Glasgow’s Subway
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-6195, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on securing the future of Glasgow’s subway.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s decision to go ahead with its modernisation plan; recognises the important role that the subway plays in Glasgow’s transport infrastructure and its significance to Scotland, carrying an estimated 14 million passengers annually; notes that this will be the first major investment project for the service since the 1970s, and hopes that the proposals receive the support that they need to go ahead and that the modernisation keeps Glasgow moving into the future.
17:09
Glasgow’s subway, the clockwork orange, is Scotland’s only underground and is the third-oldest subway in the world. It was built in just six years and was opened in 1896, powered by a sole steam boiler at Scotland Street. It is a unique feat of engineering. It is a much-loved form of transport—if only we could build more of them. Glaswegians have fond memories of the underground, and visitors are amused by the fact that missing a stop means waiting only a few more minutes before a train comes back round again.
Believe it or not, 69,000 people used the underground for the Pope’s visit in 1982 in just one day, and that record still stands.
Figures show that 41 per cent of the people who use the subway come from outwith Glasgow—8 per cent of them are from the Stirling area and 7 per cent of them are from North Lanarkshire—so, arguably, it is a system that serves the whole of the country.
The 4ft track gauge and the 11ft tunnel are unique in the world. The first observation that people make about the subway is how small it is, and those unusual dimensions mean that the scope for upgrading it is limited. Sadly, it is now coming to the end of its life and it needs emergency treatment. It needs the Scottish Government to commit to the business plan that Strathclyde partnership for transport has put forward. It is time for those who want to save our subway from closure to focus on the way forward.
There are statutory obligations that are set by the rail regulator, with which SPT must ensure compliance. Its failure to do so will result in the planned closure of Glasgow’s underground. Opting for the do-nothing option will have the effect of closing our subway, because it will not meet the necessary standards. Costs would be attached to that. It would cost £35 million just to infill the tunnels, 1,100 jobs would be lost and there would be more cars on the road and more CO2 emissions as a result.
The base case would involve modernising the underground’s working practices but leaving the ageing technology, which would mean that the subsidy would continue to grow. That is not sustainable in the longer term. Modernisation is the way forward. I believe that the best approach would be to provide smart-card ticketing, new trains and new signalling, to make the stations more accessible and to increase patronage.
The Scottish Government has a duty to support the business case for modernisation. To make it all happen, £6 million of investment would need to be provided every year for 10 years. That would allow SPT to borrow to meet the costs of the project. The plan is modest and sensible, given what it can achieve. The investment would not even be needed in the earlier years of the project, but there must be a commitment to it in the Scottish budget.
Stuart Patrick of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said recently that the idea of taking away an existing piece of infrastructure that reduces car congestion in the city would be remarkably short-sighted. That is true, and I think that the public would be quite shocked if our Government presided over its closure.
All of us who rely on the underground have taken its existence for granted but, if we care about it, we must save its future by arguing for its modernisation. If the system is not modernised, the consequences for Glasgow’s transport network will be fatal and our hopes for a 21st century transport network for 2014 will slip away.
The underground has been modernised only twice before, between 1935 and 1940 and between 1977 and 1980. There are statutory obligations that SPT must now comply with. If it were modernised and revamped, the subway, which carries 14 million or so passengers each year, could transport up to 18 million passengers by 2040, and it would deliver £280 million-worth of transport economic benefits.
I fully recognise the work that Transport Scotland is doing with SPT and Stewart Stevenson’s commitment to consider the business plan, and I have been fully informed by SPT of the work that is in progress. I commend the work of Alistair Watson, the former chair of SPT, who has done an immense amount of work in progressing the proposal. I know from talking to SPT’s chief executive yesterday that a programme of meetings with the Scottish Government has been organised to examine the issue in some detail. SPT has been asked to put an answerable business case on the table and that is what it has done. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that SPT will proceed with the project if the business plan is agreed and investment is provided.
SPT has already sourced £20 million to kick-start the modernisation process, of which Hillhead station in my constituency will be the beneficiary. It is expected to set the standard for the work on the other stations.
I have always voiced my support for Glasgow’s underground and have consistently called for its operating hours to be extended. I believe that the modernisation programme would allow that to happen. I fail to see why the underground’s ticket office closes at the same time as our shops close their doors on Sunday, at 6 pm. Moreover, people who want to travel after 11 pm cannot use the subway to get home.
A system that was built in 1896 and modernised substantially only in the 1970s deserves investment now. The subway is important not just to the city of Glasgow but to the whole of Scotland and to Scotland’s economy. I hope that the Government will support the plan and provide the investment that is needed. I hope that the Government will confirm tonight that it will save the future of Glasgow’s underground.
We move to the open debate, in which speeches will be of four minutes. Many members wish to speak, so I will need to stop members when they reach their four minutes.
17:15
I thank Pauline McNeill for securing this important debate on the future of Glasgow’s subway. Like many members, I have visited and used the subway many times. Indeed, I have walked the line on a Sunday night at 9 o’clock—I think that other members have done that, too.
We all agree that Glasgow’s subway system desperately needs modernisation. It was built more than a century ago in the 1800s and its last major modernisation took place more than 30 years ago in the 1970s, as Pauline McNeill said. The subway is at risk of becoming seriously outdated if the problem is not addressed.
The subway has a major need for improvements, such as better access for disabled passengers. As members know, the subway does not have sufficient disabled lifts, which discourages many people from Glasgow and outside Glasgow from using public transport.
Improvements are needed across the board to deliver the Glasgow subway system into the future. As members will agree, extending the subway’s opening hours would greatly benefit the city. Closing the subway at 6 o’clock on a Sunday and at 11 pm during the week in a city such as Glasgow is unacceptable. Providing further public transport after 11.30 pm throughout the week and at weekends would be desirable and would serve as a safe option for members of the public who were returning home from socialising in the city centre.
Redevelopment is needed at stations such as St Georges Cross, whose platform extends for barely 4m. More frequent trains are needed in peak and off-peak times. As members will know, waiting times change drastically throughout the day from four minutes to more than 10 minutes. One day, I waited for 15 minutes at Partick for the next subway service, without notification of the delay at the station. The implementation of a smart card would boost the use of all public transport in the Glasgow area and would be most welcome.
All those measures can be implemented only if SPT is reformed from its foundations. That means no more lavish expenses for councillors’ luxury trips and travel at a time when subway services are becoming worse. That situation has angered the people of Glasgow.
Reviving and improving the subway could bring benefits to Glasgow and improve inner-city transport, but SPT must be trusted to do the job. Openness and accountability must be SPT’s top priority. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has a president and vice-presidents from different political parties and different local authorities. SPT must adopt such a stance if progress is to be made. It is not in the interests of democracy or the travelling public that only Labour councillors hold senior positions in SPT. SPT must be aware of that. I recognise that Pauline McNeill said that we must all work together, but SPT and Labour councillors must work with other authorities and other political parties to deliver a decent subway for all the people of Glasgow.
As I said, reform of SPT remains essential. At First Minister’s question time on 25 February, the First Minister said:
“we will press SPT to reform itself ... if that reform does not materialise, we will consider amending the existing order that defines its constitution”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; c 24033.]
Reform is needed in SPT and evidence of change is needed, instead of the mass spending that I mentioned on overseas restaurants and trips to European final football matches. I genuinely ask members to work together, but we cannot reward people who were given senior positions in SPT and who went on foreign trips. I will not name councillors, but some have been given further senior positions in the council.
The member’s time is up.
17:19
I add my congratulations to Pauline McNeill on securing the debate and on bringing this important subject to the chamber.
Those of us who remember the subway before its modernisation in the late 1970s will recall its distinctive smell—an earthy tang that was unique to the subway—and the shoogle that occurred on every journey because the seat backs were connected to the sides of the carriage while the rest of the seat was connected to the floor. Given that the sides of the carriage moved semi-independently from the floors, passengers were rocked backwards and forwards, sometimes in a fairly violent way. For children, that was part of the excitement, as was descending into an underground world that seemed—and was—dank and dark. Most of the carriages that were introduced in 1896 were still in use when the subway—or the underground, as I still think of it—was closed for renovation in 1977. Until then, smoking was allowed in the rear coach. It is little wonder that a journey on the underground felt like a trip back in time to Victorian Glasgow.
The modernisation of the subway in the 1970s was important, because it introduced brighter and more modern stations and trains, and it brought in safer working practices. The installation of tracks to the depot at Broomloan Road ended the need to remove trains from the tracks by crane, which ensured that the lengthy delays that had often occurred when trains broke down became a thing of the past.
Glasgow’s subway is a great way to get around the city—the 14 million journeys that are made every year are testament to that—but there are problems. To someone who lives or works outwith the area of the subway, it is of limited use. Although park and ride seems like a great idea, the lack of a joined-up plan from the local authority and SPT means that controlled parking has been introduced around some of the subway stations in order to control commuter parking, with little account being taken of the needs of those who live in the vicinity of the stations. People who have disabilities or mobility problems must check ahead to ensure that they will be able to access the stations, because some do not have disabled access. The constraints of the system mean that wheelchairs and certain types of pram cannot be carried, which is a real throwback to the 19th century.
The physical geography of the city makes it expensive and difficult to extend the underground’s reach and the combination of hard rock and old mine workings makes for an interesting engineering challenge. As Pauline McNeill said, the width of the tunnels, at only 11ft, makes it difficult to operate additional trains. The gauge width of 4ft also limits the capacity of the system. Many of the stations are still the original model, often in built-up areas. That, too, contributes to the problem of making alterations that would allow everyone who wishes to use the subway to do so. As Pauline McNeill said, another problem that must be capable of resolution is that of Sunday operating times. I hope that future modernisation will address that issue.
If the Glasgow subway is to continue to be a major part of Glasgow’s story and is not to be consigned to its history, major investment by the Scottish Government will be needed to secure its future. Make no mistake—without the subway, there would be gridlock across Glasgow city centre, which would, inevitably, spill over into surrounding road systems. That would be bad for business and bad for our environment.
SPT estimates that maintaining the current system would result in costs of £220 million in capital investment and £320 million in increasing maintenance and operating costs. Modernisation would involve a larger capital cost—in the region of £290 million—but a reduced maintenance cost of £100 million.
I am sorry, but I must stop the member.
17:23
As a resident of and frequent commuter in Glasgow, I begin by saying how much I value the Glasgow subway. The subway is an asset not just to our city’s citizens, but to the many visitors who come to Glasgow from other Scottish local authorities for shopping or socialising, for our museums and parks, for architecture or for our range of festivals. The subway is a vital resource in ferrying not just Glaswegians, but fellow Scots across our city. Without it, both Glasgow and Scotland would be worse off, not just because of traffic and transport problems, but from an environmental perspective. There would be a significant impact on the quality of life for many people. There is also a thriving and growing tourism and conference market in Glasgow, which benefits the whole of Scotland and relies on Glasgow’s subway.
The subway’s importance is clear. However, more than 100 years on from its birth and around 30 years on from its previous modernisation, it is in need of some care and attention, and of some significant investment.
I was recently fortunate enough to take a tour of the subway tunnels from SPT, so at around midnight I was walking underneath the city, from Cowcaddens through to Buchanan Street and on towards St Enoch’s. I was shown the challenges that the stresses and strains of near constant usage and old age present to Glasgow’s subway.
Along with my colleague Anne McLaughlin, I met one of the nightshift teams that work unseen under the city’s streets to ensure that the subway can operate the next day. They do a fantastic job as they attempt to battle constantly against corrosion, to replace existing parts and to battle the effects of severe water penetration in certain parts of the tunnels.
Looking at the challenges that face Glasgow’s subway in the years ahead, I have to say that the situation provides a wake-up call for those who have so forcefully called for the Glasgow airport rail link to be reinstated. GARL was desirable—I said that it was a desirable project—but it was a non-essential addition to the west of Scotland’s infrastructure. Let me be clear that the difference between the two is that Glasgow’s subway is a vital and essential part of existing infrastructure. With GARL we cannot miss what we never had, but in the case of the subway we must value and invest in what we already have in order to secure it for future generations. That is the core of the Glasgow subway issue.
When I met senior officials to discuss the challenges and opportunities of subway modernisation, I met committed and passionate people. I have no reason to doubt their ability or their competence but, as it is part of the SPT family, I would not want the subway modernisation project to be tarnished with the persistent and serious concerns that exist over the culture and governance at the very top of SPT. I would clearly need significant reassurances that any public money that is spent during a period of public spending cuts that are unprecedented in modern times was being well used.
As a Glasgow MSP I must say that there is a lingering uncertainty and doubt over the culture that existed, and may still exist, within SPT. Let me say, however, that I pledge to work in partnership, across party affiliation and with SPT, to deliver a subway system that is well placed for the 21st century. Perhaps, rather than looking to SPT to leverage in cash, we need to consider alternative ownership options for the Glasgow subway system and thereby to free our subway system from the unwelcome shadow of the old SPT culture. Perhaps we have to think out of the box. Opposition parties sometimes demand cash that may not be there, but we must work together on this project across party-political lines and attempt to identify cash, which will—let us not kid ourselves—be difficult, and leverage it in to safeguard Glasgow’s subway for the future.
17:27
I, too, thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the issue before Parliament.
Like Patricia Ferguson, I have some nostalgia for the Glasgow subway. I travelled on it at least twice a day for many years when I commuted to and from school and latterly from my work. I also recollect the shoogle, which was once demonstrated to me by my physics teacher as being a particularly good example of the principle of moments in operation.
There is a serious aspect to the debate. The historical fact is that the subway is now 115 years old. We owe a lot to our Victorian forefathers who had the prescience to construct a transport system of that type—a type that was almost unique in the world at one stage. Unfortunately—perhaps they, too, had money problems in those days—no funding was available to expand the system beyond the city centre, which is a real pity, because underground transport, as we see in many European capitals, has been a substantial contributor to the attractiveness of cities such as Vienna and Paris.
However, we are where we are and, as the subway is suffering from all the accompanying ailments of old age, we must clearly do something to improve it. SPT has come forward with proposals that, at fairly significant cost, would upgrade the subway. Obviously—I am sure that the minister will underline this point—the business case for such investment must be robust. Of course, we will require to examine in the closest possible detail exactly what the business case is and how it can be justified, but I certainly think that there would be a unanimous view that we would all hope that the business case would stand up to the rigours of that examination and present a real way forward on what is, on one hand, a Glasgow institution and, on the other, a very important component of Glasgow’s transport system.
As Patricia Ferguson does, I recall the 1970s revamp of the system, which resulted in its being closed for several years. The impact that that had in Glasgow was clearly apparent in traffic congestion, delays and the general hassle that the increase in surface transport caused.
The subway is particularly vital. It has the capacity to transport large numbers of people quickly and safely. Some 90,000 were transported in one day to accommodate the Pope’s visit to Bellahouston park. Every second week or so, some 30,000 travel by subway to a locus not all that far away from Bellahouston park to attend a football match, although I doubt that it is the same client base. Nevertheless, that is a classic illustration of how vital to Glasgow the subway system is.
I was interested in what Bob Doris had to say about the management and ownership of the subway. It must be the first time that I have heard him suggest that private ownership might be an available concept.
Will the member give way?
There is not time.
We can advance the argument in the months ahead.
The debate is interesting. The subway is particularly important to Glasgow and I hope that we can resolve the situation to the benefit of the city.
17:31
This is an important debate, in which the minister’s tone and the strength of his commitment in his response will be paid close attention. I pay tribute to Pauline McNeill for securing it.
The subway modernisation is essential; there is agreement about that across parties. As I and others have often said, it is difficult to imagine the congestion in Glasgow without the subway with which the foresight of our Victorian ancestors provided us.
There have been some false starts. A subway extension to the east was proposed at one point and was perhaps always a bit of a chimera. The question of whether the unique Toytown gauge of the railway could be altered with consequent longer-term revenue savings keeps coming up, but it is a non-starter because of the resultant and horrendously expensive consequence of having to widen the tunnels. As has been touched on, SPT has found its senior officials on the wrong end of its own expenses scandal—although we must be careful not to overegg that pudding. However, the scheme that SPT is developing seems to be realistic, cost effective and vital for the future of the network.
There is always caution and caveat as to whether large-scale public sector contracts will be value for money and whether the budget is sufficient, but that is a challenge to be overcome, not a reason for inaction. SPT’s figures will, no doubt, be closely examined, but a modernisation with the potential to convert a total capital and revenue maintenance and support cost from £540 million over 30 years to one of £390 million over the same period is attractive and ought, in principle, to be fundable.
A huge advantage of the subway—as with undergrounds and metros elsewhere—is that its principal stations come up at the centre of key shopping areas, such as Buchanan Street, St Enoch’s, Byres Road or Govan Cross. A modernisation would have other opportunities; for example, the chance should be taken to make the stations more accessible to people with mobility problems. Patricia Ferguson touched on some of the challenges of that. Of course, it is not a cheap option, either.
There may also be a limited scope for re-examining the location and suitability of some stations and enlarging the station concourse at others, such as Buchanan Street. Again, the tunnel problem arises in that regard. The signposting of some stations might be improved, and I am told that improving train frequency ought not to be as challenging with a modernised system as it probably would be at present.
Above all, on a single-track system that goes two ways round a loop, there must be—with due regard to passenger safety—potential for automatic or driverless trains. Such a set-up exists in other places, for example the Vancouver skytrain, the Lille metroline and the London docklands light railway. The Copenhagen light metro, which serves the capital city of a country that is the same size as Scotland, is also driverless and operates with 22 stations on two routes. It also serves the airport and carries 50 million passengers, so it is rather bigger than ours. Incidentally, its trains run 24 hours a day, which raises another challenge for Glasgow, where it has long been an irritant that the subway closes too early.
The subway’s modernisation is not a project on which the Government has a choice on whether to proceed. The Government has a choice on detail and, to a degree, on timing, but the minister must indicate today that he and his Government will be committed to the modernisation, will do whatever it takes to make that happen and will act with urgency to facilitate SPT in accessing the capital and any support that is necessary for the project to proceed.
Let me make one final point, if I may, on the question of how the work is to be funded. Within the umbrella of SPT’s financing, it should be possible to find a mechanism to provide for the burden on central Government funding, other than perhaps some support funding to kick off the project. We must find that mechanism and make it work quickly because the longer the delay, the more the modernisation will cost us, and the more it will cost Glasgow not to go ahead with it.
This is an important debate, so I look forward to the minister’s response.
17:35
I join others in congratulating Pauline McNeill on securing tonight’s debate.
Being a Glaswegian, I love our subway. For those who have not had the privilege of being born in Glasgow, I should explain that “subway” is the Glasgow name for the underground. I still remember and like the aroma that the traveller catches on alighting down the stairs on the central platform of the Glasgow subway. The smell is hard to describe, but it would be unmistakable even if a person was blindfolded and led into the subway without knowing. Therefore, my speech on the motion is delivered with my passion for, and fond memories of, the Glasgow subway.
Although the subway is, at 130 years old, the third-oldest such system in the world, one might have expected that the basic routes—or, more accurately, the route—would have been extended. Sadly, that is not the case—not a single metre has been added over the long time in which the subway has been in existence. Although no expansion has taken place, the population that the original system was designed to cater for has changed significantly. Many of those in the communities that benefited from being served by a station were moved into the schemes on the outskirts of Glasgow or into the new towns and villages outside Glasgow such as—to name but a few—Bearsden, Milngavie and Bishopbriggs. They were moved even as far away as Cumbernauld. In my view, we have an underground system that did not travel with its customers or extend to where people now live.
By contrast, other countries not only extended their 20th century infrastructure but, starting from scratch in the 21st century, have built what can only be described as magnificent underground systems that travel hundreds of miles, rather than just the few miles that the Glasgow underground covers. I am genuinely interested in underground systems and have boarded underground trains in countries ranging from Chile to China. Over many years, we have heard hundreds of excuses as to why we cannot, or should not, expand the Glasgow underground. One lame excuse is that the solid-rock formations prevent any expansion. Apparently, solid-rock seems to stop expansion only in Scotland, whereas in other countries it is seen as a benefit to the stability of the engineering project, which seems to be kind of strange.
I wish our subway—my subway—well, but I fear for its long-term future if we do not bite the bullet and meaningfully grow the system to reach out to the customer base that was lost so many years ago. We might lose forever that wonderful smell of the Glasgow subway.
17:39
Like others, I add my thanks and welcome to Pauline McNeill for lodging the motion. I apologise for having added my name to the motion only today at this late stage, but she can be assured of my support.
Pauline McNeill and other members have mentioned the affection in which the Glasgow subway is held, so let me just ponder the roots of why the system is held in such affection. My memories of the subway go back only to around the time following the 1970s refurbishment. As a poorly child, I was frequently taken into Glasgow to attend Yorkhill hospital, so the little bit of the journey that went from Partick to the subway station at Kelvinhall and back again was always a bit of highlight.
Whenever I was taken into Glasgow as a child, I always looked forward to that ride on the subway. Part of the reason why we have these feelings about the subway is to do with some of its shortcomings. The fact that it is just one little loop is kind of charming—it is charmingly modest. The small size of the rolling stock is also a problem in some ways. It makes new rolling stock hard to find and more expensive to procure, as the SPT report suggests, but it also increases the affection that we feel for it. Again, the vehicles are kind of charming. Far be it from me to suggest that everything that is small in size is big on charm, but there is something in that.
That affection is strong, but many people who use the subway are increasingly aware that the system has seen better days and desperately needs investment. As Robert Brown would, I would love it if we could replace what we have with something like the Copenhagen system, but let us be realistic; that would not be modernisation. To achieve that kind of system, we would have to rip it out and start again, and we would have to spend much more substantial amounts of money. I would love it if we could do that, but while the political landscape is still committed to spending billions on the road building programme instead of on public transport, I am not hopeful that we will get that sort of commitment. I am, however, hopeful that we can get the proposed modernisation programme approved. For years, Glasgow’s public transport has lost out to the road building programme that takes up the bulk of capital spending, and has seen the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link, which Scottish National Party members said was a vital part of the future of the west of Scotland’s transport system, while crossrail is still struggling to gain the backing that it deserves from a Government of any complexion.
There are positive points to welcome in the proposal, certainly around the refurbishment of rolling stock and stations, integrated ticketing and improvements in accessibility, which is something that we need to achieve. We could go further, even within the limitations that we face. The project ought to consider energy. An underground infrastructure should be able to pump energy up to the buildings on the surface. Heat-pump technology could be an environmental benefit and a source of revenue to the owners and operators of the subway. Improvements to passenger comfort and services such as wi-fi should be cheap, easy and relatively simple to do in a small system.
Ultimately, I would like to see the system expanded, extended, and integrated with cycle routes and so on. If that kind of money and political backing is going to be available, it will require Scottish Government recognition that Glasgow’s subway is nationally important. That is long overdue, and I look for the minister to confirm that tonight.
At this point I am prepared to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 10 minutes to complete business
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 10 minutes.—[Pauline McNeill.]
Motion agreed to.
17:43
I congratulate Pauline McNeill on organising this debate on the Glasgow subway. In 1930, the authorities changed the name from Glasgow subway when it moved from a cable-hauled system to an electric system. The name was changed to call it the Glasgow underground and my parents and thousands of other Glaswegians insisted on continuing to call it the subway. SPT changed the official name back about 10 years ago.
As a previous chair of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, I was involved in the centenary celebrations of the subway in 1996, so I am well aware of the store of good will in the city towards the subway. However, no one owes the Glasgow subway a living.
The minister likes to tell us facts, and I am sure that he is well aware that, on the Glasgow subway, the outer circle runs clockwise and the inner circle runs anticlockwise. Perhaps he can tell us whether he has travelled on the Glasgow subway lately.
I recall travelling on the subway before the 1979 modernisation in the same wooden carriages from the cable-haul days of 1896, which incredibly included brass match-strikers for smokers. How times have changed. It is the same with the 1979 modernisation: the subway is now looking tired, and another more radical modernisation is required.
SPT, the subway’s operator, has a modernisation plan under which patronage could rise from 14 million trips a year to 18 million by 2040. There would be capital costs at today’s prices of around £290 million for that scheme, and I understand that SPT is seeking Scottish Government revenue contributions to service loan debt of around £6 million to £8 million a year for 10 years. Given the undoubted constraints on the Scottish Government’s capital budget for transport, those requested revenue contributions sound like potentially good leverage, and I hope and trust that the minister is giving them serious consideration.
The modernisation must be future proofed. Not long after the 1979 modernisation, the then Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive installed a huge-capacity fibre optic cable in the subway tunnels, not just to service the signalling and telecommunications system but with enough spare capacity so that the broadband is still used today, by the universities, for example. That is an example of joined-up thinking and future proofing that could stand us in good stead in the future, for virtually any and all transport projects.
The modernisation thus far is supported by 20—now 21—MSPs who have signed Pauline McNeill’s motion. They are drawn from four political parties, and Glasgow’s sole Tory has now put his cards on the table, probably because the subway serves his beloved Firhill. I console Patrick Harvie by agreeing that size does not necessarily matter.
In December 2006, in the Evening Times, Nicola Sturgeon said:
“We want to deliver fresh ideas to build a transport system fit for the 21st century; not an antiquated out of date public transport network.”
I trust that, if the minister makes a grant to SPT for modernising the Glasgow subway, he will consider whether he seriously wants to make it a condition that SPT’s statutory governance arrangements must be changed.
I am afraid that the member’s time is up.
17:47
Let me first declare an interest as president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, and let me thank Pauline McNeill for lodging the motion.
I want to hear something for another rather unknown Scottish inventor. Who here has heard of Andrew Hallidie, who lived from 1836 to 1900? He was from a Dumfriesshire family who settled in the United States, and he pioneered steel wire rope. Not only that, he installed the cable haulage on probably the most famous trams in the world: the ones that go up and down the hills in San Francisco. Under his patent, the Glasgow subway was started in 1896. The technology was supposed to be used on the first London tube lines, but London went for electric traction from the beginning. London therefore had the first electric tube lines; Glasgow did not follow until the 1930s.
Unfortunately—this must be acknowledged—the transatlantic importations, which at one level gave us the Glasgow subway, must be seen against another example. Almost the first electric urban railway in Britain was the Liverpool overhead railway, which was started in 1890 and was electric hauled from the start. With the changes in the docks, it fell out of use and was completely demolished and scrapped in 1956. That could so easily have been the fate of the Glasgow system, but the fact that it is underground means that the remarkable coaches were preserved, almost like dinosaur eggs, right up until they were modernised in the 1970s.
Of course, the subway has an unfortunate nickname—the clockwork orange. Anyone who has seen the tremendously brutal film of that name will not warm to that description.
We should remember that undergrounds can be closed. There lies under the centre of London the once very useful post office electric railway, which has not seen a train for the past four years or so, although it is still preserved, like a sort of engineering sleeping beauty.
When Glasgow launched its motorway programme in the 1960s, many of the communities that depended on the subway were banished throughout the west of Scotland, as Gil Paterson said. Further, the high rises, which would have fed down to the subway, were a system of building that did not survive very long.
That leaves us in an awkward position, because we have just seen another Scottish invention, deep-sea drilling by positioning, run BP into terrible problems in the Gulf of Mexico. Although the technology enabled people to drill at depths of 1.5km under the sea, no one had a plan B for what to do with something went wrong. That is an illustration of how our desperate desire for oil is going to land us quite literally in deeper and deeper water.
The price of oil at the moment is $77 a barrel. It is likely that, within 10 years, it will be more than $200. That means that we ought to take advantage of the sort of low-carbon technology that we already have in place in, for example, the Glasgow underground.
I do not think that I can comment about what Bill Aitken said about privatisation. However, I point out that it does not seem to have been terribly successful in London, where all the privatised public transport is now back in public ownership.
It is important that we take action to retain the valuable utility that we are discussing tonight.
You should conclude on that point, Mr Harvie.
17:51
It is true that we are discussing the clockwork orange, but this one is a little less toxic than the cinematic version. It is clear that members throughout the chamber are deeply in love with this little toy train in Glasgow.
For Charlie Gordon’s benefit, I say that, as a minister, I have travelled on Glasgow’s subway on a number of occasions. Indeed, I travelled by train from Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street station and then by subway, wearing my dickey bow tie and full evening gear, to speak at a dinner in Glasgow, and I returned by the same method, without more than 60 or so Glaswegians attempting to make fun of my garb. That is less than the usual number, but people in Glasgow are gallus, engaging and very distinctive, and we can apply that description equally to the Glasgow underground.
Pauline McNeill referred to the record number of 69,000 people who used the underground during the last papal visit. I have seen that we are going to have to find parking for nearly 1,600 buses for the next one, and that is only the first indication of the issues that will engage Glasgow police, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government during the months of preparation for the papal visit in September.
Pauline McNeill also talked about the modernisation of working practices, and it might be worth making the point to Robert Brown that no one drives the trains in the subway. The people who are at the front of the trains are there simply to open and close the doors. However, there are successful examples of improving and modernising working practices.
Pauline McNeill referred to a request from SPT for £6 million a year from the Government for 10 years to pay the interest on the money for the modernisation work. I should point out that, during our discussions, it emerged that the necessary funding would be £6 million a year for 30 years. However, we should not place too much emphasis on that as an inhibitor to making progress.
The issue of the operating hours of the subway was referred to by a number of members.
Sandra White referred to the need for a smart card system. I have talked to SPT about that. We are already using the international ITSO standard for the card for the bus concession scheme. We are extending its use, and it is being used in the smart card pilot on the ScotRail system between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I recently wrote to one of my opposite numbers at Westminster who is engaged with the subject of smart cards, and I suggested that the logical thing to do would be to adopt what is an international standard and a card that is capable of carrying a significant number of different services. For example, the card could be a library card for local authorities. Indeed, it could carry commercial services, as well as enable people to access and pay for public services. There is momentum behind that.
Patricia Ferguson quite astonished me, I have to say. She is wearing much better than I thought she was. I did not realise that she was old enough to remember the previous system. She is wearing her years well. I am afraid that, although I am pretty confident that I am substantially in advance of her in years, I came to the subway post its modernisation 30 years ago.
I point out to the minister that I did mention that I found the subway interesting as a child.
Indeed. No discourtesy of any kind was intended. Anything that I said was meant to be a compliment rather than a discourtesy. I ask the member to be absolutely confident about that.
Bob Doris talked about the tourist and conference market and made an interesting point. When most of us go to a strange city, we sniff out the local transport options, because we tend not to have taken a car with us. We tend to travel by public transport, whereas at home things might be different. Bob Doris said—I paraphrase—that the subway needs TLC. I wish that I had had an opportunity to walk through the tunnels at midnight. I hope that somebody is listening. You never know. There is probably a gap in my diary somewhere.
It could be arranged.
Yes—I have a suspicion.
Bob Doris also mentioned governance issues at SPT. I will not say much about that. Whatever concerns we have about that, I think that we can successfully detach the subject of the subway from any governance issues that remain to be dealt with. We will, of course, keep an eye on them.
I am slightly cautious about alternative ownership options, because I am conscious that, in changing the ownership structure of our ferry companies, we incurred a substantial tax bill when we transferred assets from one company to another. My memory is that the bill was of the order of £11 million. Although there is something to be looked at there, we need to be cautious and ensure that we get value for money.
Bill Aitken had his schoolboy reminiscences as well, and talked about mathematics, which is a subject that is relatively close to my heart.
Robert Brown made the important point that the Government has a role in facilitating SPT’s access to capital while not creating an unnecessary burden on central Government. That is exactly the kind of engagement that we are having with the subway. It might often just be a question of guarantors or the visibility of Government engagement—we will see.
Gil Paterson loves our subway. I hope that he loves other people as well. Patrick Harvie correctly pointed to the distinctiveness of the Glasgow subway, which creates its charm. Charlie Gordon pointed to the thrawn nature of the Glaswegians who would not give up the name that they treasured. Fibre optic technology is, of course, important. Christopher Harvie bravely navigated away from the subject several times but always came back. I admire that utterly.
It is too early for the Government to give a commitment to support the project financially, but I assure members that we will continue to work closely with SPT to ensure that all the options have been explored on financing, on the technical issues and on the best way in which to deliver and manage Glasgow’s subway, so that it can continue for a long time to come to provide a vital transport service to Glasgow, the west of Scotland and people from further afield.
Meeting closed at 17:59.