Transport Expenditure
Our next item of business is a statement by Ms Sarah Boyack on transport expenditure. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement and therefore there should be no interventions during it.
We have a busy afternoon ahead, and I ask members to settle down and listen to the statement.
I wish to make a statement on the Executive's transport spending priorities to 2004.
Two years ago, the new Labour Government set out a new vision for transport in the white paper "Travel Choices for Scotland". That vision is of a modern, integrated transport system that is the equal of any in Europe; that fully reflects our commitment to social inclusion, to the environment and to the economic well-being of Scotland; and that recognises Scotland's geographical diversity. There will be new ideas, new powers and a new approach to transport.
The vision is now becoming a reality, with 33 major public transport projects across Scotland. More than 350 new or improved rural transport services have been introduced. More than 8 million lorry miles per year have been moved from Scotland's roads on to rail. Thirteen motorway and trunk road schemes have been delivered and major repairs have been made throughout the network. There is a two-year programme of 49 motorway and trunk road schemes, delivering safer, modern roads. We are building for the long term.
The Transport (Scotland) Bill currently before Parliament marks another step towards that long-term vision. It will deliver major improvements to bus services, improving journey times and reliability and allowing improved joint planning across local authority boundaries. It will provide the powers to put in place a national minimum level of concession for pensioners and people with disabilities, and powers to enable local authorities to introduce charging schemes to tackle congestion. Those new powers will equip Scotland's transport system for the 21st century.
We know that the demand for travel will increase. Road traffic is likely to grow by more than 50 per cent in the next 30 years. Rail travel is likely to grow by the same amount, but over 10 years. Those projections have huge implications for the way we live and work and for our environment. We have made our commitments on reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the next decade. Transport must be part of that picture and we need to plan now for rational and sustainable ways to manage demand and offer people real transport choices. We have new policies, new powers and now new resources.
We inherited a public transport system that suffered from decades of underinvestment and a total lack of vision. Too little was spent for too long. Tory underinvestment and fragmentation has left us with huge bills to improve these vital public services. Jack McConnell's statement of 20 September provided the total figure for transport. I now want to set out the detail of how we intend to invest in transport.
We will increase resources to local authorities by around £200 million in the period to 2004. The public transport fund is already supporting transport innovation throughout the country. All types of transport have benefited, but there have been too few cycling and walking projects, so I have decided to give more prominence to cycling, walking and safer streets in allocating the fund. We have committed £58 million to the fund for 2001 and we will increase that fund to £150 million over the next three years. The priority for future investment must be projects that will do most to alleviate congestion, our most intractable urban problem, giving people real travel choices. I will announce more successful projects next month.
I do not need anyone in this chamber to tell me about the appalling state of our local roads and our bridges. Years of neglect have led to a backlog of repairs and we will make £70 million available over the next three years to enable authorities to begin to tackle it. I expect local authorities to build on this year's level of current and capital expenditure on roads and bridges. Those new resources must not displace existing provision, but must be genuinely additional. The detail, including the expected outputs, will be worked up in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Transport is also about accessibility for people and about delivering on social justice. Last year, we delivered concessionary travel for blind people. This year, the spending review settlement means that I can go further, and I am delighted to tell the chamber that the Executive will now extend concessionary travel even further. I want one of the legacies of this Government to be one of the best concessionary fare schemes for pensioners and people with disabilities. From October 2002, all Scottish pensioners—nearly a million people—will be able to benefit from free bus travel.
This Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition will spend around £300 million more in the period to March 2004. In real terms, that is a 45 per cent increase. We will deliver new resources to transfer more freight from our roads—£36 million more for the freight facilities grant. We will increase our target for transferring freight from our roads from 15 million to 18 million lorry miles a year by March 2002. We will also extend the freight facilities grant to cover short sea coastal shipping.
Delivering new resources means delivering for Scotland's rural communities, to enable people to have access to jobs, family and vital local services. Our spending review decisions will mean an increase in the rural transport fund of £4.5 million over the next three years, an increase of almost £1 million annually to meet the costs of conversion to liquefied petroleum gas, and an increase of around £60 million over the next three years for transport in the Highlands and Islands.
We will also deliver new resources for a modern, strategic road network. We have already announced an investment package of £444 million in the period to March 2002. In the two years following, we are further increasing trunk roads expenditure by £68 million. That investment will deliver vital maintenance and key improvements across the network that our economy needs. However, we need an integrated approach that will deliver improvements in public transport and our roads.
I will deal first with the issue of the M74 completion. I accept the principle of a strategic link between Fullerton Road and west of the Kingston bridge, but I have no intention of negotiating through the newspapers on the scale and nature of that link. That is why I am inviting the leaders of Glasgow City Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Renfrewshire Council to meet me on 10 October to discuss this issue. We need to discuss the best way forward. The road must be sustainable and affordable. There are clearly regeneration benefits to be gained in the area and the contribution that public transport could make to reducing car usage has not yet been fully explored. Let me be absolutely clear this afternoon: this project will be delivered.
I believe that to prepare for the future in a sustainable way we need to examine the transport problems of Glasgow and west central Scotland in the round. That is why I have decided to broaden the transport corridor studies on the A8 and A80 to include the M74 corridor. That has been suggested by many during the first phase of consultation on our studies. Carrying out such studies is not about avoiding action; it is about acting responsibly. I am prepared today to give the Parliament the key commitment that the Executive, directly and with our partners, will implement the decisions flowing from the studies into the needs of the A8, A80 and M74 corridors. We need public transport and roads investment. The scale of congestion in the west central Scotland area demands nothing less.
Concurrently with our studies, we will begin the necessary preparation for building the road, including the statutory procedures that apply to all routes such as the M74. We will implement with similar urgency the recommendations flowing from the study into the Kincardine bridge. That will deliver a welcome relief for people in Kincardine, who have suffered poor air quality, noise and congestion for long enough.
To help meet those and other commitments, I have established a new integrated transport fund of £75 million over the next three years. That will enable the Executive to support transport initiatives that deliver on widely accepted local or regional transport solutions; that clearly contribute to our vision of a modern, safe, reliable and integrated transport system; that will allow us to consider new opportunities and to lever in private investment; and that will pave the way for the introduction of congestion charging or workplace parking levies. I will meet the cities in October and will discuss with them the new opportunities that this fund presents.
Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow are beginning to identify coherent and co-ordinated approaches to dealing with their congestion problems. The City of Edinburgh Council, for example, aims to tackle congestion by introducing charging for the use of road space within congested urban areas. Work by external consultants on behalf of the council has shown that, in addition to reducing congestion, £30 million to £40 million per annum could be raised by charging around £1 per vehicle for entering the city. The Transport (Scotland) Bill guarantees that income from charging will be ring-fenced for transport investment. That means that the step change that we need in Scotland to deliver on public transport can be in our grasp within 10 rather than 50 years.
In February, I announced that the Executive would provide grants to assist the development of charging scheme proposals. I will respond to the City of Edinburgh's bid shortly. I want to emphasise that support is also available to other councils developing similar schemes.
New policies, new powers and now substantial new resources: the Executive has delivered the key tools, which begin to meet Scotland's transport needs, but we alone cannot deliver the transport system that Scotland deserves. We need a long-term vision and a genuine partnership between the Executive, local authorities, transport operators and the private sector, working together for the whole of Scotland. I am committed to that. This morning I met an all-party delegation from the City of Edinburgh. Tomorrow I will meet the south-east Scotland transport partnership and Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils. Next month I will meet Glasgow City, South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire Councils and the west of Scotland transport partnership. Working together, we can deliver for Scotland.
The minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions. In view of the number of members who want to ask questions, I ask for them to be brief and to the point whenever possible.
I look forward to entering into a constructive dialogue with Sarah Boyack on transport issues. I will start that today by accepting that the minister has made a reasonable start, given the resources available to her. I welcome much of what she announced.
I have several questions on delivering an integrated transport system, providing for Scotland's drivers and whether the resources to do the job exist. I will start with the minister's statement that £70 million is available over three years to enable authorities to begin to tackle the backlog of road repairs. That is good spin, but what about the reality? Has the minister heard of an organisation called the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland? Is she aware that it has carried out a survey that shows that the backlog in Scotland's roads is £1,500 million and that it has also said that it requires £75 million every year to overcome those problems? On top of that, there is a requirement for £166 million for bridges. That makes £70 million over the next three years look miserly. There is a real danger that Sarah Boyack will become known as the minister for potholes.
Where is Scotland's national transport plan? Where is our 10-year programme to set out the transport vision for the future of Scotland, which we so badly need? John Prescott announced a 10-year plan to spend £148 billion—£14 billion per year. We might have expected £1.4 billion in Scotland each year but, once the capital charges are stripped out, the Executive is spending only £396 million. What has happened to Scotland's missing £1 billion? Do we not have a national plan because we cannot have a plan without the resources?
In her statement, Sarah Boyack recognised the long-term nature of transport planning. I wish she had introduced a 10-year plan to go with it. In the future, will capital charges be allocated to Scotland via the Barnett formula?
Can the minister tell us when she intends to announce to the chamber that we can expect something to happen on the Borders rail link, when we can expect something to happen on the rail link between Dunfermline and Edinburgh, when we can expect an announcement on the A75—that vital European link—and when we can expect further announcements on the A9?
Does the minister agree with Lex Gold, of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, who said this week that Scotland's transport system is a disgrace and that its infrastructure would shame a third-world country?
I welcome Bruce Crawford to his position as Opposition spokesperson on transport. I look forward to his constructive and consensual contribution to our debates. Not every statement that I make will include an announcement of a major infrastructure project in the region that he represents as a list MSP. The Kincardine bridge project, which he did not mention, will be warmly welcomed in his area.
The Government is listening. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that we face to improve our transport infrastructure, but the package that I am announcing this afternoon is a major step change for Scotland. It sets us on the way to delivering high-quality investment across the whole of the country. I do not want to follow exactly the routes that are taken by John Prescott; I want to do what is right for Scotland.
If one takes out the money that is being invested in railways, from which Scotland will benefit through the strategic rail authority, it is clear that the money that we are allocating represents a fair deal for people in Scotland—for motorists, for ferry users, for walkers, for bus users, and for cyclists—and will allow major investment in transport across Scotland.
I know that pleas have been made for local resources. That is why I have listened to local authorities and allocated £70 million over the next three years. That lets us start to deal with the major problems of potholes, crumbling bridges and local roads, about which members from around the country have told me in letters and parliamentary questions—and in lobbying at the back of the chamber. They have all done it. I have listened to members and that is why today we are starting on the major investment that is required for the long term.
We have a long-term plan for transport. Two weeks ago, I said that I would present proposals for a delivery plan for the whole of Scotland which will cover not just our investment in roads, buses and public transport, but rail issues and long-term strategic air issues.
The investment that I have announced today represents a step change in transport investment. The public transport fund that Bruce Crawford mentioned will be doubled—it will increase by £10 million to £40 million next year, by £20 million to £50 million in the following year, and by £30 million to £60 million in the year after that. That is an opportunity for councils throughout the country to consider major investment in public transport. Next month, I will announce the next round of the public transport fund awards, which will address some of the issues that have been raised. That is when we will deliver a step change in the public transport fund.
I thank the minister for the courtesy of an advance copy of her statement and for many of the announcements that she made, particularly on concessionary fares.
I would like to know more about the £68 million extra that she announced for trunk roads in 2002 to 2004. How much of that money will be spent on construction? Will she confirm that the additional sums cover little more than the carry forward of the strategic roads announcements that have been made in the past year? Will she confirm that that money will allow commencement within that time period of the critically awaited upgrades on the M74, the M8, the M80 and Kincardine bridge? The statement did not make those matters entirely clear.
While we are hearing about not negotiating through the press, could the minister tell Parliament some of the information that her spokesman gave to the press today about the nature, specification, cost and time scale of the M74 upgrade? I think that Parliament is entitled to be included in that partnership. Will she comment on the reaction of Councillor Charles Gordon, of Glasgow City Council, to what her spokesman told the press? He told the press that it appeared that there was more spin than substance in what had been announced today about the M74.
I thank Mr Tosh for his welcome of our concessionary travel scheme for pensioners and people with disabilities. It marks a step change in the life chances of pensioners and disabled people across the country.
The £68 million for trunk roads will enable us to make progress on a number of schemes—not just a major trunk programme, but action to address some of the key safety issues that regularly arise in parliamentary questions, such as route accident reduction plans and tackling some of our key accident areas. It will allow us to do more, as it is additional to the £444 million that I have already allocated to be spent over the next two years. That is good news for Scotland's motorists and for other people who use our major trunk roads and motorways.
There are critical upgrades. My statement gives a clear commitment that we will implement the outcomes of the multimodal studies on the A8, the A80 and the M74. That commitment means that we will make progress on the critical routes and the improvements that are required. That work is budgeted for in today's announcement.
We believe that the M74 must be a strategic road. It must be upgraded in partnership with Glasgow City Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Renfrewshire Council if we are to maximise the benefits for west central Scotland. However, it is a major project. When we considered it last year in the strategic roads review, the price tag for the route was £177 million. The paper that I have received suggests that the current preferred route of the three councils would cost £307 million. That is a huge amount of money.
I want to explore with the councils the most sustainable and acceptable route that will deliver the strategic link that business in the west of Scotland is crying out for, but which would be a responsible route. There are specific issues that I want to explore with the councils. For example, a spur that goes back to the Kingston bridge in Glasgow—which is already one of the most congested routes in Scotland—would not make sense. The Executive has spent more than £30 million securing the Kingston bridge and making it safe; the last thing I want is to channel yet more commuter traffic back to it. The strategic link is to Renfrewshire and Paisley, to the key areas where business opportunities need to link back up to the Mossend rail connection and the rest of Scotland.
I want to talk to the councils about the cost of the route, as I think £307 million is not value for money. It would not deliver the benefits the road needs to deliver and it would have an environmental cost that need not be paid. I want to consider a reduced scale for the road and the project that we assessed last year in our strategic roads review. That review talked about the benefits to integration, accessibility and the economy that that route could bring about.
I have read the comments in the newspapers. I want to make it clear that I am not going to negotiate with anybody in this chamber or through the newspapers. We must sit down and talk about this. I believe that consensus can be built. We can work in partnership to identify a funding package that will deliver the safe, sustainable and affordable route that businesses in west central Scotland, the councils and this Executive want. There must be partnership, consensus and agreement—that is how we will get moving on the route.
Mr Tosh asked me to comment on the time scale. This is a major project. The orders that have to be passed for a project such as this need to be discussed democratically. Regardless of which of the road schemes is chosen, people will have to be able to exercise their right to contribute to that democratic process. We must get going on that and sit down and talk about the detail with councils. There need not be a delay; we must get on and get moving with the route.
I welcome the minister's statement. I also welcome Bruce Crawford to his new position—I notice that he spent even more money than Kenny MacAskill normally does in a speech on transport.
I welcome the increased allocation for the public transport fund. Will the minister clarify the process through which projects such as the Glasgow crossrail and the Borders railway must go to have a chance of success? I also welcome the additional resources for local authority funding of road maintenance. How does the minister plan to allocate those additional moneys, given the technical nature of the announcement that she made in her statement?
Finally, I echo Murray Tosh's welcome of the announcement on concessionary fares. However, will the minister address the issue of partially sighted people from the islands who have advocated and argued for particular assistance with air travel as an alternative? Furthermore, as the minister mentioned short sea coastal shipping she will not be surprised if I ask about long sea coastal shipping and whether there will be an announcement shortly—more quickly than shortly—on the northern isles service to Orkney and Shetland.
I would have been disappointed if Mr Scott had not pushed me on all those issues. I recognise the urgent need to make an announcement on the northern isles ferry service and we are working very hard on the matter. Indeed, Mr Scott will be one of the first people to know when I make that announcement. On the general issue of coastal shipping, we intend to introduce a provision for the freight facilities grant in the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which will give Scotland the necessary competence.
We delivered a voluntary concessionary fares scheme for blind people last year. Nevertheless, I acknowledge Tavish Scott's points. Although I want to go further than the scheme that I have announced today, it will enable people across Scotland to access the local services that every pensioner and person with disabilities needs. They will now be able to visit shops, local areas and their friends and families without needing to worry about the cost. That is a huge step forward for social inclusion.
I want to discuss the precise allocation of the £70 million expenditure on local roads with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. As the organisation knows the problems that exist across Scotland, it must be very involved in the process.
Although we will be able to do an awful lot more with the £170 million than we can do under the current public transport funding arrangements, we must go further. The strategic rail authority and the funds that it will have and the next ScotRail franchise must also be part of the big picture. Although we will give local authorities the chance to make bigger bids for public transport funding to exploit certain rail opportunities, there must be partnership between local authorities to develop strategic routes. Furthermore, local authorities must interact with the strategic rail authority and be involved in the ScotRail franchise.
If we have a long-term vision and can look beyond the three-year horizon, the public transport fund, in association with other available funds, can present major planning and transport opportunities and bring about a real step change in rail services in Scotland that will help to meet the 50 per cent increase in passenger demand that John Prescott announced only a few weeks ago.
As many members wish to ask questions, I would be very grateful if questions could be succinct. I hope that that will also allow the answers to be slightly briefer.
We can only welcome the minister's statement, with its commitment to funding the kind of modern integrated transport systems that we need in Scotland. I particularly welcome the commitment to free local bus travel for pensioners and the disabled. That issue has been raised with me by organisations such as the National League of the Blind and Disabled in Aberdeen and pensioners groups. The minister will be aware that Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have published their draft transport strategies. Does she agree that they are exactly the kind of forward-thinking transport plans that will offer real choice to people in the north-east and that we now need positive discussions about how best to fund and deliver them?
I am happy to agree that the work of Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council is visionary and strategic and begins to consider how to tackle some of the problems in the north-east. Partnership is the way forward and the extent to which both councils have involved transport operators and the business community is a model for other parts of Scotland. I hope that, in the discussions following today's announcement, I can work with both authorities to find out how to work together to deliver on the vision that they have correctly identified.
I succinctly welcome both Bruce Crawford as SNP transport spokesman and many of Sarah Boyack's comments, particularly about safer streets for cyclists and pedestrians.
Whenever someone mentions in a transport announcement a predicted 50 per cent increase in traffic by 2030, the alarm bells begin to ring. I would like from the minister a commitment that she will not follow policies that predict and provide. I will repeat the old questions that I keep coming back to: does she believe that these policies will help us to meet our Kyoto targets? Will the success of those policies be measured in those terms? When will we get our first report?
I want to make it absolutely clear that every time I say we are predicting a 50 per cent increase in road traffic in the next 30 years, I do so to concentrate people's minds. We do not have the road capacity to deal with such an increase and we do not want to suffer the associated problems of poor local air quality and congestion. That is why we need an integrated approach and significant investment in public transport.
The predict-and-provide approach has been utterly and thoroughly discredited. We need to manage the demand. That does not mean that we should not invest in roads—we need to address some key links in Scotland—but we need to do so in an integrated way. I hope that the approach that I have set out this afternoon will reassure members that that is at the heart of our transport spending decisions.
We want to meet our Kyoto targets. Giving people sustainable travel choices, delivering high-quality public transport, ensuring safe streets and building on the work that we are doing already with safer routes to schools are key parts of today's transport statement. The public transport fund is critical to that. It is also critical to ensure that local authorities' work builds on those elements. Today, we have an opportunity to manage those challenges nationally and locally.
I welcome the Labour Government's move towards the SNP's long-held policy of a national concessionary fares scheme. However, I want to clarify a few points in the minister's statement.
I want to be assured that councils such as Clackmannanshire Council, which already runs a free concessionary fares scheme for pensioners, will not be financially penalised between now and October 2002 when the Executive intends to introduce the scheme across the country.
Will October 2002 also be when the concessionary schemes for the disabled and teenagers are introduced? I remind the minister that 16 and 17-year-olds have to pay full fares at the moment, yet they are not eligible for benefit.
The SNP talks, but it is Labour and the Liberal Democrats that deliver.
I want to send a message to councils that I want to talk to COSLA about how we allocate resources and deliver our concessionary travel scheme for pensioners and people with disabilities. We need to do that in consultation with the transport operators.
I am happy to reassure people that councils that have delivered concessionary fares schemes for many years—Fife Council is the best example that I can think of—will not be penalised by our scheme. We want to raise the levels of resources across Scotland, not bring them down.
The point about teenagers is important and it is why we have carried out research in advance of the Transport (Scotland) Bill that will be presented to Parliament later this year. The powers that I want the bill to grant the Executive will enable us to help people with disabilities and pensioners. I know that many other important groups in society experience social exclusion, but we have to set priorities. We have carried out research and are discussing its findings with the bill team as we consider amendments to the bill.
It seems that this is another afternoon of warm congratulations. I, too, welcome the minister's statement. I particularly welcome what she said in response to Fiona McLeod about the position of local authorities such as Fife Council, which has invested heavily over the years in concessionary travel. Not for the first time, where Fife leads, the rest of Scotland follows.
I want to ask the minister about her announcement on Kincardine bridge, which is the main route west out of the kingdom. Can she give a time scale for the construction of the new bridge, which is long overdue and for which the community has fought for more than 15 years? I am glad that the minister has acknowledged the noise and pollution in the village. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon.
The funds that we are allocating in this spending statement enable me to take forward the study on the problems of congestion in Kincardine and how to get the most appropriate bridge and bypass for the village. When I visited Kincardine with Scott Barrie, it could not have been clearer that the volume of lorries using the village as a major strategic link is completely inappropriate. We need to address local people's experience and the safety issues that have been raised. Our commitment is now to move forward. The money is available and we will sort out the orders and address the procedural matters that need to be completed to make progress on the bridge.
I am disappointed, because I do not think that the minister has been listening on the A75. If she had, she would have heard the Labour leader of Dumfries and Galloway Council, John Forteath, say that her current proposals will make hardly any difference. Does the minister accept that the A75 is a major strategic route; that the port of Stranraer, which is the second busiest port in the whole of the United Kingdom, is dependent on that route; and that the rest of the Dumfries and Galloway economy is greatly affected by the state of the route? Will she give a further commitment to review the proposal that she announced previously and the lack of proposals today and put more resources into upgrading the A75?
David Mundell should recall that I have already announced major investment in the A75. There has been a programme of investment in Dumfries and Galloway. Only last week, my officials visited the area and talked to council officers. Council members were also invited to discuss the future of the A75 with them.
The intention of today's announcement is to set the strategic framework. The A75 is an important route and the new resources that I have at my disposal will allow me to address our priorities across Scotland and to add to what we have already done. I do not want to go through every trunk route in Scotland identifying what our future priorities might be before I have had the opportunity to look long and hard at the key issues of the strategic roads review—accessibility, safety, economy, integration and the environment—that will guide our decisions.
I welcome the minister's statement, including the additional spending on roads, the additional spending in the Highlands and Islands and the additional spending on council roads, to mention just a few of the measures.
The minister mentioned having discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about council road spending. Will she emphasise the need for spending on council roads in the Highlands and Islands? They are badly in need of repair and are essential to the people who use them.
I am happy to confirm that every council in Scotland will benefit from the funding. It is intended that every council should be enabled to tackle their particular problems of potholes and crumbling bridges and their need to maintain their roads more effectively. I do indeed wish to discuss with COSLA how we identify outputs so that we ensure that investment is maximised.
The Highlands and Islands and other rural areas such as Argyll and Bute will benefit from the money—it will benefit the whole of Scotland.
I welcome the minister's U-turn on the completion of the M74. It is not before time. I have concerns, however, about what I would call the downgrading of the project. The minister referred to the Kingston bridge and the M74 as strategic routes, to the fact that they are not yet connected and to there being only three lanes in each direction. How will the east end of Glasgow be affected?
The minister was asked about a start date and a completion date. To be perfectly honest, she did not give an answer. Can she give us some indication of when the work will start and when the work will be completed? Can she confirm that the work will not be funded through a private finance initiative or through workplace charging in Glasgow? The M25 was not funded that way and I do not see why the M74 should be.
It is critical that we work together to deliver the route in partnership between the local authorities and the Executive. A question was asked about benefits to the local area: I am sure that people who live around Rutherglen Main Street will feel the benefit of this major new investment.
The time scale is important. The detail of such a major project means that not just the construction stage is important—it is also necessary to ensure that the required procedures and orders are in place. We expect that process to take between seven and eight years in total, regardless of which of the five schemes is suggested by Glasgow.
We have examined the time scales extremely closely. The issue for us is to get started on the route, to do it properly and to do it to the right scale. It is important that the route does not feed congestion back into the M8. The last thing we want in Glasgow is for the M8 and the M74 northern extension to become Scotland's M25. We must plan the project properly. It must be a strategic route, which means that the detail is important.
I want also to consider the environmental impact. The scheme that we considered last year had some environmental downsides. One of the challenges of a major roads project is to minimise the downsides. The process of building such a road is important. I want to get started on that sooner rather than later. That is why I will meet the councils on 10 October to talk about how we can agree on the best scheme for Glasgow and the whole of west central Scotland.
What about the money?
I am sorry. We are clear that councils do not want to take the proposals forward on a tolled basis. I retain an open mind on the question of drawing in private sector money. I want a roads scheme that is fit for purpose, that meets the needs of the people on the west coast of Scotland, that is affordable and that the Executive and councils can work together to deliver. That is the key issue. That is why I said in my statement that the Executive is prepared to pay some of the money for the route.
In view of the minister's welcome announcement of increased resources for the public transport fund, may I again impress on her the need for favourable consideration of the application to the fund from the Borders railways forum?
The member may again impress on me the importance of the route; I will again tell him that awards are competitive. I will listen to people and consider proposals carefully to ensure that we get the right strategic links in the public transport fund. As I said, there will be an announcement on that shortly.
I thank the minister for her statement. I am delighted, as I am sure all members of the Transport and the Environment Committee are, that the M74 is not now a case of if, but of when. However, as the member representing the constituency through which most of the northern extension will run, I have concerns about the length of time the project will take, particularly the planning process. I understand that any differences from the original planning application will take us into a new planning process. Will that add to the time taken to complete the project? Is the minister proposing a reduced scale? If so, I am concerned that that will lead to capacity problems in future. Will she explain?
Let me be absolutely clear: giving a green light to the scheme today does not mean that it can be delivered tomorrow. This is a major roads project. The significance of my statement is that it allows the three local authorities and me to work together on the best way to deliver the scheme. Regardless of which scheme we go for, there will be planning issues and roads orders to consider. There is no way to short-circuit a scheme such as this. Individual property owners have rights. The process needs to be gone through properly, as with any major roads scheme. I want to ensure that we do not waste time and that we get on with it. That is why the commitment that I made to start the necessary procedures is important and sends out the message that we are serious about this proposal.
I mentioned the M25. With 50 per cent traffic increases across Scotland, we need to provide people with proper public transport choices. The M74 must be a strategic route. It will deliver major environmental benefits in Janis Hughes's constituency. The area around Rutherglen Main Street, for example, is bound to benefit. However, we need to ensure that we plug in the public transport opportunities. The issue around the scale of the route is not just whether it adds to congestion in Glasgow, but about getting the scale that is necessary. If we want to open up west central Scotland, we need to link it to the Mossend rail terminal and to that whole part of South Lanarkshire and beyond, right across to Renfrewshire. That is why the scale is important.
If we do not have to go back to Kingston bridge which, I argue, would lead to more problems than we want to contemplate, we should look again at the scheme that was considered in the strategic roads review. That is not about scaling down but about getting the right, strategic road and a scheme that will deliver what the business community and people in Glasgow and west central Scotland want.
As I am probably the only person who has not buttonholed the minister about potholes in their road, will she answer two brief questions? Will she call in the plans for the A701? Will she share with us the result of the all-party meeting she had with City of Edinburgh councillors today? Did they agree with the minister on workplace parking charges and on charging £1 for entry to the city?
I am sure it is only a matter of time before Margo MacDonald lobbies me about potholes. I look forward to it. The Scottish Executive has no further role in the planning processes of the A701, as Margo well knows.
The SNP representative was not able to be at my meeting with City of Edinburgh councillors today. I met Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative representatives who lobbied me on behalf of the City of Edinburgh transportation committee. I listened. We discussed a lot of strategic issues in detail. It was a very fruitful meeting and I hope it was the first of many consensual discussions in all parts of Scotland. I do not expect that there will be agreement on everything, but there are times when we can agree on the principles and where we are all trying to get to—which is more investment in transport throughout Scotland, more public transport and more investment in the strategic roads network. My statement today opens up real opportunities.
Further to the minister's welcome pledge to fund projects that relieve congestion, will she agree to support the Aberdeen city bypass despite the Labour council's decision not to implement congestion charges? She commented on support for crumbling bridges. Will she revise her view on the funding of the Montrose road bridge, which she wrote to me about?
I am allocating £70 million partly because, over the past year and a half, members have raised with me their local roads infrastructure and bridges. The £70 million is designed to help local authorities put more money into local transport, in addition to the grant-aided expenditure that they have allocated to it. I hope that every local authority in Scotland will now spend up to the maximum they can. That will enable them to tackle all sorts of local roads projects.
I want to stress that the work in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire is exemplary. It raises the issue of long-term vision and the need for creative thinking and partnership, for everyone to consider what they can bring to the table. That is why I have allocated resources in the transport fund to enable us to talk to local authorities and look at how we enable them to deliver, using the full powers in the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Many opportunities are opened up by my statement. I will work with councils throughout Scotland to fulfil that potential.
Like others, I very much welcome the minister's announcement on concessionary fares, additional support for rural transport and the continued pledge to get lorries off rural roads and freight on to rail.
In relation to planning for further improvements to roads, the minister mentioned congestion in Rutherglen Main Street and the problems of Kincardine bridge, to which Scott Barrie drew attention. Will she consider paying a visit to the Carrick part of my constituency to see the congestion in Maybole High Street caused by the high volume of heavy lorries, particularly those on the A77 en route to Stranraer? Will she give a commitment that an upgrade of the road or a bypass of the village will be considered?
As I said in response to an earlier question, I will not make commitments on how we prioritise our spending in the trunk roads programme, but I will listen to members' arguments.
Cathy Jamieson's point about lorries is important. In her area, a number of awards have been made through the freight facilities grant. I am keen to see more of them, because they let local businesses develop and get their goods across the country in an affordable way that does not cause localised congestion in key communities on the routes. I am keen to do more—both on our trunk roads work and on the freight facilities grant. The commitment to increase from 15 million to 18 million the number of travel miles that are taken off roads and put on to rail will bring much-needed relief to communities in Cathy Jamieson's area and many other areas.
We must now move to the next item of business, but before doing so, may I apologise—
On a point of order. As far as I know, only two members—perhaps only one—are opposed to the construction of the M74 link. Not calling at least one of those members has led to a poor level of debate.
Mr Sheridan, I do not know in advance what members will say, so I do not, and cannot, base my decisions on members' opinions. I called as many members as possible and I extended the time for questions by 10 minutes. When you interrupted me, I was about to apologise to those members—and there are many—whom I was unable to call. We must now move on.