Glasgow Crossrail
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4688, in the name of Bill Butler, on the Glasgow crossrail scheme. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the progress that has been made to modernise Scotland's rail infrastructure, the most recent example of which was the agreement to the general principles of the Bill to establish the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) on 21 June 2006; notes the points contained in the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee's preliminary stage report which highlight the national and local economic and transport benefits of the proposed Glasgow Crossrail scheme if introduced in conjunction with the GARL project; recognises the added value which the proposed crossrail scheme would bring not only to Glasgow but to Scotland's rail transport infrastructure; acknowledges that the establishment of the scheme would bridge the missing link in Scotland's rail network; realises that the scheme would further strengthen Glasgow's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games, and believes that the compelling economic and transport case for Glasgow Crossrail is such that the Scottish Executive should commit to the implementation of the project.
As a Glasgow constituency member and convener of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail, I am delighted to have secured this debate on a proposal that, if implemented, would bring significant benefits to the lives of my constituents in Glasgow Anniesland and rail users throughout Glasgow and the west of Scotland, as well as to Scotland's national rail infrastructure.
I am sure that the Minister for Transport is in full agreement with what his wise predecessor said when he announced an award of £500,000 from the Executive to conduct the feasibility study into the Glasgow crossrail project. He said:
"The scheme could bring very significant benefits not only to Glasgow but also to the whole of Scotland.
This scheme has the potential to deliver major improvements to the Scottish rail network, allowing the north and east of Scotland to connect with Glasgow and the South West."
Those were the wise words of Nicol Stephen on 25 November 2003. I am sure that in his summing up the minister will agree that that was a sound analysis.
I acknowledge the efforts of Councillor Alistair Watson and everyone at Strathclyde partnership for transport in their work to promote the crossrail project, complete the feasibility study and prepare a detailed and sound economic and technical case for the project's implementation. I also place on the record my thanks to colleagues in the cross-party group and to members who supported the motion.
The commitment to support a number of feasibility studies for rail improvement schemes such as Glasgow crossrail was contained in the 2003 partnership agreement. I welcome the fulfilment of that commitment. The purpose of this debate is to stress the extensive and substantial benefits that crossrail would bring and to urge the Executive to take the next step and give its whole-hearted commitment to the Glasgow crossrail project's implementation. I hope that the minister will give members comfort on that point.
I am sure members remember that a clear, consistent and enthusiastic endorsement of crossrail is a feature of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee's report on the preliminary stage of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill. The report explicitly emphasises the importance of progressing crossrail in conjunction with GARL. During the parliamentary debate on GARL on 21 June, members—and not just those who represent the people of Glasgow—echoed their support for crossrail.
In its preliminary stage report, the GARL committee expressed concern about low projected patronage figures for the airport rail link. It is perfectly clear that the establishment of the Glasgow crossrail scheme would enable passengers from throughout Scotland to enjoy a direct connection to Glasgow airport without having to change at Glasgow Central station or travel from Glasgow Queen Street station to Glasgow Central station if they were coming from the north or east of the country. The crossrail scheme has a significant role to play in increasing the number of passengers who would use the Glasgow airport rail link.
The so-called missing link between Glasgow Central and Queen Street stations is more than just an inconvenient 15-minute walk for passengers. It is a decisive split in Scotland's rail network—an avoidable gap in our passenger rail services. The Glasgow crossrail scheme is of strategic importance to our rail network. It would allow direct journeys from the north to the south and from the east to the west of the country. The cost of linking Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street stations would be insignificant compared to the positive effects of a scheme that offers such widespread and fundamental benefits to the rail network.
Value for money is one of the most compelling arguments in crossrail's favour. Crossrail would not involve the construction of miles and miles of new track and infrastructure. The construction work needed would, in many areas, involve improvements to, and the renewal of, existing rail lines and infrastructure. We would see the construction of new stations at Glasgow Cross and the Gorbals; the laying of new track at High Street; the reinstatement of the Strathbungo link; and the building of new sidings at Kelvinhaugh. Further renewal and upgrading of the city union line from West Street to High Street junction, and between Muirhouse and Langside junctions, would also be required. The fact that crossrail makes the most of existing rail infrastructure, much of which is currently underused or not used at all, is another factor in its favour. It would mean minimal impact on the operational rail network while the necessary construction work was undertaken.
The crossrail scheme proposed by SPT is practicable and attainable. Previous suggestions to improve cross-Glasgow travel, such as a cross-city tunnel link, would be hugely expensive and impracticable. The proposed crossrail scheme offers significant benefits at a fraction of the cost of such a utopian project. The investment required to make crossrail a reality is projected by SPT to be between £115 million and £187 million. It would open up the possibility of a wide range of new rail connections across Scotland, integrating the rail network and speeding up journey times, with the result that we would be able to persuade more people to leave their cars at home and take the train as a more attractive transport option. I contend that the key environmental benefit of crossrail will be its impact in introducing sustainable and credible alternatives to car journeys throughout the west of Scotland. That is a very desirable objective.
The project would significantly improve the Glasgow conurbation's rail links. It would support economic regeneration in some of Glasgow's poorest and most disadvantaged areas. It would, without doubt, improve transport access into Glasgow city centre, lead to the creation of modern new stations in the city and connect with the subway at West Street. If given the go-ahead soon, crossrail would further strengthen Glasgow's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games—a bid that has received strong backing from the Scottish Executive, and quite right too. Crossrail would provide a modernised, fast and reliable rail network, which would be hugely advantageous to the bid and to the many thousands of potential visitors to Glasgow if the bid is successful.
There is strong cross-party support for Glasgow crossrail and widespread recognition that the scheme is one of the most important strategic rail infrastructure projects in Scotland—a scheme of national importance. It would not be an overstatement to say that it could revolutionise Scotland's rail network. It is for all those compelling reasons—economic, environmental and transport—that I urge the Scottish Executive to cast off its inhibitions and give a commitment to undertake the construction of Glasgow crossrail.
I thank Bill Butler for securing the debate—a debate that has been raging for about 30 years. One of the first debates in the Parliament was on the subject of crossrail. There has been a feasibility study, for which I did some research. Nothing has changed. We desperately need crossrail. We have been dragging our heels over it for 30 years. I thank Alistair Watson, SPT and all the other so-called amateurs who provided us with information on crossrail. Crossrail is desperately needed, not just by Glasgow but, as Bill Butler said so eloquently, by the whole conurbation. Crossrail has been years in the waiting and everyone knows the facts.
In 2002, an excellent demand study was completed. It said that we should go ahead and have crossrail. Then a central Scotland transport corridor study was done in 2003 and a technical feasibility study in 2005. In fact, crossrail has been studied so much that it is a wonder that it has not been studied completely out of the Parliament. However, Bill Butler and others in the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail have been pushing hard to ensure that the Executive realises that the project must be completed.
The technical feasibility study must be adhered to. The crossrail project has the potential to accommodate services that could radiate not only throughout Glasgow and its conurbation but throughout Scotland. We must remember that not only Glasgow, but the whole of Scotland, would benefit from crossrail.
The technical feasibility study, which I think is an Executive paper, says that crossrail can be delivered by 2011-12. If we are talking about the Commonwealth games coming to Glasgow in 2014, we must get crossrail on the drawing board as quickly as possible. In fact, we should really have it on the drawing board now to ensure that it is ready for the 2014 Commonwealth games.
I mentioned that the crossrail project has been a long time in coming, even to reach the Parliament and go through various committees, but I must also mention that it fulfils all the criteria to help the city to expand and reach its full social and economic potential. Crossrail would connect the rail network and subway north and south of the Clyde. The low-level station at Queen Street would also become more useful with crossrail, which would also provide increased integration with the subway system at the West Street station.
The crossrail system would support social inclusion projects, because areas such as the Gorbals and Oatlands would benefit from being able to link into it. That must be good for the economy of Glasgow and the conurbation, but one of the most telling aspects of the scheme is that some of the areas that the system would connect have low car use. If the crossrail connection existed, the people there would be able to access the city centre and other areas. That would mean that they would not be so socially excluded and we would not need to use cars as much.
In March, I wrote to Malcolm Reed, who was the director general of SPT and is now the chief executive of Transport Scotland, and pled with him to ensure that the crossrail scheme was included in the strategic planning review. I finished my letter by saying that
"it would be organisational neglect"
if the crossrail was not put on the cards as quickly as possible. I repeat that to him and the minister. If we do not go ahead with crossrail, not only Glasgow but other places will suffer. I beg the minister to consider it and give us a definite date when the project will be completed.
I will not say that I would not have started from here, but I would certainly have started sooner. Somewhere in my archives, I have a document from 1973, when the then Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Executive examined the crossrail proposal in a wider study called the Clyde rail study. To be fair to Strathclyde Regional Council, which became the passenger transport authority in the west of Scotland soon afterwards, many great strategic rail projects were delivered.
When I became Strathclyde Regional Council's convener of roads and transport in 1994, crossrail was my rail priority, but the railways were in the middle of privatisation and the regional council was abolished within two years. Labour may have won the general election in 1997, but Gordon Brown—perhaps members remember him—froze the financial commitments at the previous Government's level for the initial two years of the Labour Government. That took us to 1999; along came devolution, and some people wanted to consider everything afresh.
For various reasons, there was a loss of momentum. However, as an aside, I will mention that I enjoyed a successful negotiation back in the 1990s with Councillor Pat Lally—perhaps members remember him—who agreed to sell SPT the Mercat building for the sum of £1 for the purposes of the proposed Glasgow Cross railway station.
More recently, I have said in previous railways and aviation debates that it was unfortunate that SPT was pressured to submit the Glasgow Airport Link Rail Bill separately from one on Glasgow crossrail. It was inevitable that the Glasgow Airport Link Rail Bill Committee would try to re-establish that link. It is one thing to have a shuttle train service from Glasgow Central to Glasgow airport. That will certainly help. However, it would be a much more significant step to open up that link to Glasgow airport with crossrail in place, which could bring in train services from anywhere in the country.
We have had enough of studies, as has been said. I am not a big fan of studies and certainly not of having too many of them. They can be a symptom of paralysis by analysis—when people are not quite sure what to do about something, they tend to want to study it a bit further. As a bit of a transport anorak, I have looked at the history of big transport projects in this country and it seems to me that the big decisions have always been taken at opportune moments by politicians. Officials can take things so far and they can present options and carry out studies, but it is more a question of political commitment and will. To be fair, that has begun to make its presence felt in the Parliament in recent months with regard to other projects.
We must make up for the missed opportunity of the past couple of years of devolution with regard to crossrail and build up a head of steam. I am heartened by the strength and breadth of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail. In these exciting times for railways, and potentially crossrail, I would like to hear a commitment in the debate from politicians of all parties that, at the very least, they will try to ensure that a commitment to crossrail is included in their manifestos for next May's election. If we can build that sort of consensus and support behind the project—which is justifiable in its own right anyway—we will be doing the right thing for the Scottish people.
First, I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate and thank him for circulating the appropriate correspondence, which has been very helpful.
Those of us who represent Glasgow would claim that it is a successful city. However, it could be a much more successful city in so many ways. One of the inhibiting features about Glasgow's development has undoubtedly been the dislocation between the rail services provided in the north and the south of the city. There is also a north-south divide among bus services. In many parts of the city, going from east to west is fine, whereas going from north to south can be problematic. The argument for the crossrail link is compelling, as it would improve those communications.
I spent the weekend in Vienna and elsewhere in Austria. I was astonished at the integrated transport system in that city. The streetcar services have a close relationship to the railway stations and the bus services. Anyone crossing Vienna will have very little walking to do. That might be a pity, because it is an attractive and beautiful city, but it does much to promote business and support the economic approach that the Austrians have adopted and it helps to make the city easy to live in.
The crossrail link would tie in the north and south sides of the city. As Bill Butler has said, it would reduce the inhibiting factor against people coming from east and central Scotland to use Glasgow airport. Fifteen minutes is a fairly lengthy walk, as Bill Butler suggests, and it is a very lengthy walk for people trying to get from Queen Street to Central station to catch the airport train if they are carrying a lot of luggage and have two young children in hand. Crossrail would ease that problem significantly. It would make Glasgow airport much more attractive and it would help to supply many other important services to the city using additional stations.
As one who spent many a long and weary hour toiling over the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill, I suggest to the Minister for Transport—without wishing to deepen any Glasgow-Edinburgh divide—that Glasgow should be getting some more transport assistance. The amount of money that we are discussing, £187 million at present prices, is not significant compared with the amounts that have been committed to the Edinburgh tramlines and the proposed railway connection to Edinburgh airport. Perhaps Glasgow is not being terribly greedy in asking for a little bit of assistance here.
My colleague John Scott, who apologises for not being able to be here, given that he takes a keen interest in crossrail, acknowledges that its benefits will extend beyond the city to places such as Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, increasing economic opportunities.
Glasgow crossrail is an essential project, which, as Bill Butler said, will significantly increase Glasgow's attractiveness to those who will decide where the Commonwealth games will be held. That in itself would be a tremendous economic fillip to the city. I urge the minister and the Executive to look closely at what is proposed.
I congratulate Bill Butler on his motion. As I was listening to Bill Aitken describing his weekend, it struck me that, as he was walking around Austria thinking about the connectivity of the west of Scotland, I was that mum pushing her two small children along the boardwalk in front of Braehead thinking about the connectivity of the west of Scotland.
Glasgow crossrail is not just for Glasgow but is of regional benefit to the whole of Renfrewshire, the Ayrshire corridor and down to the south of Scotland. It also has significant regeneration benefits to the whole area around the boardwalk that I was walking along on Saturday and the whole Clyde gateway stretching from the west of the city centre to the Erskine bridge and beyond.
The significant thing about crossrail for us as a national Parliament is that it also has strategic benefits. In the past year, our enterprise agencies have stressed the role of city regions in driving growth and the importance of creating a single labour market, which can be made possible by quality transport links. I am struck by the fact that Glasgow crossrail is the single Scottish scheme that best realises the benefits of our existing rail network. That alone should put it at the top of the national priority list. As we look ahead and reflect on the relatively minor costs that are associated with this relatively minor infrastructure improvement, we have to think about the wider economic benefits that it would bring.
Sustainability has moved up the agenda of all politicians—here, as elsewhere—in the few years since we agreed the M74 northern extension. That is a piece of road infrastructure linking Glasgow to the wider metropolitan area to the west and south. In an age where we are all, rightly, more aware of the significance of sustainability, we need to match that vital road improvement with rail improvements that give people public transport choices and more sustainable alternatives.
I will dwell for a moment on the experience of the M74 northern extension. Last week I had cause, for a different reason, to talk to the district valuer, who told me about the length of time that is involved, even once projects have been given the go-ahead, in the compulsory purchase process and in starting and completing the works. Given the length of time that is associated with the completion of infrastructure works, the Scottish Executive, by pledging its support for crossrail today or in the months to come, is not committing to make the project happen now, but to let us move to the next stage.
As the minister reflects on the debate, I encourage him to consider for a moment the counterfactual of not going ahead today. Given what we know about the regional economic and regeneration benefits, we do not want to look back in future on the minister, Executive or Parliament producing just another of a range of studies dating back 30 years.
We have moved on the road improvements in the west of Scotland. It is time to move on the rail improvements in the west of Scotland.
I add my congratulations to Bill Butler on securing the debate and on his work in bringing together the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail.
I was looking forward to the debate, as I thought that it would be another opportunity to talk about a scheme for which I have great enthusiasm and to push the Minister for Transport to go that little bit further. I am sure that the minister was looking forward to it as well—I think that secretly he enjoys hearing the Green party criticise his transport policy. However, when I opened the "National Planning Framework for Scotland: Monitoring Report 06" last week, my heart sank and I realised that yet again I would have to speak about the lack of support shown for crossrail.
The report's purpose is to inform the review and revision process for the next national planning framework. There are eight paragraphs about internal connectivity, but once again it is a document without a single word about the Glasgow crossrail scheme. It talks about more speculative projects further in the future—such as the high-speed rail link to the south, which we would all like but which is not happening yet—but it does not say anything about crossrail, for which there is already clear case and detailed proposals that can be examined. As Wendy Alexander said, it is a strategically significant rail project—perhaps the most strategically significant in Scotland—but there is not a word about it in that document.
That reflects the different priorities that have been attached to crossrail and projects such as the M74 extension. I think that Wendy Alexander implicitly acknowledged that the M74 extension is environmentally damaging, as the local public inquiry explicitly reported. I would prefer that we did not simply match an environmentally damaging project with a more environmentally benign project, such as improvements to our rail infrastructure; I would prefer that we did the latter instead of the former. However, there is different political weight and momentum behind such projects. Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers have consistently given their backing to one, but are not yet able to do the same for the other. I hope that we will hear a little more from the minister today.
As I argued in the recent debate on the Glasgow airport rail link, we need to consider our priorities. What are our objectives in spending large amounts of money on transport infrastructure? In the world as we find it, our top priority can only be tackling climate change and ensuring that in future generations there is a civilisation that can enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure and services that we put in place. Next we have to look at the local environment—pollution, congestion and the risk of road traffic accidents that comes from the additional congestion that people in Glasgow suffer. Then we consider economic development, and finally we look at how we project ourselves, whether that is in relation to Commonwealth games bids or tourism, for example. That should be the order of priorities, and it is clear that, if it was, the crossrail scheme would get a tick in the box long before the minister came to think about the M74.
I hope that the monitoring report is the last shiny document that I read without an endorsement of crossrail.
I want to provide some non-Glasgow support for crossrail.
Our Victorian ancestors had enormous energy and created most of the railway engines and great railway lines. Unfortunately, because of the competitive nature of the system, the railway lines did not meet together properly in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. The situation in Edinburgh has been reasonably sorted out through the closure of one station, although the other one is grossly overcongested—that is another problem for the minister to deal with. In Glasgow, we still have to deal with the fact that we have a network that does not net.
Crossrail is a vital part of the Scottish railway network. In recent weeks, we have discussed railway systems for Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport, both of which would benefit enormously from crossrail, as has been said. With crossrail in Glasgow, the rather ambitious system of interconnections for Edinburgh airport would connect all parts of Scotland. People could catch one train from the north-east to the south-west, from the west to the east and so on. Crossrail would hugely increase the value of the two airports and interconnectivity with them.
The people whom I seek to represent in Central Scotland would benefit greatly from crossrail. People from Falkirk could connect with trains to Ayrshire and so on that emanated from Glasgow Central station. People from all over Lanarkshire could travel easily in one go to the Highlands, Ayrshire, Fife or wherever they wanted to go. Crossrail is an essential part of the network. Rather like Patrick Harvie, I honestly do not see why it is not higher up the priority list of things that we should do.
I will give another reason why I strongly support crossrail. It would be unfair to say that it is a cheap and cheerful solution, but it is a sensible and practical solution that is not overelaborate. It would not involve building the world's longest tunnel under Glasgow at huge expense and it would solve the problems adequately with the minimum expense. It would also provide a good basis for Glasgow to apply for and host satisfactorily the Commonwealth games.
From all sorts of points of view, crossrail is a good thing. I hope that the Executive will put more enthusiasm into its support and provide more practical support than it has managed hitherto.
Like other members, I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate. Everyone acknowledges that he has been a champion of crossrail, which is an important project that will affect the future of not only Glasgow but north and east Scotland, as many members have said.
Charlie Gordon referred to 1973, which I was thinking about. I remember Christmas 1973, when I became the proud owner of a train set. I am sure that we all recall from our youth that in any train set parts were missing and some parts had to be purchased later. I draw an analogy between that and the crossrail project. As was amplified in the recent debate on the Glasgow airport rail link, the rail link will be effective only if the missing link—the crossrail project—is supplied.
We have made the case for crossrail based on the economic benefits for Glasgow. All of us who were Glasgow councillors in the difficult Tory years acknowledge how far Glasgow came in those years and has come in recent years. The importance of sustaining that growth and regeneration cannot be overestimated.
Donald Gorrie made the point well that the crossrail project would involve minimal investment. It is not just a fancy project that would deliver for the whole of Scotland; it would deliver value for money.
Patrick Harvie talked about shiny documents. I am no longer concerned about what shiny documents say; I have had enough of them. We talk about being environmentally friendly, but continue to produce such documents. I say to the minister that an environmentally friendly document that is committed to the crossrail project should be produced.
I seek from the minister absolute clarity about the process that will be followed to approve the project, the processes that have been followed to date and how matters will progress. The cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail has on a number of occasions discussed clarity about where we are going and the decision-making process to determine whether the project will progress.
Charlie Gordon made the point very well that we have had enough of transport studies. Let us move forward. If the Executive does not support the project, it must make that clear; if it supports it, it must clarify how it will take it forward.
This has been a consensual debate—I disagree with little that members have said. However, I would like to hold Patrick Harvie to account. He referred to environmental aspects of the M74 extension. We should remember that we are also talking about routes into Ayrshire. He should consider the huge environmental benefits that the M77 has brought to the south side of Glasgow. Perhaps then he will drop his shades a little and recognise that the M74 extension could also result in benefits.
I fully endorse what Glasgow members have said, but perhaps Ayrshire would benefit as much as, if not more than, Glasgow from a crossrail scheme. There has been a lot of talk about Glasgow and Edinburgh rail links, but there is also an airport at Prestwick, to which a rail line runs. Crossrail would provide connectivity, take passengers right across the country and open up Prestwick airport to Scotland as a whole. Prestwick airport made a massive commitment to and investment in its rail link and railway station, although there was support from the Government of the day and other sources.
It has been said that small amounts of money would be needed for the crossrail project. Hundreds of millions of pounds is not a small sum, but such investment could result in a massive return, given the possibility of economic development and environmental benefits. We have considered many railway projects, which I have welcomed, but the crossrail link could result in the best financial outcome of all the projects that we have considered.
I agree with the Glasgow members, and particularly with Bill Butler. The issue goes far wider than Glasgow. The crossrail project would serve Ayrshire and would certainly serve me—I always use my car to travel from Ayr to Edinburgh. The break in the line between Glasgow Central station and Glasgow Queen Street station is considerably off-putting. Going from station to station and waiting for the connecting train takes at least half an hour. The crossrail project would bring massive benefits, and I urge the minister to consider it sympathetically.
I, too, thank Bill Butler for lodging the motion. I echo the points that members have made.
I do not want to mention 1973, because the minister is relatively youthful and will probably claim that he cannot remember it. However, it is critical that we learn from commitments that were made in the past. Charlie Gordon mentioned many commitments that were given in principle but were not fulfilled because of a lack of resources. I know that Phil Gallie, like Charlie Gordon and I, recognises the role that the policies of Strathclyde Regional Council's socialist administration played in providing benefits to the people of Ayrshire, and I look forward to him commending the former regional council in future speeches.
Members have touched on the key issues of connectivity, economic growth, helping regeneration areas and being environmentally friendly. In a sense, Glasgow crossrail is a win-win project for all the political parties—even for those of us who are a bit more careful with public money. I hope that the minister will bear that in mind when considering long-term investment. We are speaking about between £115 million and £187 million, which is less than 3 per cent of annual expenditure in Scotland. Over the period of time for which we judge public sector projects such as crossrail, the project's positive value for money can be demonstrated. That will obviously be part of any debate about the feasibility of the project and its business plan, on which we already have some sound evidence.
I will touch on three issues that relate to my constituency, regarding connectivity between the north and the south. First, my parliamentary seat causes difficulties, because it is called Glasgow Shettleston. It is inconceivable that someone in the Gorbals, Oatlands or Govanhill would see parts of the city to the north of the river or to the east of the Gorbals as being part of the same seat.
Secondly, I have the added disadvantage—which I have mentioned before—that my father was from the Gorbals and my mother was from north of the river. If, on Friday nights, when the fights would usually break out, there had been slightly better connectivity between the areas north and south of the river, I would not have been left awkwardly traipsing around Glasgow when she stormed out in disgust at his comments or behaviour.
The third critical issue is the commitment to the regeneration of areas that I and Paul Martin, who also serves the east end of Glasgow, have known all our adult lives. Many of those blighted areas would be transformed by having connections at the High Street, Dalmarnock—for the Commonwealth games village in 2014—and the development in the Laurieston area of the Gorbals. There is a real opportunity for a bit of vision and partnership, including partnership with some of the folk who produced documents in the recent past that omitted to mention that potential.
It is not an either/or situation—either we get the M74 or we get Glasgow crossrail. The debate is about what is necessary. We should be asking what connectivity is necessary for Glasgow and Scotland to enable the economic regeneration of many blighted areas. On those grounds, I believe that we can genuinely make a difference.
I am fond of quoting folk. I will quote Antonio Gramsci again, just for the fun of it. When we look at the business plan for the crossrail project, let us not have "pessimism of the intellect"; let us have more "optimism of the will". Perhaps the minister can deliver on the commitments of 1973, which were touched on by Charlie Gordon—and where is he now?
All I can remember about 1973 is that it was the year in which Scotland qualified for the football world cup in West Germany.
I am from the Charlie Gordon school of politics. I am not in the same party as him, but I am from the school of politics that says that we are here to make decisions and not endlessly to review, analyse and call for more studies. I accept his point and understand the frustration that many members have expressed at the length of time for which the project has been on the books. It has been analysed, considered and talked about. I will address the process that has to be gone through for any capital transport project—Paul Martin asked a fair question about that.
I acknowledge Bill Butler's leadership on the issue in Parliament, both through his convenership of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail and through his raising the issue in the chamber on numerous occasions, although in truth the issue got a fair hearing in the preliminary stage debate on the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill before the summer recess, and it has been raised in other ways. It is important to stress that the arguments that are made by Mr Butler and his colleagues throughout Parliament help immensely in consideration of the issue.
I appreciate Sandra White's support for Bill Butler's motion. Last week, the Scottish National Party was opposed to major rail investment in Scotland, so it is important that it is supporting it today.
I think that Bill Aitken and Patrick Harvie, in a different way, accept that our investment in the west and in Glasgow is not just about a rail package but—as Wendy Alexander and others said—about the major investment that we are making in the M74 and other roads.
As Mr Butler said, the Strathclyde partnership for transport's proposals would not introduce a direct link from Glasgow Central to Queen Street; instead, the proposal is to provide a link from stations south of the city, via a new station at Glasgow Cross, to Queen Street low-level station.
As we set out in the partnership agreement, the Executive has supported with a grant of £0.5 million the feasibility work on Glasgow crossrail that is being undertaken by SPT. Work to date has reassured us that the project is technically feasible. It is estimated that it will cost between £115 million and £187 million at outturn prices. As SPT said recently in its statement of the case for crossrail, there are issues that need to be resolved in confirming the demand for crossrail services, and in respect of the interface between crossrail and major rail infrastructure works, which is important. At the risk of incurring Parliament's wrath, I note that that work is being undertaken by SPT and is due to be completed by March 2007. That will lay the foundation for the business case for crossrail.
I intend later this autumn to set out our vision for Scotland's railways, as part of our national transport strategy. That will provide—I hope in a glossy document—the framework within which we will develop projects such as crossrail through the strategic transport projects review. To answer directly one question that was asked, the framework will prioritise transport projects for future spending. That is the process that members seek.
Glasgow already has an extensive transport network that provides excellent local, regional and international accessibility. By 2014, an additional £1 billion will have been spent on enhancements to the transport infrastructure, including the completion of the airport rail link. Transport Scotland has been working with Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde partnership for transport on the preparation of Scotland's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games, and will continue to do so to ensure that the bid proposals are realistic and deliverable. I take seriously the points that members have made this evening about the importance of the crossrail project in that context.
Two thirds of all First ScotRail journeys—about 50 million journeys each year—are within the Strathclyde region, which makes it the most heavily used commuter rail network outside London. The new Larkhall to Milngavie line provides a north to south-east cross-Glasgow service and the number of passengers on the line in its first year of operation has been one third higher than the projections. Trains have been refurbished across the region to provide better passenger facilities. Closed-circuit television coverage and car parking have been extended at a number of stations, and we have plans to improve in the near future customer information systems at Queen Street.
The further work on crossrail will update previous studies of demand and will assess the positive impacts of making easier some links to onward services for some passengers, and the negative impacts of making longer journeys into the centre of Glasgow for others. It will also set out how crossrail would operate in the context of an expanded rail network—including the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Glasgow airport rail link—and how reliability of services around Glasgow can be maintained as services expand.
I accept that, despite all the investment that we are making, there remain a number of concerns about rail connections in the city, including concerns about there being two separate major terminating stations in Glasgow—at Glasgow Central and Queen Street—with no direct connection between them. There are also concerns about restricted capacity and congestion at both stations, and about the lack of direct links from the south and west of Glasgow to the north and east, which Mr Gallie raised. There are also concerns about the speed and frequency of connections between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Our vision for Scotland's railways will set out ways in which we can address such issues. I envisage a package of enhancements to improve links into and across Glasgow, which will build on the substantial current investment. Glasgow crossrail can be part of that vision for Scotland's transport future.
Meeting closed at 17:54.