider how people will access the rolling stock. The station will be fully accessible and fully DDA compliant. There will be ramped access and lifts for mobility impaired people. Research shows that one in five of the Scottish population could be termed as disabled. Of that group, about 70 per cent have mobility problems and the remainder have other disabilities such as hearing and sight impairments or learning difficulties.
You said that there would be a 17 per cent increase in the catchment area. Will you put that into a geographical context? How will EARL embrace places that were not reached before?
At the moment, the catchment area includes Edinburgh, the rest of the Lothians, parts of the Borders, Fife and Stirling plus further afield places depending on how far people are willing to travel. The area could go as far as Glasgow, for example.
I have no problem with paragraph 206 of your submission on social inclusion, where you say:
We are doing a project on skills with Careers Scotland. At the moment, it is focusing on the vicinity of the EARL project and taking it into local schools to open the eyes of both primary and secondary pupils to opportunities in employment, particularly in science and engineering. We are also about to start discussions with the Edinburgh construction academy about upskilling people for the construction roles in Edinburgh. I will pass over to Marwan AL-Azzawi who will speak about the wider skill set.
To answer the question about what research has been carried out to look at skills, we have spoken to various organisations as part of our accessibility and social inclusion analysis, including Jobcentre Plus. We have also spoken to other local authorities that are charged with pursuing that agenda. We identified the wards in the catchment area that is likely to benefit directly as a result of the scheme. Of the 50 worst social inclusion wards, 14—15 if we include that on the Waverley line—will have direct access to the airport as a result of EARL. Those are very big win-win situations. Consultation was also undertaken with the relevant stakeholders.
Not everybody lives right at the station. What percentage of the people who live within range of the stations that are to be connected to the airport will have to use other public transport to get to the station to get on the train to take them to Edinburgh airport? Given that we are talking about making an early start and having a late finish, will people be able to get home at night or to the airport early enough in the morning? What kind of analysis has been done of that?
The table to which Gail Jeffrey referred—table 9.1—lists the populations that will be within a 10-minute walking distance of a station that links them to the airport rail link. About 2.1 million people live within a 10-minute walking distance of those existing stations. That is a significantly large number of people. If we look at a slightly wider catchment area, we end up with 3.2 million people who will be within 20 to 30 minutes' walking distance of such a station.
I am talking about people who will use the line for working there—
Those people are included in the figures. All the stations that are listed in the table are used not only by visitors but by commuters, people who work at the airport and people for whom it will be easy to take up a new job at the airport. The figures include not just the general population but the people whom we discussed earlier.
Is Christine Grahame referring to people who are likely to take up employment at the airport?
Yes. If the airport will develop because of the station, how many people will use the station as a means to get to their work? I am asking about the job opportunities that will result from the line rather than the wider issues of tourism and so on.
Is the question how many of the predicted 9,000 jobs will be created through the expansion of the airport and how many of those people will access the airport by rail because of EARL?
Yes. Also, how many of those will be required to access public transport to get to their local train station in the first place? How will such connections fit in with people's working hours, shifts and so on? That is an important issue. If EARL is to provide not just Edinburgh-based jobs but to spread the jam further—and not too thinly on the periphery—we need to find out how much analysis has been done on that. From this very expensive project, I want to see benefits for the wider Scottish economy.
We need to remember that a main driver or policy objective for the project is growth of the Scottish economy. Bruce Rutherford will answer the question.
One of our main objectives in the Borders links in with Ms Grahame's idea. We have already started discussions with bus companies in the Borders and Midlothian on the important issue of integrating bus timetables and train timetables. That would be a direct benefit to EARL because the buses start earlier in the mornings than the trains. Our earliest train, which will start at about 6.30 in the morning, will get people to Edinburgh for a 7.30 or 8 o'clock start. However, the buses run earlier than that. We want to ensure that people have a direct link to the train service through feeder buses so that they can then travel into the city by train. I am sure that that could also be replicated in the other areas surrounding the city.
That was my next question. To what extent has the promoter sought to ensure that local transport strategies, such as Bruce Rutherford's strategy in the Borders and strategies elsewhere in Scotland, spread the benefits of accessibility as far as possible?
We have spoken to a number of organisations around Scotland that feed into local transport strategies and we will continue to do that. As the committee has seen, Trond Haugen from SESTRAN has provided evidence on our behalf. SESTRAN has been involved quite heavily in the development of EARL as it has progressed. We will continue to have those discussions with regional transport partnerships on the development of local transport strategies.
If the predicted increase in air traffic did not happen for a variety of reasons, such as environmental costs, fuel costs and so on, what impact would a reduction in predicted passenger growth have on the predicted job numbers? We have been painted a rosy picture of 9,000 jobs being created over 30 years. How many jobs might be created if there was a reduction in predicted passenger growth levels?
We have already provided some analysis to show the drop in growth that would be required to bring EARL's benefit cost ratio down—
I want to know not about the benefit cost ratio of EARL, but how such a drop in passenger growth would impact on jobs. I want to tease that out from the previous diagrams that we were given. Is there a figure for that?
Before I answer that, I want to correct something. The 9,000 jobs estimate comes from the introduction to BAA's master plan. The number of jobs that we estimate will be directly attributable to EARL will be up to 3,300. Our written evidence states that up to 800 of those jobs will be at the airport.
I am looking at table 7.1, in paragraph 206 of paper PROM(P) 1D, which is part of the promoter's response to the committee's questions. That is where the figure of 9,000 jobs came from—it is the projected number of jobs that will be supported directly by the airport in 2030. You are saying that those are BAA's figures and that you do not endorse them.
We have no reason to query those figures. If BAA believes that Edinburgh airport's master plan will generate 9,000 jobs, that is fine. Those jobs will not be generated by EARL, but by the master plan for the expansion of the airport.
I understand that now. Were you going to say something else?
Yes. The answer to your question about the impact of a drop in the predicted growth in air passengers is that the analysis showed that, using the business-case assumptions methodology, growth in air passengers would have to drop by 55 per cent to reach a break-even point in the business case. Using that as a rule of thumb, the growth would have to drop by 55 per cent to reach—
Neutral.
There would be a mixture of pluses and minuses overall from the economic point of view, but that does not mean that there would be no benefits for social inclusion or accessibility. However, purely in economic terms, the predicted growth in air passengers would have to drop by 55 per cent.
Do you mean for the impact on jobs to be neutral?
Yes.
That is what I wanted to know.
In paragraph 208 of paper PROM(P) 1D, figure 7.1 illustrates zero car-owning household access to Edinburgh airport. The figure includes many areas that are not served by a heavy rail link, such as Drylaw and Restalrig. How will EARL assist accessibility from those areas? Is the situation illustrated in figure 7.1 representative of other areas that EARL will serve?
I do not want to get into the technicalities, but many people are termed public-transport captive, which means that they do not own a car or have access to a car because they are part of a one-car household and the car is used by the main breadwinner in the family. EARL will provide direct connectivity to the airport but, as we said earlier, people could also use it as a means of travelling to an interchange point for other destinations. On comparisons with other places, we find that EARL will increase the catchment area by 14 per cent, which in our experience is a good result for a heavy rail scheme in Scotland.
You have talked about jobs, but how many of the job creation benefits that are claimed for EARL will arise as a result of job growth at the airport rather than as a result of the EARL scheme?
Marwan AL-Azzawi has just mentioned a figure of about 3,000 jobs.
I know that he mentioned that, but can you give us a comparison of how many jobs will come from EARL and how many will come from growth at the airport?
I think that Marwan AL-Azzawi said that we predict 3,000 jobs as a result of EARL and that the airport predicts that there will be 9,000 jobs there.
So the 9,000 jobs will all be at the airport.
Yes. EARL will not benefit only job creation at the airport; it will have much wider national benefits. We have talked about the journey-time savings that will be generated. Those will filter through to efficiency gains for businesses, which will also benefit. That is one of the factors that will lead to EARL generating 3,300 jobs.
Will pricing policy be geared to attracting the socially excluded?
Fares policy for the project is a matter for the rail operator and Transport Scotland, although we have done some analysis of fares. Fares policy will be part of the franchise requirement once EARL is introduced.
Please elaborate on the steps taken to ensure that information provided about the new EARL service is accessible to all, including those who are partially sighted, deaf or with hearing difficulties.
At present, we have a fairly substantive website that provides people with a contact number that they can phone for information in different formats, such as in Braille or in a recorded format or in a different language. We have made that facility available to people who want access to information on EARL.
What consideration has been given to ensuring that the lifts between the station and the airport will be secure, crime free and clean?
As we said already, everything that we provide will be DDA compliant. Gail Jeffrey will give further details on those measures.
The operator will be able to ensure that the station and the lifts are maintained to an acceptable standard because of the staffing of the station. As the station will be below surface, staff will be present both at the high level, where the ticket office will be located, and down on the platform level. To a certain extent, the operator will have people who will be constantly monitoring the situation in the station at both high level and low level. That should eliminate the possibility of vandalism and of people making a mess of the station.
Continuing on the issue of the station design, which mobility and access stakeholders will be consulted to ensure that the station design is absolutely right? Gail Jeffrey referred earlier to the types of material that will be used in the station to reduce glare and reflection, but what plans are there to involve people in the design of the station so that we get that right?
Obviously, MACS has given us information on access consultants. We propose to employ an access consultant to ensure that those considerations are built in at the design phase. We appreciate that the members of MACS are busy people but we look forward to continuing dialogue with them on the development of the station. The next phase of design, which will get much more into the detailed design of the station, will be an opportunity for us to involve those people on access issues.
I have another short question, which I want to ask for own my benefit. Paragraph 215 refers to
I will pass that to Gail Jeffrey.
Stations throughout the British network are categorised from A to F. For example, a major station such as Edinburgh Waverley might be a category A station. Essentially, a category C station is considered a regional hub station. Exceptionally large stations, of which there are probably about 25, are category A stations—
Sorry, was that A or E?
A.
I am not convinced that there are 200 stations that meet those criteria in the United Kingdom. Can you give us examples of such stations in Scotland so that we can get an idea of the sort of stations you are talking about? If there is none in Scotland, ones in England might do because some of us might have been to them.
Can we come back to you?
It would be useful to get an idea of what you mean.
We do not need an exhaustive list of 200.
Perhaps a couple of examples of category A, B and C stations.
It would be helpful if you could give us examples of such stations in Scotland, because there is a good chance that we will have been to them and know what they are like. That would enable us to get a feel for what the category label represents.
Can you repeat the first part of the question?
It is about how the implementation of EARL will permit local transport partnerships to link local transport initiatives to the perceived accessibility benefits of EARL.
Obviously, we have spoken to a number of organisations and we will continue to speak to the regional transport partnerships during the development of the project. They are all at the stage of developing their local transport strategies. We will work with them to examine how EARL fits into those strategies. Local authorities such as Perth and Kinross Council and Fife Council have already adopted EARL in their structure plans. The regional transport authorities will take on board the structure plans and consider the transport that is required as a result.
I can give a practical example. Scottish Borders Council is trying to attract an International Rugby Board sevens event to Melrose. Melrose is only three miles away from Tweedbank. We are planning how to get people who come off trains at the end of the line at Tweedbank to Melrose, which is three miles away. That is a practical example of how we deal with such matters.
As a supplementary to that, can I ask—
I trust that you are not going to mention the railway on which you have taken a vow of silence.
I will not mention it—I have taken a vow of partial silence. The lady is for turning.
There are 14 bus operators in the Borders, but the main one is FirstGroup. It so happens that the ScotRail franchise changed over to FirstGroup. There is therefore good integration between bus and rail—at least, there should be.
I have heard of people who catch low-floor buses to go somewhere but then find that they cannot get back. People who do not live right beside a station will have to get there on a low-floor bus, but they may find that they cannot get a low-floor bus to take them back home again. That will happen not only in the Borders but in rural areas all over Scotland, as well as in urban areas.
We are trying to ensure that bus operators provide the most up-to-date buses. Some operators are easy to deal with, are practically minded and will offer assistance, but others are harder to convince, for whatever commercial reasons.
Under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, bus operators will be required over a period of time to put plans in place to modify their fleets.
But that is for 2020, is it not? That is a long way off.
It is a phased approach.
"A phased approach"? You should be a politician. The usual expression is "soon", and then we see how long soon is. But this is a serious issue for people.
Yes, it is.
I want to ask about another issue that affects not only disabled people but elderly people, who become more fragile as the years go on. How will EARL simplify access to air travel for disabled people if their local station is not DDA compliant? I am thinking of high steps to get on to trains, for example.
ScotRail's "Disabled People's Protection Policy" explains how to access stations in the ScotRail network and how to use ScotRail's facilities. The document is already available.
The infrastructure of many railway stations is Victorian, and stations are often built into cuttings or high up on viaducts. Re-engineering stations to make them compliant with the DDA, so that people with mobility impairments can gain access, can be expensive—especially when compared with projects that may bring wider benefits. Has the promoter considered addressing such off-site issues? Are there some stations for which you feel you should provide some help?
The promoter has not considered any infrastructure alterations to stations throughout the network. Currently, the rail operators provide assistance to people who require to use the facilities. The operators are required to be DDA-compliant. The ScotRail documentation says that, where it is not possible to alter the infrastructure, ScotRail will attempt to put in place alternative means of access. The EARL bill has not allowed for infrastructure enhancements at locations that are not currently DDA compliant.
I hope that I am right in saying that every bill that goes through this Parliament must not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, age, sexual orientation, marital status or religion. How have you determined that the EARL bill does not discriminate on any of those grounds? For example, you might have a fares policy that offers families or couples a discount. It is difficult to define "family" these days, although it is getting easier to define "couple".
It will be for Transport Scotland and the franchisee to regulate fares policies. I point the committee to paragraphs 466 and 467 of the promoter's written evidence, which explain how we have not discriminated on the basis of gender, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status or religion. One of the policy objectives is to enhance social inclusion.
I am glad that you added age, which I think I forgot. Having done all this stuff about a growing fragile elderly community—which I am joining quickly as I sit in the Parliament—I think that it is important to add age.
We have analysed the fare that we think is reasonable for accessing the airport. All the evidence shows that we are not considering a high premium fare for access to EARL. That information is available to Transport Scotland and will be available to it in setting fares.
Does that process include group fares, family fares and couple fares, for example? Does it go into such detail?
Marwan AL-Azzawi can probably add some detail about how the overall fare is analysed.
The short answer to Christine Grahame's question is yes. The rail industry considers ticket types, because tickets are marketed to different people and for different journeys. Without going into the technicalities, I can say that a composite fare takes into account all the levels of use of existing ticket types.
The point is that EARL is not predicated on a high premium fare for its benefit cost ratio.
I have two quick questions that arise from Christine Grahame's questions. I will not labour the point on fares but, if the scheme proceeds, is it not the case that the train operator will set the fare? Neither you nor we will be able to do anything about that.
I see Marwan AL-Azzawi shaking his head vigorously, so I will let him answer.
What the convener says is not necessarily the case. Transport Scotland will invite tenderers to run the new franchise and members will have the opportunity to contribute to that process, just as they did when a franchise agreement was recently let to FirstGroup. Transport Scotland will set criteria on matters such as how fares will grow and the services that should run—it will specify what it wants to happen. Bidders will be unable to encroach on some boundaries.
First ScotRail has just increased fares substantially on some parts of the east coast network, but I suppose that that is a different matter. Perhaps we missed an opportunity when that franchise was awarded.
The main example that we can give is on DDA compliance. Gail Jeffrey explained some of the concepts that will be built into the station's design. Perhaps she can add to that.
The project does not discriminate on the basis of gender, race or age. Nothing in the policies, the bill or the design of the station would facilitate discrimination.
Do language issues arise? How do you deal with people who are non-native English speakers?
Signage takes two forms. Some signage is textual, but some pictorial signs in stations are internationally understood and form a consistent approach to allow people from various locations to understand them.
Government guidance on improving accessibility through transport improvements specifies several criteria, one of which is quality, comfort and the travel environment. You say in your supplementary evidence that EARL has taken account of all of those components. How have you taken into account quality, comfort and travel environment benefits?
I think that I am right in saying that Scottish transport appraisal guidance takes all of those elements into consideration. Marwan AL-Azzawi will point to evidence of that in our written submission.
As far as I can tell, you say only that you have taken them into account. You do not say how.
If you want confirmation that they have been taken into account, the answer is yes. Further details of how they have been quantified and included are provided in table 1.9, which is a detailed summary of Scottish transport appraisal guidance methodology. In the section on the left side of the table, under the heading "User Benefits", you can see that we have taken into account station facilities, new rolling stock and the net quality and reliability aspects of the scheme. Those are the standard indicators that are used in Scottish transport appraisal guidance.
In paragraph 223 you say:
We have all written something down on a piece of paper.
People's propensity to travel by public transport is based on confidence that they will get to their destination when they want to. At the moment, travelling by rail to Edinburgh airport requires a number of public transport interchanges, which reduces the individual's confidence that they will get to the airport on time for their flight.
Another important factor is highway congestion. That is a sensitive issue for air travellers, because if they miss their plane they have had it, so to speak. It is important to remember that rail is segregated from the highway network and so is much more reliable than travel by highway modes, unless those are given priority and are segregated, which is not always the case for travellers in taxis and cars.
It is not always the case for rail. Some passengers may find that they have fairly lengthy waits or may require information about changes. For example, if I live in Ladybank and want to access EARL, there will be very few direct trains from the airport to Ladybank. With most services, I will need to change at Inverkeithing or Kirkcaldy. When I get off the plane, how confident can I be that I will get clear information at the airport—not just in the station—about my travel options and when connections are likely to be? If I am travelling further afield—to Inverness, for example—and the next train is not for 55 minutes, will there be any facilities at the station, given that such facilities would be run by a separate operator and would be in competition with the facilities at the airport? I imagine that BAA would not be too keen to have high-quality catering facilities at the station, if those are being run by ScotRail rather than BAA.
We have already had discussions with BAA about providing ticketing and information within the airport to capture people before they leave and to steer them towards public transport instead of out the door, where the first thing they will see is the multi-storey car park or the taxi rank. We will continue to have such discussions in developing the concept of the transport hub.
I agree that 150m does not sound an awful lot, but if an elderly person with a big bag has trundled it 150m to the station only to discover that their train does not leave for another 55 minutes, they might not fancy trundling it back another 150m to the airport.
We discussed with BAA the possibility of providing real-time information within the airport so that people can see when the trains are running before they leave the terminal building.
On the point that Iain Smith made about getting trains to Ladybank, or anywhere else, it might be quicker to get a train to Haymarket and connect with a train that is not going via the airport—whether one of the Glasgow trains or one of the Fife trains. Will information be available that tells people whether it will be quicker to wait for the next train that comes through the airport or to take a train to Edinburgh and change there?
We have not defined fully what information will be available, but we will work with BAA, the franchise holder and Network Rail to identify what information people need and ensure that it is made available. Any access consultant we employ will help us with that. We have already started those discussions and the promoter will ensure that they continue throughout the life of the project through to implementation.
Is it intended that there will be a railway booking office either in the airport or at the airport station?
We have discussed with BAA the facility to buy tickets in the airport building.
From a machine or from a human being?
I think that we discussed having a manned facility.
I think the word should be "staffed", given our concern for equal opportunities.
I want to take a different tack, although these questions are also about people having confidence in their travel experience. I thank the witnesses for their response on security issues. Why is the information that the committee has been given confidential? Perhaps in answering you could tell us which paragraphs are confidential and ask us not to share that information. Some of the information does not look particularly confidential.
Some of the information that we are discussing with security advisers might be confidential. We do not even know the names of some of the people with whom we have been dealing.
You asked them to carry a copy of the Daily Express and wear a rose.
None of the details is particularly confidential, but we have had confidential discussions with a number of agencies.
We will have to consider what we can and cannot make public in our report.
We can mark up the note to show what can be made public.
Will you elaborate on the extent to which the Department for Transport's guide to best practice on inclusive mobility has been taken into account in the design of the station? What about the rolling stock?
We have reviewed the DFT guidance and we will comply with all legislation. We are going a bit beyond that at the moment. We have reviewed emerging European interoperability legislation and considered how we are complying with draft technical standards for DDA compliance.
Suffice it to say that, as railway design consultants, we have a suite of documents that we constantly refer to and "Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure" and the Strategic Rail Authority's code of practice are standard documents for us. Any ramped access to the station would be at a gradient of 1 in 20 or less, and the lifts would be fully compliant to enable access on both sides, so that a wheelchair user could go in one side and come out the other, avoiding the need to turn. There would also have to be tactile strips along the edge of the platform, to enable those who are visually impaired to recognise the end of the platform and to avoid accidents. Induction loops would have to be installed in ticket offices, and there would be ticket office windows at varying heights. We would also have to consider how people would use the ticket barriers, if there are barriers, and how they could be operated to allow access not only to wheelchair users but also to people with sticks or people who require other assistance or who may have someone with them to assist them.
What about the rolling stock?
I understand that the rolling stock will be procured through Transport Scotland, which will comply with the guidance and with the DDA to ensure that the rolling stock is fully compliant. We are also involved in the rolling stock specification, to ensure that there is a good interface between the rolling stock and the station at the airport.
Given that people from many countries will, we trust, be coming into Scotland to spend their money, and that some of them will have disabilities, is there European conformity on signs for disabled access?
I understand that there is, but I would have to confirm that.
It would be interesting to know that.
The platform that is to be built at the station will be 220m long and will accommodate a nine-car train. According to "Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure", a study has shown that the recommended distance limit without a rest is 50m for someone who is mobility impaired and using a stick, and 150m for someone who is visually impaired. Bearing in mind that the platform is 220m long, what provisions have been made for that?
I will give an initial answer before asking Gail Jeffrey to answer in more detail. Those requirements mandate the provision of facilities for people to stop and rest over those distances. Gail will say more about how we will design that in.
As the station is on the level, people will be able to rest in those 50m increments. As far as other rest facilities are concerned, we have considered the design of seating, which will have to take into account security measures and lines of sight. We have to make seating a contrasting colour, to ensure that those with visual impairments recognise that there is an obstacle in the way. We want to provide an element of seating so that people can wait for trains and have the opportunity to rest.
I return to Iain Smith's point about the 150m distance between the airport and the station. Has consideration been given to providing a moving walkway?
At this stage, that is not proposed, but that is one of the things that might be discussed with BAA as part of the plan for an overall transport interchange. For example, there could be a combined moving walkway for both EARL and the tram.
How will the promoter ensure that the relevant station, the links between the airport and the station and the travel information at stations and in trains are accessible?
We will work with all the stakeholders who will provide the overall journey to ensure that we provide information for the through journey. We will work with the access consultant to consider the best ways in which to provide information to people and to a range of mobility impaired people.
We hope to provide information in several formats, including signage and visual and audible information, to enable deaf people and those who are visually impaired to access it.
You talk about an access consultant. Are you working actively with a consultant at the moment, or do you hope to appoint someone in future to work along with you on the design?
We hope to start the process of appointing someone in the near future.
Will you provide details of your information strategy to promote the use of the EARL project? What thought have you given to accessibility issues in considering the way in which the information will be disseminated?
At present, we do not have an information strategy for the use of EARL, as the introduction of the scheme is still about five years away. Throughout that period, we will develop an information strategy along with the key stakeholders. At present, information is available through our website and our consultations in a number of forums. We will continue the information flow so that people are aware that EARL will become available. It is important that we continue dialogue with organisations such as VisitScotland, so that it starts to mention the implementation of EARL in its marketing literature outwith the UK. We will develop several information streams as we approach implementation of the project.
We have spoken a bit about egress from the airport and access to the new station. What discussions, if any, have you had with Edinburgh airport regarding continuity of access for those with mobility problems from the station to the airport? The two issues are not necessarily the same.
Gail Jeffrey has mentioned that, as part of the development of the transport hub, we may consider people walkways. However, discussions on that with BAA are still at a fairly early stage. We have talked about the concept of a transport hub and how we will move people the 150m from the station to the airport.
I take it that there is no suggestion thus far of people purchasing air tickets off site so that people will not want to progress from the train platform virtually to airside or straight to the heart of the airport for check-in.
We have not started discussions on those issues.
Are there any plans for a review of access once the rail link and the station are built?
We will discuss the requirement for that with the access consultant. Any good project goes through a plan, do and review process. Post implementation, we will have to examine how successful we have been at introducing accessibility to the project.
As there are no more questions from committee members, would you like to expand on any issues that have arisen this afternoon?
I would like to finish by saying that social inclusion, accessibility and economic growth are all closely allied, which is why we have them as related policy objectives in the bill. The Scottish Executive's policy is to promote economic growth, social inclusion and the health and protection of our environment through the development of a safe and efficient transport network. EARL will help with those objectives and will help to close the opportunity gap. After all, the aims of the closing the opportunity gap strategy are to prevent families and individuals from falling into poverty; to provide routes out of poverty; and to sustain people in a life free from poverty. As a catalyst for job creation and economic development throughout Scotland, EARL meets those aims.
Thank you for that closing statement and, indeed, for the evidence that you and the other witnesses have given this afternoon. The committee has three other items to discuss, but you are free to go.