Official Report 304KB pdf
We return to item 1. The first objection for the committee to consider is from the New Town, Broughton and Pilrig community council. Before we take evidence, I point out that Dr T Robinson will not give oral evidence on behalf of the community council, despite having provided a witness statement. I ask members to disregard his witness statement and any rebuttals to it that the promoter provided.
There has been a change of witness: Mr David Todd will provide evidence instead of Michael Dawson. In common with all cases in which a substitution of witnesses occurs, the new witness is bound by the original witness statement.
Each witness is bound by the terms of their oath or affirmation.
Mr Evans, will you deal briefly with the question of why, from your perspective, the tramline should pass along Queen Street rather than round the north side of St Andrew Square?
St Andrew Square is the complement to Charlotte Square. The particular genius of the world heritage site in Edinburgh is the relationship of the High Street, with architectural monuments at either end, and George Street, with the two squares at either end. The relationship between the old town and the new town—the medieval and the renaissance—with vistas and monuments that are related to the topography make the place extremely special. As St Andrew Square is one of the two squares and is extremely special, there should be minimal intrusion into it in the pursuit of modern life. The square is not perfect: St Andrew Street and St David Street run north to south from Princes Street down to Queen Street and they therefore run right through the space, whereas, on the north and south of the square, the streets are truncated by buildings at either end. In my view, it would achieve a better composition to bring the tram on a direct alignment along St Andrew Street and St David Street and to return it along Queen Street and Princes Street.
Is that the reason for the apparent inconsistency, in that it is acceptable to have trams passing along two sides of St Andrew Square, while it is unacceptable to have them on a third side?
In principle, yes. One of the key aspects about St Andrew Square is its symmetry. Therefore, to have trams passing on one side in one direction and on the other side in the other direction would retain symmetry and would minimise intrusion into the square.
There have been two iterations of the design manual so far. The first one was published around March of last year and a second edition was produced recently. Am I right that you were involved in the preparation of the first draft, but not the second draft?
That is correct.
So any questions that concern the current draft specifically would be better directed to Ms Aileen Grant.
Indeed.
In paragraph 4.2 on page 5 of your witness statement, you make a comment that has been picked up by the objectors. You state:
It has always been my understanding that the promoter wishes to undertake full consultation with all parties during the design and development of the system.
Does that include the present objectors?
Yes.
Does the undertaking relate to the detailed design process, the finalisation of the design manual and the prior approvals process?
It is my understanding that the promoter wishes to consult, but I cannot in any way guarantee that.
Again, that may be a question for Ms Aileen Grant.
Indeed.
Does Mr Mowat have questions for this witness?
Yes.
My personal understanding—I am not a traffic planner—is that Queen Street is the main route.
Thank you. In your witness statement, you say that it is important not to break up "long vistas". Paragraph 3.9, which deals with plans to mitigate visual intrusion, states:
The centre of Edinburgh, and the new town in particular, is a composition of vistas. There is a vista along virtually every street. In my opinion, some of those vistas—for example, the view down Castle Street to the castle—are more iconic than others. I agree that there is a vista along Queen Street. One would wish to minimise intrusion into any of the vistas in Edinburgh's first Georgian new town.
If the placing of the tramline was such that it turned a little earlier, in the north side of St Andrew Square rather than in Queen Street, would that break up any vista in St Andrew Square?
In my opinion, it would be detrimental to the design set piece that is St Andrew Square.
If tramline 1 were not also planned to come down into Queen Street—we know that it is planned that tramline 1 will do that—would you still think it wise to extend tramline 2 from St Andrew Square into Queen Street?
It is not really my place to say. My role is to consider the unique heritage quality of the townscape for all of line 1 and the relationship between line 1 and line 2 in the world heritage site. That has been my principal concern, but I have also had to consider the character and qualities of that area in a vibrant competitive modern city. It is not my position to seek to have a tramline situated in one place or another. I consider and evaluate the consequences of the route and give advice, from a townscape point of view, about the best way of introducing such a line.
Is it not the case that the City of Edinburgh Council planning committee insisted back in 2003 that only two sides of St Andrew Square should be used?
That may well be the case, but I do not have the paper in front of me. My opinion as an urban designer is that the minimum amount of intrusion should be made into St Andrew Square for the reasons that I gave when Mr Thomson introduced my evidence.
Will not the greatest intrusion come from running the tram along the west side of St Andrew Square such that, from George Street, people will see the tram and its overhead wires on St Andrew Square? Will not that break up the vista?
Yes. If one is standing in George Street looking east, a tram passing through St Andrew Square will pass through that vista. However, whereas on one hand Edinburgh's world heritage site is of international importance, on the other it is home to many people and many businesses and is a principal visitor attraction not just for Edinburgh but for the entire nation. Therefore, in considering any introduction of a transportation system into Edinburgh, one needs to consider how one can achieve a system that is efficient for those who live and work in and visit the city in the most elegant and simple way and how one can minimise intrusion into the internationally famous work of art and dream of great genius that is central Edinburgh. There will be an intrusion into the vista, as there is when a 52-seater visitor bus comes into it, although I distinguish clearly between objects such as vehicles that will come and go and other things that are permanent. Particular attention must be paid to the permanent infrastructure associated with the trams, its quality and the minimisation of its intrusion.
I turn to the permanent infrastructure. You say in your evidence that the design manual aspires to minimise clutter by ensuring that the overhead line and electrification poles are kept to a minimum in the city centre around listed buildings. Surely the best way to keep them to a minimum is to use ground rail electrification. Would you, as a planner, not prefer to see that? You might be aware of the example in Bordeaux, which we believe is now working at 99 per cent efficiency.
It is plain that a tram without overhead line electrification will be less intrusive than a tram with overhead line electrification.
So you, as a planner, would prefer to see written into the bill an insistence on not using overhead rail but ground rail, at least in the central area.
My role has been to advise on the best integration of a tram system into the city centre. There are many things to consider in achieving that. We have to bear it in mind that, with the introduction of a tram system, it might also be possible to effect reduction in clutter in other aspects of street scene, which is an important aspect of the system. As an urban designer and planner, I concur: what is characterised popularly as a wireless system would have less intrusion into the world heritage site than a system with overhead line infrastructure.
I have a final question. If an amendment were proposed that, like the one that we heard about under an earlier agenda item, would alter the limits of deviation, in this case so that the tram ran around the north side of St Andrew Square—for reasons relating to the residents and congestion, to which we will come—would you regard that as a complete disaster or a decision that you would prefer not to have been taken but which was acceptable in planning terms?
I would consider it to be extremely unfortunate. I believe that the design set piece of St Andrew Square, Charlotte Square and George Street creates a relationship into which we should seek to minimise intrusion. I would consider a decision to route the tram around St Andrew Square and turn it into a tram roundabout to be regrettable.
The next witness is Aileen Grant, who will address the design manual and the impact of the tramline on the world heritage site.
Miss Grant, please give us an update on the status of the design manual.
A report was made to the planning committee last week, on 16 June, in which we presented an updated draft of the tram design manual. It was fairly substantially refined in the light of increased knowledge on the part of the promoter, which was shared with us in planning and with transport colleagues. That draft has been agreed by the planning committee and can now go out to consultation. The consultation process has not yet started, as the committee asked us to tidy up a few points in the document. We are just doing that, and we hope that the document will go out to public consultation next week at the latest. The situation has moved on a little bit.
Am I right in thinking that the consultation process will include Historic Scotland, the World Heritage Trust and community councils, among others?
Yes. In planning consultations we normally send copies of documents to the community councils. The planning committee specifically asked us to include all community councils and not to differentiate between those whose areas will be affected directly by the tram and those whose areas lie outside the tram routes, so we agreed to send copies of the draft design manual to all the community councils. Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust are also on our consultation list, but we have agreed that we will meet them to go through the document in a bit more detail after they have had a chance to look at the new, refined version.
Will you consult amenity bodies such as the Cockburn Association?
Yes. We are just compiling our list of consultees at the moment. We will not necessarily catch everybody, but if we get requests for extra copies we will be happy to forward them or invite further comments from other organisations. It will be a wide consultation.
I am thinking about what Mr Evans said about consultation at the prior approval stage. How could those objectors—the community councils—be involved in a prior approval process?
One of the difficulties is that planning authorities have no procedures set down for prior approval processes. That is why we took a procedure note to the planning committee in November 2003. We obtained comments from Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust and reported back to the committee in February 2004 on the procedure. In that procedure note, we say that, when we receive prior notification applications, we will put them into our computer system with our particular tag on them so that it is clear that they are to do with tram prior approvals. We also say that we will include them in our weekly list of planning applications as part of the planning register. I understand that that weekly list is sent out to all community councils and that it is the task of the planning conveners of community councils to check the list for current applications. We also have a planning and building control portal that will contain all the details of prior approvals when they are received. They will receive all the usual publicity that planning applications have.
So any concerned citizen needs simply to go to the right portal or to scan the weekly list if they want to have an input to the prior approval process.
Yes, that is right. That will be the baseline for all prior approvals. The procedure note also suggests advertisement, in certain circumstances, on the basis of how the approval links to what is in the design manual. In other words, if it complies fully it is unlikely that we would advertise it but, if it does not comply with the terms of the design manual, we would advertise the prior approval in our usual weekly advert in the local newspaper. The procedure is a bit like the way in which we treat development that is contrary to development plans—in other words, if it complies with the manual, we would not advertise, but if it does not, we would advertise to invite wider comment.
I want to change tack and deal with whether the tram should go round the north side of St Andrew Square or along Queen Street, which is a completely different issue. It can be seen from your written statements that the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and Historic Scotland have not been specifically consulted on that matter. Why have they not been consulted?
That issue was first addressed in the planning committee's report in August 2003, when there had been discussions about the routing of the trams. Great concerns were raised in my department about the impact on St Andrew Square and there was a joint meeting, the result of which was encapsulated in the planning committee's report. That report recognised the sensitivities of St Andrew Square, but said that complying with the requirements would be sufficient to minimise the impact on the square and would mean that the character of the area and the world heritage site would not be materially affected. There were no formal discussions with the World Heritage Trust or Historic Scotland in arriving at the principles for St Andrew Square. They have seen the various planning committee reports, but we have not specifically asked for their views on trams running on the north side of St Andrew Square because we ruled that out in the first instance. We did so because of our concerns about the impact on the setting of the listed buildings on that side of the square and about the severance of the square, which is highlighted in the local plan as being of townscape significance and landscape importance in the new town.
I take it that over the months and years in which the tram project has been considered, you have had discussions with Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust about the intervention of trams in the new town.
We have had a number of on-going discussions about routing the trams with regard to St Andrew Square in particular. Those discussions are partly linked to on-going work on the public realm in St Andrew Square and trying to put that in the context of the likelihood that there will be trams here in the longer term, so we should ensure that we are not doing something now that will cause conflicts later on. There have been many informal discussions with Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust, but we have not at any time mentioned using the north side of the square. All the discussions have been based on using only two sides of the square.
Against that background and at this stage in the proceedings, can the committee make any safe assumptions about Historic Scotland's position in particular?
I feel that Historic Scotland would strongly resist the occupation of any additional space in the square or the taking of the north or the south side of the square into the tram route.
What about the World Heritage Trust?
I think that it would feel even more strongly about the matter. However, that is only my feeling—we have not asked those bodies for their views.
So this committee could not safely assume that Historic Scotland would not object if there were a proposal to run trams around the north side of St Andrew Square.
I advise that it could not. A number of issues—not least the setting of the buildings on the north side of the square—are involved. When we asked Historic Scotland for its views on the prior approvals process, it raised the issue of the setting of category A listed buildings, for which it has a different statutory duty—it is a statutory consultee under the planning process. Running trams on the north side of the square would affect the setting of the category A listed buildings on that side. For that reason alone, Historic Scotland would be concerned.
Thank you.
Mr Mowat, I note that you have not issued a rebuttal.
I would like to make a plea. We had no particular quarrel with Miss Grant's first statement, but she then submitted a statement that rebutted evidence that was given by Mr Welsh and the Dublin Street residents association, with which we take issue. I asked Mr Evans about the planning process and he said that he was not really aware of the council planning meetings, but Miss Grant is. It would be extremely detrimental if we were not able to cross-examine her on the points that she has made today, rather than on her original statement.
I think that it would be in order to proceed on that basis, Mr Mowat.
Thank you.
No, we have not had detailed discussions with them about that. The focus has been very much on St Andrew Square.
I am astonished that such discussions have not taken place. The Scottish National Portrait Gallery is an A-listed building. I thought that you suggested that all A-listed buildings are of concern.
The discussions that we have been having are based on the limits of deviation that have been presented to Parliament. The specific focus on St Andrew Square has arisen only because there are current proposals for St Andrew Square, which are under discussion by the council. We are trying to ensure that the current proposals do not conflict with what might happen in the future if the tram gets consent. That is the reason for the focus on St Andrew Square. It is not driven by planning; it is driven by other projects. We have brought Historic Scotland into that discussion to ensure that all parties have an input.
That is a bit concerning. Are you suggesting that other projects that the council has in mind for St Andrew Square are affecting where you feel the tram should go?
No, I am not saying that. We are basing it on the limits of deviation that have been submitted. We are saying that those projects need to recognise the tram, not vice versa.
I am puzzled. You say that there has been so much discussion with Historic Scotland and the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust about your plans for St Andrew Square and the tram plans for St Andrew Square, but none about the passing of tramline 2 along Queen Street and past the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.
The details of what happens with the tram route will be submitted to the planning authority at prior approval stage. We are in a stage of preparation for receiving those prior approvals, but nothing can formally happen on that detailed design until after Parliament has come to a decision. It was only because there was work going on in St Andrew Square that, under central Edinburgh traffic management arrangements and because of various other issues to do with the square, it was in order to ensure that current projects recognised what was likely to happen with the tram. We have tried to ensure that joined-up thinking is going on at this stage, so that we do not do work now or next year that might have to be undone in a couple of years' time. That is the reason for the focus on St Andrew Square.
If I can précis what I think you have said to us, you have said that the planners in TIE took the view that putting a line down more than two sides of St Andrew Square would create considerable difficulties and have an adverse impact. They decided that internally, without any discussion with anyone else. They then let Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust know what they are thinking. The World Heritage Trust and Historic Scotland probably said, "Thank God it's not more than two sides—we can maybe live with that." Is it the case that you came to the view first, without going to the outside bodies?
That was in August 2003, when the initial consultation plans from TIE were in the public domain. That was our response to those consultation plans. Because we were not acting as the planning authority, we were effectively giving a considered planning view to the council. We have specialists in the department who deal with listed buildings and conservation areas; it was a collective view from within our department. I have checked my notes and I do not think that we involved Historic Scotland at that stage.
Mr Mowat, I am getting a little bit concerned that we are drifting back towards preliminary stage issues.
I see that, but I would like to put what is probably my second last question. Do you understand that the bill sets the limits of deviation, so that once the bill is passed we cannot legally change the route? The route is fixed when the bill is passed. Is it not right to have the consultations before the bill is passed?
I made that point in the planning committee's first report. The planning committee is well aware of the position. We gave a planning viewpoint on the proposals that came from TIE. We made the planning committee aware that there could be no changes. Hence, we have focused the discussion on the proposed limits of deviation. I agree with what you said.
So you would see no room to revisit that if strong reasons—matters of amenity, congestion and noise vibration—suggested that it would be better that tramline 2 did not come down to Queen Street?
Can I interrupt you again, Mr Mowat? I am sorry, but that is not the remit of this witness.
Okay. I will stop.
Do members have any questions for the witness?
From your perspective, what would be entailed if the committee sought to change the alignment?
Such a change should be publicised for wider comment. TIE initially published its consultation plans and then there was a period of objection. The Parliament should have a comprehensive perspective on any concerns—of which we could currently not be aware—that might be raised by a changed route. In addition, I suggest that Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust should be consulted on any proposed change.
But those are things that you have not done.
The issue has just been raised today.
As far as I understand it, you have not done those things yet, even on the limits of deviation that have been in the bill and in the proposals for a very long time. You have not even discussed the matter with the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.
As a planning authority, we are not at liberty to suggest alternatives. Because we are not the planning authority with this particular proposal, we have commented only on the proposals put forward by TIE. We have expressly kept ourselves away from any negotiations with objectors because we will be the planning authority at the later stage. There is a Chinese wall in that we are trying to stay separate in this process.
I think that Historic Scotland was an objector at one stage but has withdrawn its objection.
That is right.
Has it ever objected to the proposal in the bill that the line should run along Queen Street and past the museum?
In informal discussions, it raised no objection to that route.
What about in its formal objection?
No, not as far as I remember.
Has there been any objection from the museum authorities?
No, not as far as I am aware.
So they are not objectors in the process.
No, they are not.
Thank you, Ms Grant.
The next witness is Mr Oldfield, who will address the use of rail track and preserved rail routes. Before we begin questioning Mr Oldfield, I would welcome clarification that his witness statements and rebuttals are relevant to line 2 and not line 1, Mr Thomson.
That is as it should be, is it not, sir?
Yes.
Because we are concerned with line 2.
Yes. Would you like to begin your examination?
Thank you, sir. Mr Oldfield, what is your professional view on an alternative to overhead power lines? We have heard reference to the Bordeaux experience and the suggestion that the system there enjoys a 99 per cent success rate at the moment.
I must say that I find that rather surprising. I am aware that an article has been published saying that that system is 97 per cent to 99 per cent reliable but, since the system came into operation, it has been most unreliable and only that article has contradicted that position. The system relies on a power supply that, when the vehicle passes over a certain section of track, re-energises and allows the vehicle to move on. The problem with the system in Bordeaux is that the energising system has been prone to water ingress and failure; so, in order to overcome that, it has been necessary to fit a battery traction system. I believe that the system is particularly problematic in the winter and that weather conditions such as those that we might experience in Edinburgh are particularly relevant to its performance.
Thank you, Mr Oldfield.
I will take you back to your rebuttal statement and away from overhead electrification. It has been suggested that inadequate consideration was given to running the tram system along the existing heavy rail line between Haymarket and Waverley. You said that you had "no knowledge" of evidence that the line could carry that traffic. You were pointed to the work of David Low of Heriot-Watt University. I do not know whether you are aware of his work, but I am advised that it suggests that the work that is going ahead to increase track capacity at Waverley station would make it possible to run trams along the existing rail line. Do you agree that it would be possible to run trams through the centre of town, avoiding the roads?
We did not consider that in great depth. We were aware that there were capacity issues and that considerable work would be required to overcome them. Indeed, on-going work is being undertaken by Network Rail. There are a number of issues about using that alignment. Some of them are about the type of vehicle and railway safety, and some of them are about on-going capacity aspects. We spoke to Network Rail about the matter and it indicated that it would be impossible to run light rail on the line as well as the planned heavy rail systems.
Thank you. I return to the overhead wires that you mentioned at the beginning. You gave the reasons why you think that other schemes would not be reliable enough. If you put in the overhead scheme, the pantograph would have to be as high as a double-decker bus, would it not? The overhead wires would have to be much higher than normal. As I understand it, the trams will be single deckers, but double-decker buses will have to run under the tram lines.
Tramways elsewhere in the UK operate at a standard overhead line electrification height of over 5 metres and double-decker buses run underneath them.
What about open-top tourist buses? Would they be safe?
There would be issues with those. One of the things that we are considering, which is potentially an aesthetic consideration, is raising the height of the OLE. By raising it, it may become less obtrusive.
Presumably one of the attractions of running trams along Princes Street is that there are plenty of stops near to where there are plenty of potential passengers, whereas—apart from the difficulty of running light rail along the heavy rail track and getting suitable stops—the line down in the Mound cutting would not be as accessible.
Yes, you have picked up on an omission from what I said. One of the aims of the scheme is to provide accessibility on the street in the city centre; it would not do so as effectively if it went along the heavy rail alignment through Waverley.
Most of the double-deck tram systems in the United Kingdom—certainly prior to the first world war and during a large part of the 1920s and 1930s—had open top upper decks, did they not?
Yes.
After that frank admission, do you wish to re-exam, Mr Thomson?
I have covered the only matters that I might have raised.
Thank you, Mr Oldfield. The next witness is Mr Mitchell, who will address the matter of noise.
I wonder whether Mr Mitchell could first of all update us on the noise insulation scheme's progress.
Yes. The bill makes provision for a noise insulation scheme. Section 4.4 of the noise policy that we produced in March addresses that scheme. At that time, we were still looking into what the scheme should be for noise insulation. We have made some progress since then. We have agreed, with technical officers from the City of Edinburgh Council environmental and consumer services department, the essence of what the noise insulation scheme should be. It will be very similar to the noise insulation scheme that is used in England and Wales under the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996. There will be an additional clause to make provision for noise insulation to be offered specifically to address the possibility of wheel squeal occurring on bends.
I would be grateful if you did not.
I will not. Needless to say, the noise insulation scheme provides us with a mitigation measure if wheel squeal happens, which we do not expect. We will have a back-up facility, subject to finalisation of the noise insulation scheme, which I am confident will happen shortly.
My only other point is about the suggestion that you have ignored relevant European Union directives.
Again, I have tried to address that in my statement, but I notice that it is an outstanding point from Mr Mowat's rebuttal document, so perhaps I should touch on it. I believe that Mr Thomson is referring to directive 2002/49/EC, the so-called environmental noise directive. In essence, I do not believe that that directive has implications for the tram planning at this stage. The directive requires member states to map noise in major conurbations and to produce at strategic level action plans for those conurbations to address environmental noise. That is all some years in the future. The first round is due in 2007 and is likely to be delayed in this country for various reasons.
In your rebuttal statement to the Dublin Street residents association, you say:
No; I have simply noted it. That quotation should be read in the context of a comment that I have already made. In my experience, it is quite common for people such as the Dublin Street residents association, who are living in already noisy situations, to express concerns about additional noise. People will fear that the noise level, which is already very high, will get worse. It is simply of note that individual residents have not objected in their own right.
So, as far as you are concerned, the committee should not attach any importance to the fact that the objection has come from a residents association, rather than from individuals who make up that association.
It was not a point that I was trying to make strongly for any particular reason; it was merely an observation.
In your rebuttal statement, you produce a helpful table, which specifies the ambient level of noise and the tram noise. You cite planning advice note 56, which I understand is the standard that we should all use for noise in urban areas. My understanding is that PAN 56 requires that daytime noise not exceed an average of 55dB, and that it does not exceed 45dB at night. The tram projects' noise during construction and during operation will be considerably higher than that.
I am afraid that you are not correct to say that PAN 56 requires that transportation noise be less than 55dB or anything else. PAN 56 serves predominantly to give planning guidance on the development of new housing in already noisy situations. It says that, for levels of below 55dB during the day, noise need not be considered as a planning issue. The guidance that it gives on the introduction of new sources of noise, such as in the case before us, is more general. I think that I quoted some sections of PAN 56 in my original statement.
That is clearly what you are trying to show. With regard to the night-time measurement, at what period in the night did you do that measurement? Was it between 11 pm and 7 am?
Do you mean the baseline measurement or the predicted level?
Both.
The baseline measurements at York Place, just up the road, were carried out between midnight and half past 12, if I remember correctly. We measured the baseline condition that is shown in the second column of table 1. The predictions apply to the same time. We have considered the noise in two ways: we also considered the change in the ambient noise level in the last hour of service, up to half past 12 at night.
I put it to you that those roads will be much quieter at between 5 and 6 in the morning than they would be at 12 o'clock to half past 12 at night.
I think that that is unlikely. We have done various surveys in Edinburgh in the morning—by which I refer to times around 5 o'clock—as well as at night and we find that there is a pattern. The noise level can, in fact, be slightly higher in the morning than it is at night.
Is additional noise always insignificant when it is of a different type—for example, a higher-pitched noise rather than the low rumble of a lorry?
We generally consider transportation noise to be a type of noise; a tram vehicle passing by in its noise envelope—its temporal distribution, for example—is not dissimilar in character to a bus or heavy vehicle.
You mentioned that before. What does noise insulation amount to in practice?
Noise insulation under the regulations that apply in England and Wales is clearly defined, so we ought to submit that document to the committee. In fact, I think that the committee has asked for it and we are in the process of producing a copy, if we have not done so already. It is a 20-page document that describes the insulation package. We do not want to reinvent the wheel; there would be the same package here.
If the tram noise is generally as you predict, but there is also from time to time wheel squeal as the trams come down North St Andrew Street and into the bend—which is nearly as tight as a bend can be for a tram—on to Queen Street, you would not say, "On average, the noise isn't higher than 3dB more than existing noise and thus we will not give properties any insulation." You are going to say, "We accept that there will be a noise problem from time to time and we will pay for the appropriate noise insulation."
First, I have not predicted that there will be wheel squeal; in answer to your question, I predicted that there will not be wheel squeal. If it does occur, you are correct that the noise would not be an average value—it would be what we call a peak value or maximum level. Our discussions with the council are along those lines. It is recognised that such a noise can be a short event so that is the right way to capture, measure and quantify it. You also said that the bend is as tight as it can be for a tram to go round, but that is not the case. Trams quite happily traverse many bends that are substantially tighter than that.
Is not it the case that because the tram comes down a slope into the bend, there is an increased risk of wheel squeal on that bend?
That makes the geometry of design more complex. However, the advice that I have had is that there is nothing particularly unusual in the design, which is why I feel that there will be no wheel squeal on those bends.
Just to clarify, the LAmax tram noise level is 74dB for day and night in your table. That is not wheel squeal; that is the maximum noise level of the tram.
That is the maximum noise level that I have predicted, but as I said, I do not predict that there will be wheel squeal.
What is the characteristic decibel level of wheel squeal?
Wheel squeal varies enormously—as you might imagine—but it could be above 80dB in the location that we are discussing. However, as you said earlier, it also has a character that makes it more noticeable, so the problem is not just its level, but its character. That is why I am pleased that we have a list of measures—which I have been asked not to repeat—that we are committed to taking in the design process to avoid that happening. To deal with wheel squeal in the unlikely event that it occurs, we have four measures, including the offer of noise insulation if necessary.
An environmental statement forms part of the papers that are before the committee. The environmental statement for tramline 1—I apologise for using it, but the environmental statement for tramline 2 stops at Princes Street, so it is awkward—contains a list of possible curve-related noise at various parts of tramline 1, one of which is York Place. The receptors that may be affected by noise are listed as being commercial, which I presume means buildings such as offices. Do you accept that the receptors include residential as well as commercial concerns? I think that the relevant table is table 38—I am afraid that I could not find it today if you asked me to, but you may recall it.
I accept that. I understand that some residential properties lie around that corner, particularly on upper floors.
I also noted in tramline 2's environmental statement that the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/428) require promoters to offer noise insulation in rooms of a dwelling that are exposed to construction noise that is in excess of 68dB in the daytime and 63dB in the night. A table in tramline 1's statement shows that at York Place, the noise from daytime enabling work would be 84dB and the noise from track laying would be 71dB. We can probably assume that levels at Queen Street will be the same as those at York Place, which is next to it. Do you plan to offer noise insulation during construction?
No—the regulations that you cite relate to operation of a system, not to its construction.
I am pretty sure that the regulations relate to construction.
I am pretty sure that they do not.
Oh dear. That is a technical matter. Will you undertake to check that?
I do not need to check it; I have worked in acoustics for 17 years; I know for a fact that the regulations do not relate to construction.
I presume that there are some regulations that relate to construction noise.
Yes. Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 deals with that.
I may have quoted the wrong text. I am sure that I have read a table about noise levels during daytime for enabling work and laying tracks that put the noise level at York Place at 84dB.
You probably have. That is our prediction of construction noise in that area. The 1974 act and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which superseded the 1974 act to an extent, recognise that essential construction works must take place, so they do not limit noise during construction, which is temporary, as it will be in this case. The noisy work will last a matter of months at most. If the noise level that we have talked about for enabling works is 84dB—I have not checked it, but that could well be the figure—it will last for more like days or weeks of enabling before the track work comes through.
I think that that is right. I am sorry if I got the wrong reference.
All that the 1996 regulations say is that if noise insulation is to be offered for the operational phase, it may as well be installed before construction work happens, but that relates more to highways. That is mentioned, but no regulations mention limits for construction noise.
Does TIE propose to take the reasonably practicable measure of offering noise insulation during the construction period for the people who are likely to be affected?
I do not think that we do, because the levels that you just cited—the 68dB LAeq, 18hr and the 63dB LAeq, 6hr—will not be exceeded by the tram's operation.
Okay, so no mitigation at all will be available. What if the noise levels become unbearable during construction? What can a dweller who lives 7m or 8m from the centre line of the road do? What can he refer to?
I am not sure that the residents in question will be 6m or 7m from the centre line of the tramline. As I understand it, the tram is likely to travel down the centre of a five-lane highway.
We are entering the realms of speculation.
I know. I thought that there was a regulation that regulated such matters, but I have been told that there is not. I want to know what regulates levels of construction noise.
As I have just said, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are the relevant legislation.
What do those acts require?
The 1974 act requires use of the "best practicable means" to minimise noise disturbance. That may sound like a fudge but, as I have explained in my witness rebuttal statement, it is not; it is a tried and tested method of ensuring that the contractor does everything possible to control noise. According to the 1974 act,
I know that the objectors are concerned that the tramline project could overrun its budget; that is a concern of everyone. There is a great worry that financial considerations may loom largest if that happens.
Where are you going with this?
Mr Mitchell has mentioned that financial considerations are part of the best practicable means test. There is a concern that, when it comes to minimising noise disturbance, TIE will be able to say, "Sorry, we just don't have the money to do this; if we do it, the tramline won't get built." Can you assure me that that will not happen and that each case will be looked at on its merits? I can well understand that there are certain things that you just could not afford to do—things that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds, but would achieve only a small result. It is a question of proportionality: the test will be proportional and will not apply to the overall budget.
I can assure you that matters will be dealt with case by case. If one of your residents complained about construction noise, the council's environmental and consumer services department would be statutorily required to respond to that complaint through the processes that are defined in the 1974 act.
The last issue that you address is tram vibration, which is associated with noise. You mention three steps for reducing tram vibration with on-street running. One is embedding the rail in rubber and another is isolating the slab that it is in. The third measure would not be possible on-street, so there are really only two options. Are you considering adopting those tram vibration reducing measures in the city centre section?
The street-running sections of the tram will run on a rubber-embedded rail. That is a standard design that offers vibration isolation. Within several metres of the track, systems that have those measures in place meet the standard that we have set ourselves for vibration, which is in the noise and vibration policy—I forget which section. We have set ourselves vibration standards that are taken from the British Standard 6472. We have set our targets using the most stringent standards in that British Standard. We can do that because, within four or five metres of that kind of track and operating at those kinds of speeds, we will meet those standards. If the conditions elsewhere are different, other track forms are available that can do the job better if necessary.
One concern that the Dublin Street residents association has expressed, which may be known to many people in Edinburgh, is that an old railway tunnel runs underground from Princes Street down the line of Dublin Street, emerging at Scotland Street. As the committee may know—
I will have to interrupt you again, Mr Mowat. As you will appreciate, we have a volume of papers in front of us. Where does this evidence feature?
The question is whether—
Can I maybe just finish, Mr Mowat? It might speed things up a bit if I do. Where in the original objection was this material raised?
Which original objection? It is mentioned in the Dublin Street residents association evidence. However, it is fair to say that it was not mentioned in the original letter that was written two years ago.
Right. That is fine. You will appreciate the problems that we have in finding it. Carry on.
Have you considered the possible impact of the tramline on the old tunnel?
I am not quite sure what the question is.
Have you considered the possible impact of vibration from the construction and operation of trams on the old tunnel?
No, at this stage I have not.
Well—
I can say that a general discussion of damage to structures is to be found in the environmental statement, which talks about the levels that we get from trams in terms of the unit of peak particle velocity. Those levels are not high enough to damage structures at the sort of distances that we are interested in. If trams were to be in the business of damaging structures, the 400 systems that I think Mr Oldfield referred to earlier would have caused all sorts of problems all round the world. Trams do not produce enough vibration to damage structures.
Okay. I have no further questions.
Basically, we will not be able to consider that evidence because it was not in the original objection. You were allowed a fair amount of latitude, Mr Mowat. I move to questions from the committee.
I seek clarification on the code of construction practice. As far as you are aware, are the decibel levels that are indicated in the code part of the contract for the construction of the tramline? Will they be policed if contractors go over the levels during the construction period?
I think that the member is asking me about the contractual obligations of the code.
Yes.
My understanding is that the code of construction practice will become a contractual requirement of the main contractor, although I do not have the fine detail. If the contractor is in breach of the noise limits, it will be in breach of contract.
Thank you. In answering Mr Mowat's questions or in any of your evidence on the alignment south of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, would any of your evidence have been different in principle if the alignment was all within St Andrew Square?
That is a very wide question. The member is asking me to recap on what I have said in the last half an hour or so and to consider the questions for a different alignment.
You could get back to us on that.
In general terms, I think that there would be no difference in most of my answers. They are, however, not immediately before me for me to process them in my mind.
If you wish, you could reflect on the question and come back to us. I am not sure whether that is in order.
If the question is whether the other route would be the preferred route, I can say that I see no particular difference between them.
I was just asking if, to your knowledge, there is anything different in terms of wheel squeal or ambient noise levels and so forth.
The ambient noise levels on the north of the square will be much lower than those on Queen Street. However, a different set of receptors and all the rest of it are involved. We would have to look at the issue in detail. The position is that we do not expect noise impacts in the area; that position would not change.
Thank you.
As there are no further questions from the committee, we return to you, Mr Thomson.
I have just one matter for re-examination. If I may, Mr Mitchell, I will return to wheel squeal. You said that you do not anticipate wheel squeal's being a problem. You referred to design measures that can be taken to avoid the problem and to the ultimate solution of recourse, which is the noise insulation scheme. Can other measures in between the two be taken? If you take all the care that you can take, follow all the guidance in the design manual and think that you have designed out wheel squeal, but—horror of horrors—it happens, is there anything that you can do before you must have recourse to the insulation scheme?
We can do three things, which I will list in no particular order. We can ensure that the driver navigates the bend at the optimal speed, which can be useful in preventing wheel squeal. We can carefully consider the condition of the rails, because wheel squeal can often be removed from a bend by polishing the rails and by grinding and reprofiling them. We can consider options for lubricating the track in order to reduce the frictional forces that generate the noise. There are various ways of doing that, which I need not go into. Again, if you are unlucky enough to visit a system that has a bend that squeals on a dry day, you might find that there is no squeal on a wet day. There are examples that clearly demonstrate that even water can alleviate the problem.
The next witness is Stuart Turnbull, who will address traffic impacts.
Mr Turnbull, will you give us an update—
I must interrupt you again, Mr Thomson. I stress that you may consider traffic impacts, but not the central Edinburgh traffic management proposals.
I will certainly not do so, sir. The update that I had in mind relates to Mr Turnbull's meeting last week with the objector. Did any matters arise from the meeting about which the committee should hear?
Yes. The meeting was held on Thursday 16 June. I attended, as did a representative from TIE, Mr Mowat and two colleagues. We principally discussed some of the issues that have been raised in the objection and the various rebuttals—the committee has heard much of the matter. The meeting was positive and went a long way towards addressing the major issues, although the community council still has concerns.
Mr Turnbull, I note that you have 17 years' experience in transport planning. I put this question to Mr Evans, too: what is the major east-west route for road traffic through the centre of Edinburgh?
Queen Street is starting to become the main east-west route.
Thank you. In your rebuttal, you said that modelling work on the tram's impact on junctions demonstrated that
I will not go through every junction in the centre of Edinburgh. We reviewed the impact at 25 key junctions in the city centre, from Haymarket to St Andrew Square. We found that an increase of more than 10 per cent as a result of the tram was predicted at only two of the junctions. To give members a sense of what that means, 10 per cent variation is regarded as normal, day-to-day variation in a city context.
You have not told me the two junctions where there will be a greater than 10 per cent variation.
I do not have that documentation with me but, from memory, I believe that one of the junctions was certainly in the location of Queen Street and—
And North St Andrew Street.
Yes.
And what is the other one?
From memory, the other one is towards the west end at the junction of West Maitland Street and Manor Place.
Okay. The community council and I are more concerned with the junction at Queen Street and North St Andrew Street. If the variation is greater than 10 per cent, are we talking about 11 per cent, 20 per cent or more?
From memory, I think that it is 16 per cent.
Were those figures arrived at before or after the impact of the central Edinburgh traffic management scheme, which has shut the east-west route along Princes Street to cars and pushed them all on to Queen Street, became clear?
I appreciate that we do not want to get into detailed evidence on the central Edinburgh traffic management proposals, but I should perhaps briefly explain the process that we have gone through.
That answer was very general. Did you consider CETM's impact on the junction at Queen Street and North St Andrew Street and come up with any precise figures?
The introduction of CETM has meant a number of modifications across the city. One key aspect is the move to prevent westbound traffic from going along Princes Street and, in effect, to relocate it to Queen Street, which I accept will impact on traffic flows in that corridor.
So there would continue to be two lanes for westbound traffic.
Yes.
What would be available for eastbound traffic?
For eastbound traffic over that short stretch, the drawings that have been presented to date show one lane for general traffic and one lane for trams.
What would happen to buses?
To date, the proposal is that buses would travel in the same lane as general traffic over that short stretch.
You say that that is the proposal to date. Is there some doubt about that?
As we have heard, there is an evolving design process. I expect that, as the detailed design is carried out, a number of issues will rightly be given detailed consideration. A key issue for the operation of that short stretch will be to minimise the length of eastbound queueing outside the Scottish National Portrait Gallery because of the potential for that to have a knock-on effect elsewhere on Queen Street. Through the phasing of the signalised junction at Queen Street and North St David Street, it might be prudent to hold traffic there longer to ensure that the short stretch of Queen Street outside the portrait gallery flows freely. That is common practice. Potentially, the buses might be allowed to share the tram lane over that short stretch. Through the design process, options can be developed within the limits of deviation to address the continuing change in traffic flows that will inevitably occur.
All your figures assume an element of modal transfer, as you call it, from the car to the tram and public transport. What percentage of modal transfer is assumed?
It is difficult to give a single number. Although it has been stated that the trams will result in a 1 per cent reduction in car travel across the city, that figure is almost meaningless because it covers the whole city. Equally, the analysis has shown—
I will make the question easy for you. Do you know what modal transfer will take place for the Queen Street junction, which is what I am primarily concerned with just now?
It is difficult to pull out just the modal transfer figure, as the modelling that we carry out deals with a range of things happening all at once. As the traffic management measures are introduced, there will be differences in traffic flows with and without trams, but not all those differences will necessarily be due to modal transfer, as there will also be an effect on travel patterns. I cannot say categorically that modal transfer will result in an X per cent reduction in traffic at that junction. However, the analysis for line 2 has shown that, for example, the predicted reduction in car trips to the city centre is of the order of 5 per cent.
Let me put to you an alternative scenario, which is that buses, as well as cars, will be held up by the trams, with the result that people will find the bus service less reliable. Thus, given that most public transport journeys in Edinburgh will still have to be undertaken by bus, people might return to their cars, so the modal transfer might happen the other way.
We are entering the realms of speculation. We are also returning to matters that were determined when we considered the principles of the bill.
I was merely pointing out that an important assumption in working out how such junctions will operate is that there will be fewer cars on the road, but that that assumption might not be right.
There is no assumption as such. The switch from cars to trams, and indeed from buses to trams, is not assumed but is a function of the traffic modelling that we carry out. The modelling takes account of journey times and levels of congestion for different modes and, on that basis, predicts a level of transfer. It is not that we simply assume that a 5 per cent reduction in traffic will make a change; it is a function of the modelling.
Are you satisfied that the model will be able to handle the 208 bus movements an hour that, I am told, pass through that intersection?
I have not counted them, but the number is of that order and there are something like 2,000 private vehicle movements.
On the question of signalling, you said that there were four options on the priority that could be given to the tram. The options range from treating the tram like an ordinary road user and making it go with the rest of the flow to giving the tram absolute priority. Which option would be appropriate for the junction of North St Andrew Street and Queen Street?
That is a matter of detail and I can only give a view at this stage. I would expect that the tram would not be given full priority on that short stretch.
Would that be priority level 3 in your rebuttal?
Yes. Level 4 is the absolute priority.
Yes, and it would involve the red light changing instantaneously.
The process is dynamic, because the traffic signalling system in the city centre is linked to reflect traffic movements as they occur at different times of the day. It adjusts itself to reflect queueing throughout the city centre in order to avoid a gridlock developing. It might be that the tram would have absolute priority at various times of the day but that, on short stretches during the peak hour, the impact of that on other road users would be considered significant enough to warrant lowering the level of priority.
Does not that have a huge impact on the modelling of how other traffic will be affected at those junctions?
I will give you a specific example of how a certain junction will work, although the situation will vary from junction to junction. A traffic-signal junction will tend to work in what we class as a cycle time of 90 seconds or 120 seconds. That means that it takes 90 seconds for the lights to get back to where they were. In the modelling, we have assumed that a tram will arrive during every cycle, which would mean that there would be a tram coming along every two minutes. Clearly, however, that will not be the case.
It is nearly the case, because you are going to be running 14 trams—
We are running six trams per—
Yes, but you are going to run another eight on tramline 1, which will come down the same line.
I will intervene at this point to draw the parties' attention to the fact that the committee needs to make a determination on each objection. We require to know what you want us to do, because we are now dealing with the minutiae of the situation. I am quite happy to let you go a little further down this route, but I would like to think that, shortly, we will see what you are seeking to achieve.
Mr Turnbull, do you accept that we are talking about 14 trams an hour using those junctions, not six?
We are considering line 2.
Come on, it is completely ridiculous to model the junction using only the line 2 trams.
The modelling that we have done assumes that there will be 30 trams an hour, because we have assumed that a tram will arrive every two minutes.
I just wanted to make that clear.
There would be less vehicle movement through the junction, which would mean that there would be fewer delays and that it would operate more effectively. However, that answer comes at the issue purely from a traffic point of view and we have heard evidence about many other issues.
Can you think of any adverse traffic implications of terminating tramline 2 round St Andrew Square on North St Andrew Street? I appreciate that that is a matter of detail.
In your previous question, you asked me to consider the fact that we are promoting two tramlines. As we are promoting two tramlines, the intention is still for tramline 1 to come along York Place and to enter the square, so there will still be trams travelling through the junction of Queen Street and North St Andrew Street, irrespective of whether tramline 2 runs round the north side of the square.
Yes, I see that. However, I am asking whether, if the six trams an hour on tramline 2 went around the north side of St Andrew Square and the eight trams an hour on tramline 1 went down the route that is planned for it, that would improve the traffic position.
I could not say for certain, as I have not done that modelling. However, any junction in the city would obviously operate better if there were a reduction in the traffic flow.
Would it also help if you had a layover point there so that, if something were to go wrong with tramline 2, tramline 1 would not be blocked, as there would be an extra layover line for tramline 2?
Potentially, it would help. However, if lines 1 and 2 are constructed, there will be adequate layover facilities, irrespective of the route of the tram round that part of the city.
Let us briefly discuss Shandwick Place. You looked at Mr Welsh's evidence and said that putting the tramline down Shandwick Place and into the west end of Princes Street would not result in increased traffic along the access from Randolph Crescent to Queen Street. Do you really hold that position?
I mentioned previously the requirement to take account of the needs of other road users and the implications of that for the alignment of the tram and the level of segregation. As you are aware, the proposal is that the tramline will share a running section on Shandwick Place and will operate in the same way as other vehicles, with no priority.
No priority at all?
It will operate in a lane that is shared with other road users.
So, a car or a bus can sit there and a tram will have to wait its turn. Is that a definite commitment?
As we have heard several times, the detailed design process, which will consider a number of issues within the limits of deviation, is still to be carried out. I expect that one of the issues to be considered in detail will be the extent of shared and segregated running. As things stand, however, I cannot give a commitment that that will be a shared running section.
I have one other question. You are well aware that overhead lines are likely to be used, which will clear the height of a double-decker bus so that buses are not impeded in their flow. Do you think that open-top tourist buses will be able to operate under the proposed regime?
I do not want to repeat Mr Oldfield's evidence.
We have already had that question.
In that case, that concludes my questioning.
Mr Turnbull, let us confirm the figures that you have given for the traffic that will pass through the junction if both tramlines are there. Did you say that it will be 2,000-plus cars, 200 buses and 30 trams? Are those the rough figures?
No. In assessing the operation of the junction, we look at a traffic signal cycle that lasts for two minutes. We assume—in effect, to test the operation—that a tram will arrive every two minutes. We are not assuming that there will be 30 trams per hour; that figure is used for the design process.
You gave us figures of 2,000 or more cars and 200 or more buses. What would be the equivalent figure for the trams?
The number of trams through the junction would be six per hour on tramline 2.
And then 14 for the other line. So the figures would be 20 trams, 200 buses and 2,000 cars.
It would be of that order. It would vary by time of day and time of the year, for example.
How many trams would run through the evening?
My understanding is that the figure would be the same. There would be six trams per hour through to 1.30 am, I think, for tramline 2.
Mr Turnbull, if one took account of both lines, would the number of trams that run through the junction be six plus eight?
That is correct.
I am thinking about your evidence on Shandwick Place and the shared running there. Where there is shared running on a stretch such as Shandwick Place, would there be any priority for the trams at junctions?
There would be a mechanism for that. Along the length of the tram route, there would be some form of detector to enable the tram to advise of its approach to a junction. The control system that operates all our signalised junctions would take appropriate action, which might be to introduce a phase of the lights to let the tram through the junction or to say, "Tough: you'll have to sit in the queue."
Might the odd car benefit from the priority that would be afforded to the trams?
Yes, it would in such instances.
So, even in shared running, a degree of priority would be afforded to the trams.
Yes. There would be a mechanism for that.
Thank you, Mr Turnbull. That concludes the promoter's evidence on the objection. We now turn to the objector's witnesses, Alan Welsh and David Todd. We will suspend briefly so that those witnesses can come to the table and the present batch of witnesses can return to the public gallery.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We move on to the objector's witnesses Alan Welsh and David Todd.
The first witness is Alan Welsh, who will address service relocation, noise, visual impact, congestion, segregated tram tracks, tram-prioritised intersection signalling and route change.
Mr Welsh, I understand that you give evidence on behalf of the New Town, Broughton and Pilrig community council.
That is correct.
I also understand that, for a number of years—until this month, in fact—you were chairman of that council.
Yes, I was chairman for four years.
I understand that you were chairman during the time that the objections were required to be lodged and amplified, until June of this year.
That is correct.
I understand also that you have a professional background in engineering.
Mr Mowat, that is all in the witness statement.
I did not think that that latter point was, but I think that it is relevant to hear briefly where Mr Welsh worked.
By profession, I am an engineer. For 37 years, I worked with GEC Alsthom as a project engineer—that is, someone who works on technical and other definitions.
We have got that, thank you. I understand that the community council has no objection to the tramline in principle but is concerned about the various effects that routing it through the city centre would have.
We are particularly concerned about the congestion that might arise during the construction of the tramline and during its operation. We are rather upset that, in the early stages of the tram procedure, no community liaison group was set up for our area of the city. Groups were set up for the west end and for Leith Walk, but there was no community liaison group for central Edinburgh, which our community council covers. To a certain extent we have been disadvantaged, because we came to the process late.
Nevertheless, you have lodged a fairly wide-ranging objection. We will deal with the issues one by one.
We are not content with the assurances that have been given on construction. We are particularly concerned that, although it is generally accepted that, to put a tram track down, it is necessary to remove all surfaces from beneath the tram track, many people are not aware of the repercussions of removing and relocating all underground sewers, water mains, gas mains and electricity mains throughout the centre of the city—in particular, in our case, in the Queen Street and York Place corridors. That will be vastly disruptive. To accommodate the construction process, traffic will, of necessity, be redirected into other areas. We are concerned that the redirected traffic will go through residential areas. As you are aware, Princes Street is now out of bounds to normal traffic; if Queen Street and York Place are under construction, they too will become out of bounds.
Would it ameliorate some of the problems if, as I understand is your suggestion, tramline 2—which we must consider on its own—were to terminate at St Andrew Square and not turn down to Queen Street?
That would ameliorate every problem, except for the concern about York Place. However, it would ameliorate every problem in relation to tramline 2.
We are dealing only with tramline 2.
In that respect, there would be no disruption on the Queen Street corridor, which, as previous witnesses have pointed out, is now the major east-west traffic route through the city. If the tram were not taken in front of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery on Queen Street, there would be no problems with construction or operation.
Mr Evans said that St Andrew Square is of such architectural and heritage importance that to run a further line round it would be very serious from a planning point of view. As a former chairman of the community council that covers the new town, do you agree with that?
There are problems with St Andrew Square. As previous witnesses have mentioned, there are plans afoot with regard to the public realm. Those plans, which have been played down to a certain extent, have had major repercussions for the response from Historic Scotland and the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust to the location of tram routing through St Andrew Square.
We have heard that there was at least—
Mr Mowat, I take it that we will get to the outstanding issues at some stage.
I understand that a key outstanding issue for Mr Welsh and the New Town, Broughton and Pilrig community council is that they simply do not agree that tramline 2 should go down to Queen Street.
We are particularly concerned about the overhead electrification system. The New Town, Broughton and Pilrig community council has responsibilities for the area from the west end of Princes Street to Leith Walk, which encompasses a large chunk of the proposed line 2 route. I am sure that we are all aware that the prospect from Princes Street has been legally protected for 200 years. There have been many fights over the matter—people did not even want St John's church at the west end of Princes Street to be built because it would block the view. The overhead cables would be a major incursion on the setting of listed buildings on Princes Street.
You are not satisfied that everything has been done to protect listed buildings and so on, and that remains an outstanding issue.
As a long term city-centre resident with personal experience of the traffic—I walk everywhere in the city centre—and an engineer with knowledge of tram systems, I dispute what previous witnesses have said about there being no, or hardly any, wheel squeal at a corner. The minimum design radius for the tram is 24m. On the corners that come out of St Andrew Square into Queen Street, the design radius is 25m, which is so close to the tolerance that it is not true. The road is also on an incline—it goes down a hill and then turns round a very sharp corner. Normally in such a system, what is technically known as a third rail would be put on the corner to stop the tram coming off and to stop wear. The third rail would be above the road level by around a centimetre—12 mm—which is an added complication.
We have the written evidence and we appreciate concerns about wheel squeal. Can we move on?
Yes, absolutely. The witness heard Mr Turnbull say that 10 per cent variation in traffic congestion is normal—during the day, I presume—and that the modelling of congestion at that junction suggests a variation of only 16 per cent. Would not that be acceptable?
Previous witnesses have admitted that there will be levels of prioritisation for vehicles as they pass through intersections and that the tram will have top priority. We are concerned because the Queen Street and Dublin Street intersection, which is of particular interest to the community council, has three sets of lights—
Sorry, but people might become confused. Are you talking about the tramline junction at North St David Street, where the route goes down to Queen Street and up to North St Andrew Street, with Dublin Street blocked off in the other direction?
Yes. There is also a bus route. For tramline 2 there would be just two intersections, which technically would have to be linked so that the tram could have priority and not be blocked. The lights would switch simultaneously and other traffic would have to stop to allow the tram free access through both intersections. Therefore, traffic would be held up. The same operational problem would arise at the West End, where three sets of lights, at Shandwick Place, Princes Street and Lothian Road, would have to be switched simultaneously to let the tram through. All other traffic would stop and there would be an appreciable transit time as the tram passed through the intersection.
We heard evidence from Mr Turnbull that, at the West End, the tram might well run simply as if it were any other vehicle on the road, and would be given no priority. Would that be workable?
I attended a public meeting in Edinburgh that was attended by representatives from the Scottish Association for Public Transport and Mr Andrew Wood, the manager of Transdev Edinburgh Tram, which would run the tram system on behalf of TIE. Mr Wood is an experienced tram operator who set up and operated the Nottingham system, so he has vast experience of such systems. He said that in his opinion there will be much more segregated tram track than is envisaged in the bill. I expect that the tram will eventually have to run in a segregated lane at Shandwick Place, which will not leave much space for buses and other traffic, because there are only four lanes on Shandwick Place.
The community council suggested in its original objection that if the tram ran on the heavy rail through the centre of the city, many problems would be avoided. Mr Oldfield responded that such an approach would not be practical for a number of reasons. Are you satisfied by his response?
Mr Oldfield's response to our suggestion raised a number of issues that are of interest—let me put it that way. I am sure that the committee is aware that Waverley station will be revamped and that two more through tracks through Waverley will be provided. To that end, the signalling from Haymarket to Waverley will have to be upgraded. In our submission we noted—
We have your submission.
The issue is outstanding. The community council made three proposals: first, that the heavy rail option be considered; secondly, that even if the heavy rail option is not considered, the tramline be moved from Queen Street to a route round St Andrew Square; and thirdly, that rubberised track be used. We heard that rubberised track base will be used. Are you satisfied by that?
Yes. There are also such things as polythene sleepers. Although rubberised track—
It is rubberised track bed, not track.
Polythene sleepers provide additional vibration insulation and could be used city centre-wide.
You maintain the community council's other two suggestions: first, that the heavy rail option should be considered; and, secondly, even if that is discarded, that tramline 2 should end at St Andrew Square and be routed round the north of St Andrew Square.
Yes. The heavy rail option would remove many of the design problems. Most of the problems that arose in objections, that will arise and that will be considered would not arise if the route that was chosen used preserved rail tracks, which are preserved as transport corridors for a reason. Development has never been allowed on them; they were preserved to be used for transport. I am puzzled about why that engineering solution has not been considered more seriously.
Is the committee clear about where Mr Welsh stands?
Yes.
In that case, I end my examination of Mr Welsh.
Good morning, Mr Welsh.
Good morning.
First, I will ask you a little about the catchment area of your community council. The original objection says that it includes
That is correct.
I have read somewhere else that the area ends at Hope Street towards the west. Is that correct?
In effect, it ends at Queensferry Street.
What about Randolph Crescent?
Randolph Crescent is included in our patch. We go down Queensferry Street to Dean bridge and down to the Water of Leith. The committee received objections from Lord Moray's feuars, who reside in the Randolph Crescent area, which is particularly inconvenienced by the central Edinburgh traffic management rearrangements. They consider that if Shandwick Place were heavily overtrafficked with trams, buses and normal traffic—
I interrupt to point out that that objection was withdrawn.
The objection has been withdrawn? No it has not.
The witness statement from Lord Moray's feuars has been withdrawn.
The witness is not available to give evidence.
The feuars have not withdrawn their statement.
Technically, the convener is correct. If a witness does not come along, the objection is deemed to have been resolved. On the other hand, the New Town, Broughton and Pilrig community council made similar points about Shandwick Place, so the points were made twice.
If Mr Welsh is making the same point from a different angle, that is fair enough.
I think that he is.
Is Shandwick Place outwith the area of your community council?
That is correct.
It is in the area of the West End community council.
That is correct. However, the three intersections at the end of Shandwick Place, which are a crunch point, are in our patch.
The West End community council is not an objector to the bill.
I am not aware of that.
My next questions will help the committee to have a feel for whose views, beyond those of you and Mr Mowat, are being described when you give your evidence. Have your witness statement and rebuttal been before a committee of the community council? Were they voted on at any annual general meeting? Will you give us a flavour of the process?
Because of the amount of work that the community council must do, it divides the work among sub-committees. We have a traffic and transport sub-committee, which Mr Mowat convenes. It contains four or five community council members; I am not one of them. That sub-committee has considered all the documentation that has been submitted to the committee throughout the process.
As I understand it, you were not on the sub-committee, because you were the chairman.
I was on the sub-committee for the first objection at the beginning of the process.
So how has the work of the sub-committee been factored into your statement?
I am sorry, I do not understand.
We have a witness statement from the community council, to which you have just spoken. Am I wrong in thinking that it is your personal statement?
It is signed by me as chair, but it is the evidence of the traffic and transport sub-committee.
My difficulty is in understanding how you are speaking to something that presumably originated in the sub-committee that was tasked to examine the issue—or am I wrong about that?
As chairman, I usually speak on behalf of sub-committee chairpersons.
So did the sub-committee report its findings in relation to the objection to the full committee, of which you are the chair?
Yes.
Does the witness statement that you have spoken to today reflect the recommendations from the traffic and transport sub-committee?
It only does not do so in so far as some of the technical aspects are from my personal experience as an engineer. The rest of the written statement is from the community council traffic and transport sub-committee.
Did some form of report go from the traffic and transport sub-committee to the main community council?
Yes. The traffic and transport sub-committee has separate meetings, and it reports what it has been discussing to the full community council on a regular basis.
Were the issues in your statement discussed by the full community council?
Yes.
The options that you have been speaking about are for the tram to go either round the north side of St Andrew Square or into Queen Street. Given that your organisation is also concerned with St Andrew Square, was there any discussion in the community council of the pros and cons—particularly the pros—of the tram running into Queen Street rather than round St Andrew Square?
Yes. The community council was concerned because as a residential area we are subject to rat-running, as I explained with regard to congestion. The City of Edinburgh Council is aware of rat-running and has been good to us in certain respects by closing off certain streets. Given the amount of extra traffic along Queen Street that will result from the trams, we are concerned.
Did the community council consider—
Mr Thomson, will you clarify where we are going with this? I have not seen any of this in any witness statement.
I am simply exploring the extent to which we are discussing the views of one person or of a large swathe of the community.
I can see the fishing expedition that you are on, but we have to deal with what is before us. I would prefer it if this did not go too much further.
I hear the point, sir.
The community council did not consider the aesthetic aspects of that suggestion.
Because it was more concerned with traffic issues, such as rat-running.
It was more concerned with congestion. We are a city community council and we are considering not just our own interests; we are located in the city centre, so we consider the interests of everybody. We can see that there is a major problem with overlaying a tram system on an existing efficient bus system on limited road space. As an engineer, I would love to be able to create space out of fresh air, but that cannot be done. If a road has only four tracks, one cannot make five. One of the major problems with the tram system is that it is attempting to make more space where there cannot be more space. The community council's main concern is that we cannot see how additional traffic requirements can be met within the limited space in the world heritage site without causing major knock-on effects elsewhere.
Do you know roughly how many listed buildings there are in St Andrew Square?
Off the top of my head, I would say that there are not more than 15, and they are mostly on the north side.
Do you have any particular expertise or qualifications in tram design or tram construction?
I have worked more on aspects of the metro side of the business, on the Jubilee line extension down in London. My firm was also heavily involved with the Docklands light railway, so I do have a certain amount of experience. As a systems engineer, I was taught that if, when one considers a solution to a problem, it throws up more extra problems than one can deal with, it is always sensible to consider an alternative. In my experience as an engineer, if one insists on going down the road of the first decision, the repercussions or knock-on effects can be horrendous. I have worked on many projects in which we tried to design our way out of a problem, but if we had gone back and considered the original design, the problem would have gone away.
You say in your evidence that planning regulations do not permit double glazing in listed buildings.
That is correct.
Do you accept that secondary glazing is permitted?
Secondary glazing is accepted in listed buildings, yes.
Thank you, Mr Welsh.
Do committee members have any questions for the witness?
No.
Mr Mowat, would you like to re-examine the witness?
No.
Thank you for your evidence, Mr Welsh.
I shall try not to do so.
The association deals with the internal management of the top two houses in Dublin Street, which are on the intersection with Queen Street and North St Andrew Street that we are talking about. There are 18 flats there. Both buildings are entirely residential. I am on the committee that is appointed at the annual general meeting every year, and we deal with internal and external matters that concern the two blocks of flats.
Has the proposed tramline been of concern to the residents?
It was raised at the most recent annual general meeting, and the committee was delegated to look into the matter.
Are all the residents aware of the objection?
Yes. It is posted on the notice board in the flats.
Am I right in thinking that, of all those flats, several of them—or all of them, perhaps—have rooms facing Queen Street?
In the top house, which is on six floors, every floor has a window on to Queen Street.
To get to the specifics, my understanding is that you are not objecting to the tramline in principle but that you are simply concerned about the routing of the tramline past the block where you live.
Yes.
You have listed noise and vibration as a concern. As a resident, are you satisfied with what you have heard from Mr Mitchell about the amelioration that might be made?
We are still concerned that the promoter is not concerned about the tunnel, which obviously affects us in Dublin Street. As far as noise is concerned, I do not understand how, if noise were added that was less than the existing noise, that would not make things noisier. I am worried that, although the noise of the tram would be less than the existing noise, when the noise of the tram were added to the existing noise, that would make things noisier. That is how it seems to me, as a layman.
Yes. Despite all the proposals and despite what Mr Mitchell said, your concerns about noise remain a matter of contention. You are not satisfied that you will be looked after.
Yes. We are also concerned that, although the noise was measured 180m from the intersection, it is a special intersection, in that it is on a curve and on an incline. We understand that it will be used not just by line 2 but by line 1. We think that that combination of factors will make things particularly difficult.
Are you satisfied with what Mr Mitchell said about wheel squeal, which, it seems, is the noisiest thing that can happen during operations?
He said that there will be no wheel squeal, but we have been told that on an incline and on a curve there may be such noise.
He said that emergency measures would be taken and that, if necessary, you would be insulated against that noise.
That is correct, although it is interesting that he said that those measures would not be taken in advance.
Okay. Moving on, does congestion remain a concern, or are you satisfied with what Mr Turnbull said about that?
Again, as a layman, I cannot see how what requires to be done in Queen Street will not cause extreme congestion. We have established that it is a busy street, and it must be that there will be more congestion. The only way to avoid that would be for the work to be done at night, which would disturb the residents.
Will you briefly mention your current profession?
I am an arts management consultant.
I take it that you have no special knowledge of architecture.
Not specifically. I am more in the performing arts.
Nevertheless, you are a long-term resident of Edinburgh.
Yes.
And you are interested in the architectural heritage of the place.
I am, yes.
You heard what was said about St Andrew Square, which is close to you, and its importance. It was said that it would be a planning disaster if the north side of St Andrew Square had a tramline on it.
I have a lot of difficulty with the view of one of the previous witnesses, who said that St Andrew Square is a "set piece". That is true of Charlotte Square, but those who created the new town started at St Andrew Square and at that time they did not create palace fronts of the type that are found in Charlotte Square. They moved on to the idea of having complete terraces and palatial fronts after about 10 years of construction. St Andrew Square has always been piecemeal, and at the moment, apart from some of the buildings on the north side, there is a muddle of modern buildings. I do not agree that it requires the same respect as, for example, Charlotte Square.
Going back to noise and vibration, which is something that I missed—
Vibration was not in the original objection, Mr Mowat.
We have certainly discussed it. In any event, in relation to noise, we heard that the test of best practicable means will be used in construction and that something similar will be used in operations. As a resident who will be affected, are you happy with that, Mr Todd?
On the face of it, it sounds fine, but there are financial implications. It does not take too much imagination to think of a situation in which we would be affected by the screeching during the day and the grinding of the rails during the night. What could be done about that? The only solution would be unaffordable, so we would be stuck. That is my concern; the code of construction practice seems fair, but at the end of the day it is a question of money and it will be the residents who suffer.
I think that you also have a concern about noise arising from maintenance.
Yes. As I said, it is not clear how much maintenance will be required. We are told that we will be given notice, but the maintenance, which will be carried out at night, will involve grinding the rails to stop the trams screeching during the day. It is all very well to be warned that one will be unable to sleep, but what if one needs to sleep?
As a catch-all, have you mentioned the main areas about which you are still concerned?
Yes.
Thank you. We will now have the cross-examination.
Mr Todd, am I right in understanding that, despite the name of your association, membership is not open to anyone other than a resident of one of the 18 flats?
That is correct.
Were the 18 flats all constructed at the same time out of larger buildings?
They were.
What sort of glazing do they have?
Many of them have the original glazing. In some of them, secondary glazing has been installed.
What do you have?
I have secondary glazing.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Do members of the committee have any questions?
Would Mr Mowat like to conduct a re-examination?
No.
Thank you very much, Mr Todd.
In my submission, the issues that, it emerges, lie between the parties concern four matters. Principally, they are: the design process; the use of Queen Street rather than St Andrew Square; noise impacts; and traffic issues.
The community council would like the committee first to observe that the heavy rail option, which would have involved running the line from Haymarket to Waverley on other railways, might well have resolved many of the design problems, but that option was not adequately considered. I accept that that is not a matter for amendment, but it is a matter for observation.
That concludes the evidence for New Town, Broughton and Pilrig community council. I thank Mr Mowat for his attendance.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry for the delay but, obviously, the process has turned out to be much more complex than any of us had imagined it would be.
Meeting closed at 12:41.
Previous
Proposed Route Changes