Transport Delivery Plan
Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Wendy Alexander on the transport delivery plan. As the minister will take questions at the end of her statement, there should be no interventions.
This morning I make a statement in Parliament on the Executive's much-anticipated transport delivery report, "Scotland's Transport: Delivering Improvements", which is currently being published. The purpose of the report is twofold. First, it sets out an impressive range and number of transport improvements—across Scotland and across all modes of transport—that have already been carried out. Secondly, it sets out the Executive-led transport vision for the future.
I begin by paying tribute to the achievements of my predecessor, Sarah Boyack, who began the efforts to create the public transport system that Scotland needs and deserves for 2021. Much has already been achieved in setting the new direction for Scottish transport policy, which is built on recognising the significance of public transport—a matter that was so whole-heartedly neglected in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, the Executive's transport priorities reflect our commitment to sustainable development and our obligations to future generations and to the proper stewardship of the environment.
Transport emissions generate nearly 25 per cent of the United Kingdom's greenhouse gases, so we are working in partnership with the UK Government to meet Kyoto targets and to reduce CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below their 1990 levels, as outlined in the Scottish climate change programme.
Promoting high-quality, affordable public transport is vital to our determination to create a more sustainable Scotland. Our investment is already making a real difference to the quality and availability of public transport throughout Scotland. The number of bus journeys being made in Scotland increased in 1999 and 2000—the first increases since the 1970s. There have been encouraging increases in the number of rail journeys. Passenger numbers on the Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh line are up by 45 per cent and passenger numbers on the Fife circle line are up by 25 per cent. We must now strive to build on these successes.
During the first three years of the Scottish Parliament, we have concentrated much of our effort on improving the rural public transport network—for example, through the rural transport fund—on supporting almost 500 projects across Scotland and on significant new investment in Caledonian MacBrayne, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited and the northern ferries routes. We will continue to provide that support, encouraging new proposals for local community transport—proposals that are even more focused on local needs. We will continue to maintain the lifeline air and sea links that are so vital to the economic and social well-being of Scotland's most remote communities.
Much has already been achieved, but today's report takes the next step and looks forward to provide a real vision for the future—a statement of vision, intent and direction that is every bit as fundamental as that laid out in the 1960s. In the 1960s, the Government in Scotland built a national consensus around a vision that was based on linking up Scotland's major towns and cities through a major trunk road and motorway building programme. The aim of that "main routes" strategy was to strengthen our internal links, shorten journey times and improve the competitiveness of the Scottish economy by improving access to our principal markets in the south and beyond.
Today, the principal transport challenge facing Scotland is quite different—road traffic congestion. Road traffic is predicted to grow by more than 27 per cent in the next two decades, yet in rural Scotland the car will remain a primary means of getting around. We have to dig below the surface of that bald statistic to find the central insight that shapes this vision for Scottish transport. Eighty per cent of that predicted rise in road traffic in Scotland will be concentrated in and around our four major cities, so tackling urban congestion is the overriding challenge in Scotland today. Urban congestion is hampering Scotland's economy and damaging our environment.
Will the minister give way?
Not during the statement please.
Congestion causes stress, increases emissions and reduces the quality of life for millions of Scots daily. Above all, it costs both time and money—costs that Scotland can ill afford.
In an age when changing patterns of work mean that Scots will increasingly be commuting further and longer to work, they need convenient travel choices. This cannot just be about city centre transport choices. Think of the modern workplaces of friends and family. More often than not, their final destinations are not urban centres but are spread throughout our major urban areas. Therefore, existing public transport systems, where they simply serve city centres, cannot cater effectively for the future pattern of demand. Yet, crucially, when convenient, safe and reliable public transport is available, people will use it.
Today we provide a new route map for Scotland—an Executive-led vision of the changes that we want to see to improve access to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and so deliver a transport system that is fit for the 21st century. Our aim is to stabilise road traffic levels at 2001 levels by 2021, by investing in an integrated package of specific measures that are designed to improve public transport and to create travel choices so that many more people can choose to leave the car at home. Nine of the top 10 transport priorities that are highlighted in the report are targeted at improving public transport.
I will describe our top 10 transport priorities. First, we will improve the rail infrastructure and the overall services to passengers by letting a new 15-year passenger rail franchise from April 2004. A long-term franchise can help us to deliver—in partnership with the operator—the strategic improvements that the Scottish rail network needs and that have already been identified in the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan. The whole journey experience must be made radically better so that passengers are treated like the valuable customers that they are. Trains should be reliable and clean and journey times should be predictable.
Secondly, we want to increase the overall capacity of the Scottish rail network through the redevelopment of Waverley station to provide more platforms. If that is not done, Waverley will shortly reach capacity, thereby limiting options for growing rail passenger numbers and our capacity to improve rail services throughout the network. In partnership with the Strategic Rail Authority, work on Waverley should begin in 2004.
Thirdly, we will develop rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, opening up direct access to the rail network for business, leisure and tourist travellers alike. By autumn we will have received a report and will be able to decide on progressing routes for development.
Fourthly, we want to create an effective and modern 21st century public transport system for Edinburgh, worthy of a capital city, in partnership with City of Edinburgh Council and private sector partners through Entico. City of Edinburgh Council is doing preparatory work on a tramline for north Edinburgh and we have invited the council to seek further funding from the Executive for preparatory work on a west Edinburgh tramline.
Fifthly, we want to address the concerns of business and the wider community in and around Aberdeen by tackling Aberdeen's congestion before it reaches the proportions that are seen elsewhere. Earlier this week, when Lewis Macdonald and I were in Aberdeen, we announced more than £500,000 for the development and implementation of the north-east Scotland transport partnership's modern transport system and a further £600,000 for the development of Aberdeen's urban realm project.
Sixthly, we have to tackle congestion right across the centre of Scotland by delivering the top priority public transport projects flowing out of the A8, A80 and M74 corridor studies. We will take receipt of those studies by the summer and I will announce decisions on priorities and their delivery in the autumn. However, in advance of reaching a decision on the corridor studies, I can announce today £5 million for the expansion of park-and-ride facilities at Croy railway station. That new funding will enable the construction of a new 250-space car park, which will more than double the current capacity. Work on the car park will start immediately and construction will be completed in just over 12 months. That is one of the priority public transport projects that emerged from the initial findings of the A80 corridor study.
Seventhly, we will open up the Borders area by progressing the central Borders rail link. The next stage in the process is the lodging in Parliament of a private bill seeking permission to construct the railway. The timetable for that and for subsequent stages in the bill's progression will be at the discretion of the Parliament.
Eighthly, we will tackle social exclusion by delivering free off-peak bus travel from October 2002 for elderly people and people with a disability. Negotiations are under way with the aim of introducing those improvements on a voluntary basis by enhancing current schemes in operation throughout Scotland.
Ninthly, we will improve travel information by providing travellers with customised information through an improved traveline service. A further £1 million will be spent this year on more detailed information for travellers, internet access and the formal launch of the overall high-quality service in the summer. We will encourage local authorities to adopt through-ticketing arrangements on local buses.
Tenthly, we will examine urgently how vital missing motorway links on the A8 and A80 might be completed. The central Scotland corridor studies are currently reviewing all possible options and we will announce our decisions in the autumn. However, it is clear that short-term action is required to address the most pressing problems on the key strategic corridors connecting Edinburgh to Glasgow and central Scotland to the north. I can announce that the Executive has committed an additional £20 million for a new junction at Auchenkilns on the A80 and junction improvements at Shawhead on the A8. Work on the design of both projects will start today.
That is the first announcement of spend on both those key roads since devolution—apart from money for routine maintenance. That is in addition to work that will begin on the Baillieston to Newhouse section of the A8 in early summer; we will be spending £25 million on the reconstruction of the A8 carriageway, the provision of hard shoulders and junction improvements along the route. The benefits from that work will be improved road safety, reduced congestion at junctions and better flow of traffic on the A8, especially at peak times.
The report does not purport to be the answer to all of Scotland's transport problems—it cannot be that. However, it clearly articulates what the Executive is striving to achieve and provides a vision for transport following more than two decades of underinvestment, which created a backlog of desirable projects. We have made significant progress in the past three years and that must continue.
The detailed sequencing of the 10 priority projects that the report highlights will be a key priority when decisions are taken in this year's spending review. The clarity in the report about what we are seeking to achieve creates an explicit agenda for partnership with other bodies, which is vital if we are to lever in the resources that are needed to deliver. By establishing a clear Executive-led vision for tackling congestion, it will be easier to work in partnership with others to deliver the transport system that Scotland deserves. Fundamental to achieving our vision will be working with local authorities and the voluntary regional transport partnerships—the west of Scotland transport partnership, the south-east Scotland transport partnership, the north-east Scotland transport partnership and the Highlands and Islands transport partnership—to improve local roads and bridges and tackle the growth in road traffic congestion.
We have achieved much since devolution, but many more transport improvements are needed if we are to have the transport system that Scotland deserves. Delivering the new vision will be a huge challenge, but today we are establishing clear priority projects that the Executive is committed to making happen over the next decade and beyond.
The challenges are clear but the route map for the future is clear, as are our priorities. It is time for action and to commit to what we will tackle and when. The level of detail in the transport delivery report is essential if we are to achieve the transport system that Scotland deserves for the 21st century.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I will allow about 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
A new day has dawned, but it is not a new age for public transport in Scotland. Several questions arise from the report. It appears that we are long on rhetoric, but short on detail. The plan gives us yet more studies and reports—studies and reports on on-going studies and reports. By my calculations, more than half the 10 projects referred to by Wendy Alexander are dependent on the outcomes of current studies and new studies or on interaction with partners from whom we have heard nothing and have no guarantee that they will deliver what the minister wants.
I want to raise some specific points in regard to four critical areas: airport rail links; providing 21st century public transport in Edinburgh; Borders rail, which is so important in the south of Scotland; and the missing motorway links, which are so significant for vehicle traffic in Scotland. The report is considerably devoid of detail in those four areas and we have no "route map", as the minister called it. Can she answer three points relating to those four matters? First, when will building commence? Secondly, who will provide the funding? Thirdly, what funding mechanism will be used? If those three questions cannot be answered, I regret to say that the report will be not a route map but another example of the Executive being long on rhetoric and short on substance.
Would Kenny MacAskill clarify his third question?
What mechanism of financing will be used?
I am happy to deal with those three questions for each of the proposals that Kenny MacAskill has mentioned—the airport rail links, the Edinburgh public transport system, Borders rail and missing motorway links. I judge that to be 12 questions and, if the Presiding Officer is happy to indulge me, I will be delighted to respond to them all.
I do not know of any previous Government—I will not say Scottish Executive, given that we are the first Scottish Executive—programme that committed to 10 specific projects. Kenny MacAskill should reconsider his claim that we are short on detail, as we have been more specific than any Government ever.
I will deal with the earliest start date for each project and then I will outline who will provide the money. The first project is the airport rail links. The study report on Glasgow airport rail link is expected in autumn. We expect the project vehicle to be established in 2003 and the necessary bill to be lodged in 2004. There would be an opportunity to consider the issue in the parliamentary process in 2005. That would create the earliest opportunity for tendering in 2005. Planning permission would be necessary and that would be arranged in 2005-06. That would allow design and construction in 2006 and would create an earliest possible opening date of 2008. The timetable for the Edinburgh link is comparable.
The introduction of the bill in respect of the Borders rail link is at the discretion of the Parliament. It will be possible to introduce the bill at any time from 2003. Powers to construct will be given in 2003-04, procurement will take place in 2004-05, start on the site could happen any time after 2005 and the service will commence some time after 2008.
As Kenny MacAskill knows, planning is already under way for the tramline to the north of Edinburgh. We have invited City of Edinburgh Council to bring us plans for west Edinburgh in the next few months. After that, there will need to be planning permission, design and planning work, and we would expect to see the first elements of the light rapid transit scheme in place in 2004-05.
Building the missing road links depends on the recommendations that the multimodal study will make in the autumn. We have to consider the time it would take to get parliamentary permission, do the design and preparatory work and examine different financing arrangements. The start date on the A80 would be 2008-09 and the start date on the A8 would be 2007-08.
I will run through who will provide each project. In the case of rail links for the airports, we are in discussion with the Strategic Rail Authority—as members will know, the links are one of the priorities in the SRA plan—the British Airports Authority, Strathclyde Passenger Transport in the case of Glasgow airport, and the local authorities. I expect to see all those bodies make a contribution on the financing of the airport links. Those discussions are already under way.
As to who will provide the financing in Edinburgh, members will be aware that last month we announced the establishment of Entico, which is a joint venture with the private sector, led by Ewan Brown. We have asked Entico to draw up the congestion charging scheme, or at least work with City of Edinburgh Council to finalise the scheme. We expect to receive that in autumn 2002. We also expect further details on financing when City of Edinburgh Council and the private sector players have reached agreement.
On the central Borders rail link, members know that the consortium has been established, but I expect contributions from the Scottish Executive, local authorities and the private sector. I have been encouraged by the willingness of the Edinburgh financial community to enter into discussion about contributing to that vital rail link. It is key to the development of Edinburgh as a financial centre and the heart of Scottish corporate life.
The A8 and A80 corridors are partly dependent on whether we choose to use a public-private partnership. As Mr MacAskill knows, we are considering whether a PPP would be appropriate for the M74. A PPP could free up additional resources for public transport improvements. If the corridors are trunk roads, there are permissions available to use tolling should we so wish. If it turns out that those corridors are not new roads, tolling would require legislation and we would want to discuss that in the context of the multimodal study.
All that I have said alludes to the wider point. Until we specify the 10 projects that we are trying to complete, it is not possible to put together all the necessary funding packages. To minimise the burden on the public purse, we are looking for the optimal and speediest financing arrangements for each. Those arrangements will vary from project to project.
We have plenty of time in hand this morning and the minister has already agreed that we can run on a bit.
I think that my questions can be answered more briefly.
First, I thank the minister for advance notice of her statement. I first read it in The Herald on 6 February. There is not much left of Sarah Boyack's original proposal for a 15-year strategic plan. What we have is a number of 15-second soundbites that will no doubt be spun out endlessly over the next 15 months as we approach the Scottish Parliament elections.
How does the minister expect anybody to take seriously a report that ends with a picture of an aircraft taking off and the line
"The report will be rolled forward into solid plans"?
Is that not as clear an admission as we could have that the Executive has no concrete plans?
How can we have any confidence in the minister's ability to deliver anything when her term as minister has been characterised by transport chaos? Rather than producing nine or more glossy leaflets, is it not time to get into the real world where people judge delivery of public services on their experience of strikes, congestion on the roads, potholes and unreliable transport?
Does the minister's statement in The Sunday Herald that rural transport problems have all been fixed not show contempt for people in rural areas who have never experienced roads in such a poor state?
Finally, where is the money? In the minister's statement and in all the spin around it, not a penny piece is being proposed for expenditure beyond 2004. We cannot have a plan to deliver into the next decade if there is no money behind it. Where is the money?
The only difference between this plan and the one that might have emerged from my predecessor, Sarah Boyack, is that my plan has an implicit time horizon of 12 years rather than 15. It is fair to say that every one of the priority projects and the studies on each of them was started by Sarah Boyack, ably assisted by Lewis Macdonald, who has provided continuity.
It is significant that nine of the 10 projects are public transport projects. Publishing the plan today was only possible because Ms Boyack pioneered the shift from less than 12 per cent of the total transport budget being spent on public transport when she acquired the portfolio following the characteristic stewardship of Conservative party. At the end of her tenure, she had shifted 53 per cent of the transport budget into public transport.
I move to Mr Mundell's second point about delivery. It is because we think that delivery is key that in Scotland—unlike in England—we have pioneered specifying the projects that need to be completed to change the experience of passengers. We have not gone down the route of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, whose 10-year transport plan focused on more general targets. That is right for a larger geographical area, but it would be inappropriate for Scotland because it would mean disconnection between targets and projects. Scotland needs to know what is going to happen, which projects will happen and when. That is what we have sought to do in the statement.
It is not the case that all the projects in rural Scotland have been completed. Indeed, it is for that very reason that Ross Finnie and I announced this week the extension, and shift in emphasis of, the rural transport fund. As members will know, the support for lifeline services, Caledonian MacBrayne, HIAL and the northern ferries, is now at an all-time high. The reason why Sarah Boyack and Lewis Macdonald had to focus on the lifeline services was the underinvestment in those services by the Conservative party.
Finally, when it comes to finance, transport has sometimes been neglected by many Governments. I note that there have been 20 ministers responsible for transport in the United Kingdom in the past 20 years. That neglect is not just due to the volume of transport ministers. It has been caused by a lack of clarity about what we are trying to achieve. That was why the previous Conservative Administration could plan for the first two years of the Labour Government to have a declining line on transport.
There are less than four weeks to go before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces the expected uplift in public expenditure in the next comprehensive spending review. With less than four weeks to go, it would be foolhardy to try and look backwards three years and specify moneys associated with the previous spending review, which is now more than two years out of date.
I will introduce a positive note into the issue. Although there are problems and there have been years of underfunding, things are happening. Local projects have come out of the rural transport fund that have benefited communities in my area. There are park-and-ride facilities on the periphery of Aberdeen that have benefited my constituents and me when travelling into Aberdeen. The things that are happening might be small scale, but small scale is how people live.
However, there are many big things to do. I was pleased to see that Aberdeen and the north-east are at number 5 in the list of priorities. The minister mentioned the 1960s vision of linking up Scotland's major towns and cities, but that vision ran out before it got to Aberdeen and the north-east and we are still awaiting the completion of the links to the main cities of Aberdeen and Inverness—the A96 is a long-neglected main travel route. When it comes to prioritisation, I ask the minister to take into account the fact that she has a lot of catching up to do from the 1960s.
Priority 10 is the central Scotland corridor study. The report points out that it occurred to people that the central Scotland transport model should be extended and enhanced to include Aberdeen and the north-east. Will the model be extended and enhanced, and will a more inclusive transport model for Scotland be used, rather than the model that is confined to the central belt?
First, the order in which the 10 projects appear does not imply any order of priority; we should correct that view now. The logic of the order in which they appear is that seven of them are to do with tackling congestion in our principal cities, two are to do with integration—traveline and access for pensioners—and the final one is about the missing links.
We are seeking to make the rural transport fund more responsive to local communities. Frankly, in the past when local communities felt that no money was available for public transport, they did not get together to think about whether a community taxi or a community bus service would be right for them. With the funding of 500 projects, more debate is being generated in local communities about the right transport solution for them and about whether the best solution is a community taxi or a community bus service. Ross Finnie and I are trying to make the next incarnation of the rural transport fund more responsive to local communities that are coming up with proposals that are right for their areas, because they now believe that there will be resources for the projects.
On the 1960s vision, I will resist the opportunity to talk about the road improvements that were made at that time in the north-east. Suffice to note that, taking a Highland analogy, between 1962 and 1970 the travel time between Inverness and Carlisle was halved. That is a measure of the consistency of purpose and national consensus that was built at that time. We seek today to build the same national consensus around access into Glasgow, Edinburgh and critically—as Nora Radcliffe says—Aberdeen.
I offer Nora Radcliffe reassurance on the north-east roads system. As she will know, there have been three multimodal studies in Scotland—on the M74, the A8 and the A80. It is clear from the study of the A80 that the benefit of upgrading that road is that it will improve the freight route linking the north-east of Scotland to the west of Scotland. One of the key drivers for the people who are involved in that study is getting congestion off that corridor to provide that vital economic link to the north-east.
With regard to the announcement that Lewis Macdonald, who has done much of the work on this matter, and I made on Tuesday, the significance of extending for the first time an Executive-sponsored road traffic model to the north-east is that it will give us data of the same quality that would be obtained from a multimodal study in the north-east. Of course, it was open to us to say, "Stop now. Could we start all over again and have a multimodal study for the west of Aberdeen?" but that seemed inappropriate. It was more important to work with NESTRANS to update the quality of its data so that it was of the same quality that would be obtained from a multimodal study, so that we can figure out the right way forward for roads west of Aberdeen and into Aberdeenshire.
I have allowed substantial questions and answers so far, but I expect significantly shorter questions and answers from this point.
With her enterprise hat on, the minister has given prominence to the regeneration of the Clyde corridor. I highlight the importance of developing vital transport links there, in particular along the north side of the Clyde. That must be considered in the next prioritisation exercise.
In the context of the rail franchise and her investment strategy for public transport, what priority will the minister give to speeding up the journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh, which is currently five minutes slower than it was more than 30 years ago in 1971? It is important that we upgrade the rail line so that it is a proper express intercity line, instead of the suburban line that it seems to be becoming.
I share Des McNulty's view that the west of Scotland is important. That is why people will note that the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport links are noted as vital linkages; neither is given priority. Most of the airport linkage schemes are south of the River Clyde and do not cross the river. I expect my colleague Lewis Macdonald to make a statement on that in early summer, around the time we discuss the aviation work that has been done in Scotland. I expect that statement to bring people up to date with progress on the linkages.
The member may know that through the public transport fund we have given WESTRANS and Strathclyde Passenger Transport just short of £300,000 to commence a study to determine the right public transport infrastructure for north of the River Clyde. In particular, it will examine the right options for the Glasgow harbour area. I have recently been briefed on the study, which has now commenced.
On the rail franchise and speeding up the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail link, the member will be encouraged to know that the Strategic Rail Authority identified three projects in Scotland for major improvement: the first was Waverley station; the second was airport links; and the third was the central Scotland study. One of the reasons why we cannot speed up the rail journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh tomorrow is that, quite simply, there is not enough room at Waverley station. As many members know, there is only one platform 14. Another problem is that the trains currently have to stop at Croy, Lenzie, Polmont, Linlithgow and so on. If we had more track capacity at Waverley, we could instantly have a non-stop service, if that was agreed with the operator.
Increased track capacity and further line enhancements are also under consideration. I discussed the Waverley project with Richard Bowker of the SRA in London last week, because the SRA and Railtrack will have a major role in pursuing the project. If we have a 15-year rail franchise in Scotland, it will become possible to talk to the operator not just about service enhancements, but about infrastructure enhancements, as part of the franchising process.
I hope that the minister's reference to the potential work on the A80 being of significant benefit to the north-east is not in any way the fulfilment of the promise that she gave in Aberdeen this week that she will provide a level playing field. A commitment to do something about the A80 is welcome, but I do not know that it is the principal concern of the people of the north-east.
I have two questions. First, the minister told us that nine of the 10 priorities relate to public transport. For the sake of clarity, will the minister tell us whether Aberdeen's congestion will be tackled solely through a public transport solution?
Secondly, the chapter of the transport delivery report entitled "The Vision" states that the Executive will prepare
"a robust assessment of whether targeted road improvements, including the Western Peripheral Route, could contribute."
Does that mean that the minister thinks that the western peripheral route proposals may not contribute to a reduction in congestion? Can she give us some idea when we will have a final decision on whether the Executive will accept its responsibilities for providing what should be a trunk route, to complete a significant link in the north-east that has been missing for a long time?
I can genuinely give Brian Adam most of the reassurance that he seeks. I will draw an analogy with the south side of Glasgow. As he will know, when we were thinking about the M74, we noted that there were two principal reasons why people use major ring roads: to deal with local congestion and because they are major strategic arterial routes for goods to market. In the case of the M74, that means vehicles going from Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire to markets in the south. There is also an analogy with congestion issues and how to get from the south side of Glasgow into the centre of the city.
The same issue applies to the creation of a modern transport system in Aberdeen. This week, we reached an important agreement in Aberdeen. Two issues are how we get traffic from Peterhead, north Aberdeen and Bridge of Don to the south and how we help people to enter Aberdeen. We do not have sufficient data about the percentages of strategic and urban congestion. As we did when we completed the multimodal study on the south side of Glasgow, we had to make choices about the route and the number of off-ramps, which depended on whether the principal problem was congestion or the route to market.
This week, we agreed that, for the first time, we would say to NESTRANS not, "We will do the multimodal study for you," but, "We trust you and we will give you our model." That will allow what is strategic congestion and what is congestion to the west of Aberdeen to be assessed, as it was in the multimodal studies in the south. I cannot give a commitment on how the outcomes of the study will be financed. I will receive the A8 and A80 multimodal studies next month. We have not resolved how their outcomes will be funded completely, because issues such as whether tolling should be part of the agenda must be addressed.
I agree with the minister that dealing with urban and interurban congestion is the most pressing transport issue in Scotland. The statement goes a long way towards addressing that issue.
The minister is correct to identify a move to a 15-year franchise as the most effective way of making a substantial step change in Scotland's rail services. Does the minister believe that there are opportunities for us to make progress in improving services before that franchise is let?
I congratulate the minister on her comprehensive response to Mr MacAskill's questioning. Does she agree that the comic element in today's exchanges was the accusation that the minister was short on detail and long on rhetoric, when Mr MacAskill has made a career of being that?
In the interests of brevity, I say yes, yes and yes.
Will the minister confirm that her only new announcements were of £20 million for the A80 and of the park-and-ride scheme at Croy? Is she aware that, in each of the past three years, her predecessor made a detailed three-year projection of trunk road improvement projects? Will a further tranche of projects for 2004-05 be announced this year? Does the minister realise the significance for huge areas of Scotland of those announcements, which recently have been annual? They have established projects that tackle the real problems of rural areas—road safety, inadequate carriageways and the peripherality that stems from poor transport links.
A number of road transport improvements will go ahead shortly. If I find the list, I will tell the member about the projects that will commence this year. In my statement, I tried to set the vision for the next 10 years. In the interests of brevity, I did not say which of the 94 projects to which we are committed will commence in the next few months. When invited to, we circulated this morning a list of the 15 or 20 projects that will happen this year. I am more than happy to send that list to the member.
I have such a big smile on my face that I can hardly speak. I welcome the minister's statement and the commitment to Croy railway station's park-and-ride scheme. I thank the minister's predecessor, Sarah Boyack, who showed much commitment to the project. Croy station's improvements are a perfect example of how improving public transport services creates demand. The station has been a victim of its own success and I look forward to that success continuing.
I welcome the minister's announcement about the Auchenkilns roundabout. People who live in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have long recognised that improving that facility will move traffic on. I await with interest the publication of the multimodal study.
Please be brief.
In response to the attacks from the SNP and the Tories—the SNP said that the announcement was short on detail and the Tories said that it was full of soundbites—does the minister agree that SNP and Tory transport policies are nothing more than hot air?
Yes.
When the Opposition spokespeople can tell us their top 10 priority projects, they can lecture the Executive on lack of detail.
Croy station's park and ride was the most pressing scheme to emerge from multimodal study work. We hope that the scheme will be the first of many. It is astonishing that even after doubling capacity to 250 park-and-ride places, opportunities for further expansion are built into our plans.
As people who use the Auchenkilns roundabout will know, the safety issues that it raised were so pressing that we had to move ahead now.
I welcome the announcement on the Glasgow airport link. Will the minister confirm that the Glasgow link will go in tandem with the Edinburgh link? In previous statements, the Edinburgh link seemed to have priority. Does the minister recognise the palpable disappointment that will exist in Glasgow at the lack of public transport provision announcements for Glasgow, particularly about crossrail or other such developments? That is against the background of huge social exclusion in Glasgow. Does she recognise that the statement is short on vision and short on realistic answers to congestion problems in the city of Glasgow?
As I said, the consultants have completed phase 1 on the airport links. We expect to have something to say in late summer about the routes that are under consideration. The member should be aware that links to both airports and cross-links through Glasgow to link the airports to the central Scotland network are being studied.
I would be disappointed if people in Glasgow felt disappointed by the statement. Pensioners form a high proportion of Glasgow's population and will benefit from the free public transport scheme. The excellent service that Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive has provided may mean that Glasgow pensioners will benefit disproportionately from the scheme, because of the number of bus services in the city. Glasgow is seeing the construction of the M74 extension. The Executive has made a substantial contribution to that. The increase in platform capacity at Waverley station will benefit both sides of the Glasgow to Edinburgh route by allowing more trains to travel from Glasgow. Similarly, I do not imagine that everyone who parks their car at Croy station goes to Edinburgh.
I welcome the minister's statement. The minister drew attention to our Kyoto commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and I welcome the commitment to get people out of cars and on to public transport, thereby reducing congestion. Will the minister assure me that the plans for the Waverley line and for Edinburgh city will be developed in an integrated way that examines the needs of constituencies such as Midlothian, which falls between the two? Sixty per cent of Midlothian's population travels to work in Edinburgh and faces appalling congestion at Sheriffhall roundabout.
On the Kyoto targets, I know that some criticism has been made about why we have not set targets local authority by local authority to achieve the Kyoto reductions that we want. We have not done that yet for a simple reason. The likely road congestion and contributions to emissions in Caithness, Sutherland, Stornoway and Shetland are different from the likely contributions to emissions from road congestion in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. That is why my predecessor, Sarah Boyack, put in place a detailed study that will let us set targets by authority to meet the Kyoto targets. We expect to publish those targets towards the end of the year.
One great advance, which the Parliament began a couple of years ago, is the establishment of regional transport partnerships, such as SESTRANS and NESTRANS, which allow us to consider the regional dimensions of planning. When I talk about people entering and leaving Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, I stress that I am talking not only about how people move in and out of urban areas but about how they access workplaces, which increasingly are not in city centres but at diverse points in urban locations.
In addition to the main routes strategy, another great achievement of the 1960s was Barbara Castle's legislation to establish regional passenger transport authorities. Many other parts of Scotland look enviously at what the SPTE achieved and continues to achieve, as part of SPT, in the west of Scotland. We hope that SESTRANS, NESTRANS and HITRANS evolve in a similar direction.
The minister mentioned that various authorities would be expected to contribute towards the costs of airport links and crossrail. Do the authorities know that they are to contribute and how much they are to contribute? I understand that SPT does not have a lot of money. Is the minister aware that the Stansted rail link was funded by national Government? If so, why is that not the case for the rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports?
At the moment, the individual local authorities that are involved contribute through the planning and design stages.
On the funding of SPT, the member knows that SPT is engaged in a dialogue with the Executive to examine its financing arrangements. We are sympathetic to the continuation of that dialogue.
As the MSP for Stirling, I, like Cathie Craigie, welcome the improvements in Cumbernauld, which will help commuters travelling to Glasgow. I ask the minister for reassurance on her commitment to car parking at railway stations including Dunblane. Unless we extend car parking at railway stations, we will not be able to encourage more people back on to trains.
The chamber can take our commitment to Croy station park and ride as a signal of intent when it comes to the spending review. Clear evidence is emerging from the multimodal corridor studies that 86 per cent of the traffic at peak times on the A80 in the member's constituency is generated by single-person car occupancy commuter traffic—in west Edinburgh, the figure is 81 per cent. The key method of getting rid of congestion is to make park-and-ride facilities and comfortable interchanges available to commuters.
The facility at Croy will not be the only park-and-ride facility to be built, but it was the most urgent facility and the one that we could most easily move to the top of the queue. I expect park and ride to feature prominently in the multimodal studies that we are to receive in the summer.
I forget how many speeches the minister has made this morning, but in her first one she mentioned congestion in Aberdeen. Later, in a reply to Brian Adam, she said that Aberdeen might not get a western bypass. The document that the minister released this morning included a commitment to support road charging and an endorsement of the provision of wider powers for local councils to introduce charging systems. Does that mean that if and when Aberdeen gets a western bypass, it will be a toll road?
I would like to clear up the matter, but I do not want to take up time in the debate to do so.
We can allow the minister until 10.30 am to reply to questions.
Until now, there have been only three multimodal studies in Scotland: one on the M74 on the south side of Glasgow; one on the A80; and one on the A8. This week, we created a process similar to the one that underpins the multimodal studies for the north-east. It is to be undertaken by NESTRANS, but the modelling process that is involved will have the full support of the Scottish Executive.
The M74 helps to relieve congestion by getting people in and out of Glasgow. It also provides the strategic function of getting goods out of the city and on to through routes. A western peripheral route that was part of a modern transport system for Aberdeen would fulfil a dual function in exactly the same way as all the roads that were examined in the multimodal studies. I hope that I have not drawn a false distinction in that respect.
In trying to establish how such plans might be financed, I have initiated a different review in relation to the M74. I am considering whether it should be funded through a PPP, as happened for the A80 and the A8. We have said before that we need to await the outcome of the multimodal studies, but we welcome the willingness of the Confederation of British Industry and others to examine the means by which a contribution could be made to the process.
Given that we have not yet undertaken the modelling for the area to the west of Aberdeen, it would seem presumptuous to single that area out for a particular form of funding. Although we are approaching the end of a two-year multimodal study period on the other corridors that I have mentioned, we will not specify the outcomes until we have taken receipt of the studies. There is no doubt that the character of road usage will influence the decision on the appropriate balance of funding. We are assessing the balance between strategic and local needs on a like-for-like basis.
I welcome the significant investment of £3 million that has been allocated to the transport interchange plan for Gourock. Through her involvement in the area, the minister will know of the delays that have plagued the project. Will she tell the chamber what she has done, and what she will do, to ensure that the project goes ahead as soon as possible?
I am acutely aware of the collapsing sea wall at Gourock, which is causing problems for the upgrading of the station. As the chamber is aware, four projects are caught up in Railtrack's decision that all of its signalling resources should be concentrated on post-Hatfield safety work. The difficulty for all branches of Government is that it would be wholly inappropriate to interfere in decisions about safety priorities, as they are the judgment of the rail regulator.
That said, when signalling resources become available, we are anxious that resources that are not required for essential safety work should be diverted into projects in which we have made a financial commitment, such as the Gourock project.
Last week in London, I discussed that very matter with Richard Bowker, the head of the Strategic Rail Authority. I am hopeful that, when Railtrack begins to have the signalling resource that allows it to do things other than safety, the four Scottish projects—including Gourock—will be very near the top of the list.
Does the minister accept that to invest in CalMac, the northern isles ferries and HIAL is to invest in infrastructure? Welcome as that is, it does not change the fares that people in the outlying areas of Scotland face. Does she accept that, while the investment in HIAL has improved the company's position, it has not led to changes in the exorbitant price of flying to and from the northern, western and other isles in the outlying parts of Scotland? Will she give an undertaking that she will look at innovative transport policies, such as public service obligations, to counter the cost of living in those areas?
I think that I heard three questions struggling to get out.
There is no question about the level of infrastructure investment that we have made. The challenge for the management of CalMac and HIAL is how they use their much-improved infrastructure to provide a better service to passengers.
Last Friday, en route to Gigha, I talked to the managing director of CalMac. I asked him about how CalMac's new route managers will create a service that is more responsive to passengers' needs. To take Gigha as an example, a very slight change to the ferry timetable would allow schoolchildren to get home every night. At present, they have to spend four or five days each week in Campbeltown. A critical change for the future of that community would be made possible by shifting the ferry timetable by half an hour. We should look forward to that sort of flexibility being introduced in many other parts of rural Scotland. The MD of CalMac was talking enviously about the quality of the new ships for the northern isles, which he had seen recently while they were under construction.
High air fares are a problem for rural communities and the Executive raises the issue regularly with the commercial air operators. The Executive's commitment has been to upgrade the HIAL facilities. Shortly, Lewis Macdonald will accompany the First Minister to one of the new airports that is to open in, I believe, Tavish Scott's constituency.
A case can be made for public service obligations in the provision of ferry and lifeline air links. We are committed to the public service obligation route where it is appropriate.
The minister is aware that, in the regeneration of rural communities, it is important to improve the transport infrastructure. A major challenge exists in rural Aberdeenshire, given that the area has little access to bus services and few rail links. Indeed, there is not one inch of rail track in Banff and Buchan. Will the minister explain how the statement will be of benefit to Aberdeenshire and the transport infrastructure in the north-east of Scotland?
Yes. The motorway and trunk roads programme will include the A96 at Coachford; the A96 at Newtongarry; the A90 at Hatton Bends; the A90 at Cammachmore; and the A90 from Laurencekirk to Oatyhill. As for public and integrated transport fund projects, there will be more than £3 million for a bus priority park-and-ride scheme; £766,000 for Aberdeenshire station improvements; £745,000 for the Peterhead and Mintlaw park-and-ride scheme; and £0.6 million for the Ellon park-and-ride scheme. I will not list all the rural transport projects in the area, but there will be funding for services in Portsoy, Banff, Fraserburgh, Strichen and Turriff; the central Buchan dial-a-community-bus scheme; the central Buchan circular bus service; an enhanced Peterhead bus service; enhanced bus services between Peterhead and Ellon, Fyvie and Inverurie and Methlick and Ellon; the Ellon and district transport club initiative; and so on.
I welcome the minister's statement. It is imperative that the people of Fife have an improved, good-quality rail network that will allow them to travel. As many of my constituents commute to Edinburgh and Glasgow, what improvements will the Executive make to improve their rail journeys?
Everyone involved in public transport in Scotland has been surprised by the demand for public transport services from Fife into Edinburgh as the city grows and prospers. That demand has been illustrated by the fact that, in the past two years alone, there has been a 25 per cent increase in the use of the Fife circle service. The single most important improvement to Fife rail services is the redevelopment of Waverley station, about which I have made a further statement this morning. We hope that work will start in 2004 to improve the volume of services from Fife. In addition, we are aware of the need to improve rolling stock and of the issue of platform extensions.
That concludes the minister's statement and questions on it.