Park-and-Ride Sites (South Edinburgh)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5715, in the name of Mike Pringle, on the lack of park-and-ride sites in south Edinburgh. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes key public transport improvements being delivered by SEStran including bus priority measures, a bus tracker system and cycleway improvements, but is concerned that key schemes for three park-and-ride sites in south Edinburgh at Straiton, Sherrifhall and Lothianburn have yet to open and that the lack of park-and-ride sites in the south of the city is leading to increased commuter parking in residential streets, where residents' parking is already made difficult by the extension of the controlled parking scheme.
Back in 1994, when I was elected to Lothian Regional Council, I spoke to David Begg, who was the council's transport convener—members will all remember him. He told me that, by the end of its term, the council's Labour administration would have a ring of park-and-ride sites round Edinburgh. Well, we are still waiting. We now have two hugely successful schemes in the west of the city, near Edinburgh airport, but nothing has been delivered in south Edinburgh. If park-and-ride sites exist, people use them. Those that have been built are already having to be extended because of their popularity.
We must ask why the three park-and-ride facilities that were promised for south Edinburgh have not been built. They would help not only my constituents, whose streets are full of commuters' vehicles, but the commuters who come from Midlothian and the Borders. The new royal infirmary and biomedical park at Little France have also had an impact on traffic volumes.
I raised this issue in my first members' business debate, back in October 2003, but we are still waiting for the park-and-ride facilities—almost 10 years after they were promised. That is why I felt that it was important for us to debate the issue again.
In lodging the motion, I wanted to highlight several issues that have been impacting not just on commuters coming into Edinburgh but on the residents who bear the burden of commuter traffic and parking. I also want to highlight the role that the City of Edinburgh Council has played in the matter and the need for delivery by the council now that the Executive has provided the money. I am glad that the issue can be debated and I thank everybody who signed my motion.
I congratulate the south-east Scotland transport partnership on the work that it has done over the past few years, which has resulted in a great number of success stories for transport in south-east Scotland. The research into and development of the bus tracker real-time information system, bus priority measures and cycleway construction throughout south-east Scotland have proved the organisation's commitment to a programme and assure me of its good intentions. I welcome its continued efforts as it attempts to lessen the impact of continued population and economic growth on the communities and the environment of south-east Scotland. Edinburgh and the Lothians have one of the fastest-growing populations in Scotland, and SESTRAN's planning is very good. Sadly, the implementation of park-and-ride schemes by Midlothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council—both Labour-run councils—has given me great concern.
The lack of park-and-ride facilities has been brought home to me recently by the escalating problems of commuter parking in suburban streets in south Edinburgh. That was always a problem, but the extension of the controlled parking zones in Edinburgh last September and again this month has brought the problem to a new group of people, who have filled my postbag with their complaints. While SESTRAN has been planning the construction of park-and-ride facilities at several sites in south Edinburgh, such as Sheriffhall, Lothianburn and Straiton, what has been described as bureaucratic lethargy has slowed those efforts to a near standstill. Although I accept that there have been technical difficulties at Sheriffhall, which I visited with the Minister for Transport last year, I do not understand why those difficulties were not foreseen. On that visit, I told the minister that the first south Edinburgh park-and-ride site would be opened by the council in December 2006. I can now report to him that the site will not open until October 2008. I hope that he shares my concerns over the delays, the blame for which must be placed squarely on the current administration of the City of Edinburgh Council.
The delays have affected not only commuters but the residents of the communities whose streets are being turned into car parks. I suspect that, as a result of the latest extension of the controlled parking zones, that is now the case in Mr McLetchie's constituency as well. Looking at the progress of the bus tracker real-time system and its expansion into Edinburgh, East Lothian and Midlothian—a project that has been fully developed by SESTRAN—we see that such large transport projects can be implemented efficiently and effectively.
Poor planning for park-and-ride facilities is not the only problem that has impacted on the streets of south Edinburgh. The extension of controlled parking zones throughout south Edinburgh has led to many streets becoming clogged up, with the residents suffering because of it. Although the controlled zones help some people, there are many others who suffer because of them. The controlled parking zones are a good idea, but they have been implemented in a haphazard way without proper planning. The extension of the controlled parking zones should have been complemented by other transport improvements such as park-and-ride schemes, which would have given commuters and residents ample space. However, because of the slowness in developing the planned park-and-ride projects, whole communities have been impacted on. People have no choice but to drive on and into residential streets in the southern half of Edinburgh, just outside the current controlled parking zones.
I hope that I have highlighted the desperate need for park-and-ride sites to be delivered quickly for south Edinburgh. SESTRAN has done a great deal of work in planning those schemes and the time for talking is over. I was promised the sites in 1994, by the Labour administration of Lothian Regional Council, but we are still waiting—Labour has failed to deliver. I hope that the new councils that are elected on 3 May will step up and sort the problems out.
I declare an interest as a resident of south Edinburgh who sees traffic coming into the area every day—and who faces the parking consequences of that traffic. As a resident of south Edinburgh and as a parliamentarian, I congratulate Mike Pringle on securing the debate and endorse many of the things he said.
Mike Pringle was correct to say that there are two issues, one of which is congestion. There are a limited number of routes into Edinburgh from the south. That affects not only people who reside in the city and peripheral schemes, but people in neighbouring areas, particularly Midlothian and the Borders. Until trains are an option, people will have to come in from such areas by bus—or by car, because of the lack of appropriate services, which is a more important matter. Furthermore, the roads into Edinburgh are not the widest or the most suitable for heavy traffic.
Mike Pringle was correct to say that there have been winners and losers with respect to parking. I used to live at the edge of where the parking zone ends; I now live at the edge of where it begins. I have experienced a change. Obviously, our previous debate in the Parliament had an impact on parking at the Royal hospital for sick children. The locations that people park at have moved southwards as the parking zone has been extended south from the Meadows. That is an issue not only for those who live in Newington, the Inch, Southhouse and Moredun; it is a vital issue for people who come in from Midlothian and the Borders.
We all know that more than 50 per cent of those who live in Midlothian and are in employment work in Edinburgh. Edinburgh will continue to be a magnet whatever may understandably be done to seek to retain an industrial and economic focus in Midlothian. There are jobs at the hospital, in the universities and elsewhere.
Mike Pringle was also correct about something else. Not only have the west Edinburgh park-and-ride facilities at Hermiston and the airport been successful, but the Ferrytoll experiment has been the best initiative. Sarah Boyack is not here to take credit or plaudits. I criticised her when I was the Scottish National Party's transport spokesman because I was sceptical about how successful the Ferrytoll scheme would be, but it has been remarkably successful. The site has not only filled up, but its capacity has had to be expanded. It is correct to consider park-and-ride facilities further up the M90 corridor, but such a requirement does not exist at the moment.
When I have driven past Danderhall, I have seen the semblance of a site being created at Sheriffhall. The sooner that site is on stream, the better, as it will benefit not only people who commute into Edinburgh, but people who want to use the direct route past the city and those who must go to the royal infirmary, which is the main hospital in the Lothian region.
We have to address issues relating to the royal infirmary. There have been debates about whether there will be a third tramline that will service it and about additional matters. To its credit, Lothian Buses has sought to reconfigure its routes, but there are issues in that regard. We must ensure that the hospital is serviced. I see the Minister for Transport writing hurriedly. Park-and-ride facilities create opportunities for Lothian Buses to provide modest levels of input in respect of the services that will be required to provide the necessary transport infrastructure not only for those who come into Edinburgh from the Borders and Midlothian, but for those who must go to the infirmary.
The member has gained the Parliament's considerable respect for consistently supporting the Edinburgh tramline schemes. Is he saying that he is in favour of a third tramline scheme?
I do not think that it has ever been said that I have consistently supported those schemes. Indeed, Mr Purvis's colleague usually says the opposite. Mr Purvis may have made an attempt at humour, but that attempt has fallen flat. I do not support the tramline 1 scheme or the tramline 2 scheme, and Mr Purvis knows as well as I do that what has been proposed will be well and truly sunk when we take charge on 3 May. If there is a change of administration at local authority level in Edinburgh, even the Lib Dems will seek to pull the plug on what has been proposed, because no finance is available for it. Furthermore, whatever traffic disruption and congestion we currently face in Edinburgh would be as nothing once people started to dig up the roads to provide a tramline. So, no, I do not support a third tramline.
I believe that the provision of park-and-ride sites at Straiton, Sheriffhall and so on will present an opportunity to provide the quality bus services that members of all parties agree are necessary to service not only those who come from outlying areas but those who need to travel to the Edinburgh royal infirmary.
I congratulate Mr Pringle on securing the debate and addressing a clear problem for south Edinburgh and beyond.
I thank Mike Pringle for raising this subject in Parliament and I echo many of his remarks. As he said, the issue impacts on Edinburgh Pentlands—in which I am honoured to have the Minister for Transport as a resident—as well as on Mr Pringle's adjoining constituency of Edinburgh South.
New controlled parking zones came into operation in Morningside, Merchiston and Greenhill earlier this month. The extension of the zone southwards was a direct response to the demands of local residents who found that their streets were being flooded with commuter cars. That increase in commuter traffic not only exacerbated problems of road safety in streets that were simply not used to such traffic volumes, but caused difficulties for residents looking for parking places for their own cars. So far, all is well and good. In the new controlled parking zones, parking is now a good deal easier than it was. Although no one likes to pay for parking permits—or, indeed, parking charges of any description—most residents will view the purchase of a parking permit as a necessary expenditure in return for the convenience of being able to park nearer to their home.
However, as Kenny MacAskill rightly pointed out, extending the zones inevitably has knock-on effects elsewhere. Although one group of residents is relieved that they no longer face the same pressure on parking in their streets, they have been replaced by another group of residents who live on streets immediately outwith the new zones who find that their streets are now choked with commuter parking. Is the answer to continue to expand parking zones until parking in every corner of our city is subject to controls, or can we learn lessons from human behaviour and apply them to our transport policy?
The fact of the matter is that we already have informal free park-and-ride facilities in my constituency and in Mr Pringle's constituency. Those facilities are choking up the streets of our constituents. For that situation, I do not blame the commuters, who are acting in a perfectly sensible and rational manner. There is no train service—at least, for the moment—from the Borders and Midlothian, and direct bus services are simply not an option for everyone. As Mr Pringle's motion points out, commuters from Midlothian and the Borders require proper, functioning park-and-ride facilities on the south side of our city that can replicate the success of the facilities that have already been established at Ingliston, Hermiston and Newcraighall.
From information that was provided to me by SESTRAN today, I understand that a facility for 318 cars is to open in Sheriffhall in July, and that an extension for a further 500 cars is planned to become operational in October 2008. Likewise, a new 600-space facility in Straiton is planned to be operational in November 2008. A further facility at Lothianburn is due to come on stream at much the same time at the back end of next year. Assuming that planning permission for all three developments is granted, I am certain that those facilities will be welcomed by my constituents and by Mr Pringle's constituents, as they will relieve pressure on parking in residential areas.
I do not know whether the member discovered this when he contacted SESTRAN, but does he accept that planning on the third site has not even started?
Yes. I thank Mr Pringle for providing that information for the debate, but SESTRAN maintains that the third site is expected to be available in October 2008. Let us hope that the facility comes on stream at that time.
We are regularly told that we live in an age of joined-up government, that we need an integrated transport policy and that we need partnership working among local authorities and other public bodies. Without in any way denigrating the efforts that SESTRAN has made, I wonder why the extension of parking zones cannot be more directly linked to the establishment of park-and-ride facilities. Why will there be a gap between March 2007 and November 2008 before all the facilities are fully in place?
I note from information kindly provided by SESTRAN for the debate that more than £9 million is to be invested in the new park-and-ride facilities. That figure rings a bell. It is, in fact, the total amount wasted by the City of Edinburgh Council on its abortive congestion charging scheme. Those of us who opposed that scheme and campaigned for a no vote in the referendum not only pointed out the shocking waste of spending public money on a proposal that was never going to win public support, but said that the same money would be better spent on—guess what? Yes, on building new park-and-ride facilities around the perimeter of the city.
In short, while the City of Edinburgh Council was wasting millions of pounds trying to increase the tax burden on motorists in Edinburgh, the Lothians, the Borders and Fife, we on this side of the chamber were suggesting that the same millions should be spent on tackling congestion in a constructive manner. I cannot help but think that the park-and-ride facilities that we need on the south side of our city would have been in place long before now if the council had not pursued the folly of congestion charging. I can assure members that that is a Labour error that a Conservative council will most certainly not repeat.
I join others in thanking Mike Pringle for bringing this important and timely debate to the Parliament.
Mike Pringle was right to lay out in his speech the fact that it has been a very long time since we were first promised the park-and-ride schemes in question, yet they still have not been delivered.
I welcome Kenny MacAskill's conversion to recognising the benefits of the Ferrytoll park and ride and its tremendous success, despite the fact that he argued against it. I also welcome David McLetchie's words in support of park and rides.
The area of north Edinburgh in which I live has also experienced a boundary effect caused by the introduction of controlled parking zones. As David McLetchie said, residential streets across Edinburgh are functioning as park-and-ride or park-and-walk schemes at present, often to the detriment of local residents, who are left with nowhere to park.
The issue that must be tackled is not just the park part of park-and-ride schemes, but the ride part and where and how people will ride once they have parked their cars at Lothianburn, Sheriffhall and Straiton. Sadly, that is where the consensus breaks down.
I have supported successive transport ministers' efforts to create a proper tram scheme for Edinburgh. It is great that it looks as though we will get tram schemes 1 and 2. There has been no private bill for tram scheme 3, and the funding for it is not yet available. It would link with the Sheriffhall park and ride, thus enabling commuters who come in from the Borders or Midlothian by car to use a speedy, world-class transport system to get into the centre of town.
Given that it is a positive move that we have funding for the Borders railway up the A7 corridor, does Mr Ballard agree that it would be better for the City of Edinburgh Council to work with Midlothian Council to develop a third scheme, which would mean the A701 corridor, rather than the A7, serving Penicuik?
There is a need for a heavy rail link to Penicuik and I believe that that would be much more successful than the proposal for the A701 upgrade. However, I do not see why we have to limit ourselves. If we are trying to tackle the massive problem of a medieval, Victorian and Georgian city centre not being able to accommodate traffic, why can we not consider getting fast transit from Sheriffhall via the tram and have a heavy rail system to Penicuik and the Borders rail link?
We need tramline 3 to be part of a tram network that can link up with a reopened south suburban line at Cameron Toll—I see Mike Pringle clapping. That is another project that has been discussed for many years. The estimated cost is £30 million tops, but it could be as low as £20 million because the line and many of the stations are still there. If we want a real park-and-ride scheme, we should be able to get on the tram at Sheriffhall, go to Cameron Toll, and be able to take the south suburban line as far as Waverley and Haymarket, or just to Morningside and Gorgie. That would be a real park-and-ride scheme. The fact that local businesses have said that they will come up with up to half of the funding for the south suburban line shows how much demand there is for the scheme.
Does the member accept that we have a rail park and ride to some extent at Newcraighall? One of the great problems is that people have turned up only to find that the train service has been cancelled. Rather than concentrate on promises of great things in years to come, should we deliver for people who are travelling in from Haddington or wherever, so that the train is there, so that they get a seat and so that it is affordable? Should we not at some stage concentrate on delivering current services, besides pledging that there will be tramline 3, a subway in the east end of Glasgow or whatever? Is that not the real priority for hard-pressed travellers and commuters?
I agree that trains being cancelled at Newcraighall does not advertise the virtues of public transport, but we have a real problem in the south of Edinburgh that will not be solved merely by dealing with the Newcraighall problem. We need park and ride schemes for the south of Edinburgh. We need a world-class public transport system that is better than the buses, has more capacity than the buses and is faster than the buses. That will come with a tram and the reopening of the south suburban line.
Controlled parking zones are part of the approach. They must be properly integrated with the public transport options to allow the park-and-ride schemes to relieve the pressure effectively. As Mike Pringle said, the council has not done a very good job of consulting communities and having discussions with them to ensure that we have park and ride schemes in place before we put the CPZs in.
It is unfortunate that we are having to discuss the issue again. It is unfortunate that we are still talking about park and ride schemes that do not exist, about a south suburban line that has not reopened and about a tram scheme that has yet to get a private bill. We cannot rest on our laurels and wait for one part of the jigsaw; we need the whole system in order to offer an alternative to commuters.
I am delighted to take part in the debate on Mike Pringle's motion. In October 2003, he secured time to debate transport in the south of Edinburgh. In that debate, he stressed the importance for his constituents of strategic co-ordination of transport. I spoke in that debate about my constituents in the Borders and in Midlothian, who commute to or visit Edinburgh frequently. They require improved services, as do Mike Pringle's constituents.
David McLetchie highlighted the money that was wasted a few years ago by the City of Edinburgh Council on an aborted scheme. He said that part of the money was wasted on consulting people in the Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh, but the council did not consult my constituents. We have fought and striven hard to ensure that my constituents in the Borders and in Penicuik and Midlothian have a voice so that if transport schemes are proposed, the city council co-ordinates fully with the other local authorities in the area.
Mike Pringle's comments highlighted areas in which that has not been successful with the Labour-controlled councils in Edinburgh and in Midlothian, and he highlighted two projects that have direct impacts on my constituents: Straiton and Sheriffhall. The schemes, which are good schemes, have been badly delayed, which of course has an impact on the wider transport considerations of my constituents.
In the 2003 debate on the matter, I said:
"In my view, the best way of easing the burden on the roads from Peeblesshire, through Penicuik, to the bypass and beyond or to a park-and-ride facility at Straiton is rail infrastructure serving the town of Penicuik."—[Official Report, 1 October 2003; c 2263.]
I hold to that view and have been consistent in holding it.
I therefore want to touch on the development of rail services not only for the Borders but for west Midlothian. I also want to quote from the outline business case for the Borders railway, which was put together in 2002, because I think that it is relevant in this debate about park and ride. It states:
"Whilst the Scottish Borders does not experience serious traffic congestion, the area does have an image of isolation. It is this perception that the Waverley Line project aims to address".
It continues:
"Park and Ride and integrated bus links will deliver similar reductions in journey time for other parts of the Scottish Borders and Midlothian. The project also seems to provide a safe sustainable mode of public transport which will attract drivers from their cars and create the conditions that allow business to thrive."
The rail projects were designed to work hand in hand with park and ride services and co-ordinated bus services so that they would be part of what Mr McLetchie hopes for—a fully co-ordinated and strategic approach to transport.
The bus route development grant that the Executive has given to services in the Borders has ensured that there are now half-hourly services on the X95 route, up the A7; that is making a considerable difference to my constituents. There have also been improvements to rail, including the hugely influential decision of Nicol Stephen, when he was the Minister for Transport, to fund the Borders railway.
After my intervention, Mr MacAskill was keen to record the SNP's lack of consistency with regard to the tramline schemes. I respect his sincerity in wanting to have that on the record. It is clear that he would oppose any further scheme, which is disappointing if we are considering future development. As I said a moment ago, I would prefer a scheme to serve the A701 corridor to Penicuik. I remind Mr MacAskill of the comments that he made in the 2003 debate, when he was the SNP's transport spokesman. When I asked him about the SNP's lack of support for the Borders railway in its manifesto for the 2003 election, he said:
"whether it is our number 1 priority is debatable".
He also said that
"we have never got into the argument about one improvement against another."—[Official Report, 1 October 2003; c 2255.]
That approach has been changed quite radically by his successor, especially in the context of the debates about trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link.
In supporting park and ride schemes in this debate, I have been consistent in supporting further rail services for Penicuik and the A701, and will continue to support bus services that will be linked to those. I am afraid that the unacceptable delays to the park and ride services in south Edinburgh are damaging the co-ordination of strategic transport schemes. We cannot allow Liberal Democrat progress in providing funding for the Borders railway, new bus services and other road schemes that connect with south Edinburgh, such as the Dalkeith bypass, to be put at risk by the Labour-controlled local authorities in Edinburgh and Midlothian.
As is traditional on these occasions I, too, congratulate Mike Pringle on securing the debate. His motion raises important issues that many of my constituents—not just residents of south Edinburgh, but commuters into the city from further afield—have raised with me. The issue is not just park and ride, but traffic congestion and the need for better public transport.
In the light of Mike Pringle's criticism in his introductory remarks of Labour's record in the City of Edinburgh Council, it is a shame that no Labour members are here to defend that record and to participate in the debate. Kenny MacAskill declared an interest by saying that he lives in south Edinburgh. I will make a revelation—or confession—by saying that I, too, live in south Edinburgh, in the Inch. I see daily the nature of the problem that Mike Pringle has highlighted in relation to the new Edinburgh royal infirmary. Staff at the infirmary, where there are car parking charges of £10 a day—we have discussed that issue many times—understandably seek to avoid those exorbitant charges by parking in side streets throughout the Inch and Moredun, from where they can make the short walk to the infirmary. I suppose that we should welcome their enforced fitness regime—at least they are walking a greater distance from their cars to work.
The free and efficient park-and-ride facilities at Sheriffhall, Straiton and Lothianburn that are the urgent, obvious solution that would end the misery of that logjam and its impact on local residents have been a long time coming. I read SESTRAN's briefing this afternoon and note that the three park-and-ride schemes are now due to open late next year. I also note that its forecast for traffic and population growth indicates that we may need even more such facilities throughout the area.
I was struck by one small detail in SESTRAN's briefing—the hovercraft service that it plans from Kirkcaldy to Portobello. I know that no one could imagine that that is part of south Edinburgh, but in the current climate I wonder whether there is any truth in the rumour that John Collins is to operate it, because many people down in Portobello think that he already walks on water, after the result at the weekend.
If ever there were an experience that makes the case for park and ride and public transport, surely it is travelling on the Edinburgh city bypass in the rush hour. I know that Sunday evening is not the rush hour, but last Sunday I had an experience that is typical of many. I was held up because of an accident at the Lothianburn exit and took more than hour to travel just a mile. Sheriffhall, where we are talking about siting the park and ride, is a bottleneck day and night. It is a bottleneck every hour of the week. I do not know whether it is a bad design, but no matter what direction people approach from—south from Dalkeith, north from Danderhall, east from Musselburgh or west along the bypass—it is murder polis. The experience of rush hour on the bypass cannot be considered one of the joys of living in the capital of Scotland. It offers no quality of life at all.
The debate inevitably comes back to arguments that we have rehearsed about congestion charges and the need to reduce traffic volumes. Other members have expressed their views on the referendum on congestion charges. I think that the citizens of the city were right to reject the council's scheme. The scheme was premature and—if I may use a colloquialism—arse about elbow. It was back to front, with charges made first and improvements perhaps coming later. That is why it failed.
Will the member take an intervention?
In a second.
The scheme failed, but we still have to address the problem, which is worsening. We cannot expect the problem to go away just because of a referendum result.
I think that that was Mark Ballard's cue.
Does Colin Fox acknowledge that congestion charges would have brought in funding for public transport projects such as tramline 3? If the Scottish Executive was not going to fund tramline 3, where else was the money going to come from?
I was just coming to that point. I am not against congestion charges in principle. I lived in London for 10 years—the scheme there is fair. People in London had the alternative of using existing services—the tube, the train or the bus. If we offer people a better alternative, they will use it. However, the SESTRAN improvements, good as they are, point to the fact that we do not have a better alternative in the city at the moment. That will have to be worked towards.
We need an extensive, efficient, reliable and integrated public transport system. As members know, the Scottish Socialist Party introduced a bill on free public transport to counter the impacts of congestion, pollution and global warming. My colleague Rosie Kane has been invited to visit the Belgian city of Hasselt next week to see for herself its free public transport initiative, which was introduced in 2003. The initiative has led to an 890 per cent increase in passenger numbers and a comparative fall in car usage.
The Hasselt initiative is now being investigated by cities as far apart as Copenhagen and Melbourne; it is worthy of being copied elsewhere. There can be real improvements in people's quality of life when they enjoy the benefits of leaving the car at their front door and riding to and from their work on public transport.
I welcome this evening's debate and thank Mike Pringle for raising the name of David Begg. David Begg taught me economics some years ago—and I will not take any intervention from Mr McLetchie on that. David Begg was always entertaining as a lecturer and I still find his contributions on transport informative. I do not always agree with him, but he certainly always has a view.
I appreciated Kenny MacAskill's return to transport issues. I was thinking, Mr Tosh, that you, I, Mr MacAskill and Sarah Boyack used to discuss transport issues right back at the start of the merry debate. I suspect that the Scottish National Party regrets the day that Kenny MacAskill gave up that portfolio. I do not necessarily agree with him, but he certainly speaks more coherent sense than his successor with the transport portfolio.
I say in passing that Mr MacAskill has a problem to do with new buses. He might not have heard the SNP's transport spokesman explain during last week's debate on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill that the SNP would cancel EARL, trams and lots of other things, all to pay for buses in Edinburgh. The SNP would also use that money to pay for the replacement of the Forth crossing and the upgrading of the A9, the A82, the A96 and any other road around Scotland that it could think of. When Mr MacAskill was the SNP's transport spokesman, the party at least had a policy. Its policy is now whatever Mr Ewing thinks of on the day that he is standing up in Parliament.
I appreciate Mr MacAskill's point about problems with a particular rail service into Edinburgh and I will read what he said in the Official Report. If there are significant delays and disruptions and people are not getting seats on that service, I will look into the matter. However, although I do not discount the problems that might need to be addressed, I remind the member that rail passenger numbers have grown by 28 per cent in the past two years and that we are moving forward strongly, by investing in delivery and ensuring that people benefit from alternative transport options.
I take Colin Fox's point about the need for choice, so that people can leave their cars at home. In fairness, I suspect that members of all parties will agree on that point, even in the run-up to an exciting election. There should be investment in transport infrastructure, whether it is in bus priority measures, the Borders railway, which Jeremy Purvis mentioned, or park-and-ride facilities such as those that Mr MacAskill and Mike Pringle mentioned. Such investment aims to enable people in urban areas—where most people in Scotland live—to leave their cars at a particular point and use public transport. We seek to progress such an approach through our national transport strategy.
In that context, we expect regional transport partnerships to put sustainable development principles at the core of their strategies, which are being concluded and will be put to us in the coming weeks. Economic growth must remain our overarching objective, but it is right that environmental considerations should be at the heart of transport strategy. We might disagree about the pace and importance of the approach to environmental criteria, but I assure our friends the Greens that environmental considerations are very much at the core of the approach and will continue to be so. The regional transport strategies will rightly be assessed on environmental and other criteria.
Substantial transport investment, led by the Scottish Executive or by local and regional organisations, is being pursued in the SESTRAN area. Waverley station is being upgraded to help service the growth of employment in central Edinburgh. The Borders railway will also support employment in central Edinburgh and help to address the development needs of the Borders. The Edinburgh airport rail link will provide connections not just between Edinburgh and the airport, but to the whole of Scotland. The project is intensely important and ambitious for the country and I am pleased that most members support it. Trams will usher in a new era for local public transport in Edinburgh.
How does the minister react to the proposal from E-Rail Ltd for local businesses to help fund the reopening of the south suburban railway in Edinburgh? Does he acknowledge the benefits to commuters of reopening the line, to provide the ride part of a park-and-ride facility?
I am interested in and will closely consider any proposal from the private sector to assist us with heavy rail, light rail or transport investment in general. I have no ideological objection to considering such proposals.
Dublin's light rail tram system, Luas, is washing its face operationally on the basis of developer contributions, which are being used to extend the line and make the system an even greater success for the city. The approach is working: people are using Luas and businesses are investing in it because of its success. I hope that friends and colleagues in the Scottish National Party will, quietly and with no publicity, hop on a plane—that will not please Mr Ballard—or a ferry to Dublin to have a wee look at what is happening, because Luas is doing great things for Dublin. I hope that trams can do the same for Edinburgh.
The SESTRAN area is diverse and covers not just the city, about which members have spoken passionately, but rural areas in the Borders, and its transport and associated challenges are equally diverse. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work, so the regional transport strategy that is devised must address the area's many competing and different requirements.
A principal aim of the regional transport strategy is to promote a programme of transport policies and investment to accommodate the growth of and the investment that is being made in Scotland's capital. We will work with SESTRAN to deadlines that I accept are tough, and I look forward to receiving its approach to transport in that respect.
The three park-and-ride sites that are mentioned in Mike Pringle's motion are being taken forward under the powers of the City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council. I understand that the site by Sheriffhall has, as Mike Pringle pointed out, been under construction since last July; the site by Straiton is at tender stage; and the site at Lothianburn is still at the outline design stage. It is important that the Sheriffhall and Straiton sites are open later this year, and I readily appreciate the concerns expressed not only by Mike Pringle and his constituents but by David McLetchie about the current problems of commuter parking. However, the projects will be taken forward as part of a balanced integrated strategy that puts the environment at its centre. They are important not only to Edinburgh, but in how we develop national policy and find the right solutions for different parts of the country.
Meeting closed at 17:46.