ELBG Promoter Statement

GROUP 12 – OBJECTION NO: 197 EDINBURGH AND LOTHIAN BADGER GROUP PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT BARRY CROSS ROSEBURN CORRIDOR/WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 I am Barry Cross. Until April 2005 I was the Transport Planning Manager with the City of Edinburgh Council. Since April 2005 I have been the Project Development Director with tie ltd, an “arms’ length” company wholly owned by the City of Edinburgh Council. tie has been commissioned by the Council to develop and implement the Edinburgh Tram Project. 1.2 I have a BSc in Civil Engineering from the University of Salford and an MSc in Transportation Engineering from the University of Leeds. 1.3 I have been closely involved with the development of the Tram Project in Edinburgh since its inception. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The railway route from Roseburn to Crewe Toll was closed to passenger services in 1962 and to goods services in 1967/8. The land was bought as part of a package of routes by the City of Edinburgh Council’s predecessor, Lothian Regional Council. It has been safeguarded, first for a new road, and then for light rapid transit, since 1978. 2.2 In the 1980s Lothian Regional Council developed a two line Light Rapid Transit proposal, branded as ‘Edinburgh Metro’. It was proposed that the East-West Metro line should run off-street from Haymarket to Crewe Toll along the disused railway route from Roseburn through Ravelston, Craigleith and Drylaw. The Metro proposals failed to progress beyond the design and public consultation stages because of the high capital cost and affordability consequent upon the extensive tunnelling elsewhere on the project. 2.3 In 1997 the City Council was approached by New Edinburgh Tramways (NETCo) with a proposal for a fully funded tramway between Haymarket and Newhaven via Leith Walk and Leith. The proposed tramway would, it was claimed, require no public subsidy, either for construction or operation. In 1999 the company added the section from Haymarket to Newhaven, via Roseburn, the disused railway route and Granton. The Council and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian worked with NETCo in commissioning a comprehensive appraisal from DTZ Pieda. DTZ Pieda led a team which also included Booz Allen Hamilton, Babties (Consulting Engineers), and Sheppherd and Wedderburn (Solicitors). Although the review concluded that “the project is one which the team fully endorses” the capital costs and revenue projections were considered to be unsound. As a result the Council could not support the NETCo proposal. 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TODAY’S TRAM PROJECT 3.1 In the 1990s proposals began to emerge for very significant redevelopment of swathes of the City’s Waterfront, extending from Granton in the west to Leith in the east. This redevelopment would take place on brown-field sites vacated by obsolescent gas works, oil depots and dock and marine activities. The new developments would potentially generate many times the traffic levels of the land uses they would replace. 3.2 A number of Transport Studies were undertaken by Consultants acting for the Council. These concluded that the traffic generated by these new developments could only be accommodated if rigorous traffic reduction targets were met. This reflects the relatively poor road network in North Edinburgh, especially the lack of direct radial routes linking North Edinburgh to the City Centre. 3.3 In 2000 a consortium, headed by Waterfront Edinburgh Limited, took the initiative in addressing the transport deficiencies of the wider Waterfront area. The members of the consortium were; • Waterfront Edinburgh Limited • Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian • Forth Ports plc • Lattice Property • United Wire • National Museums of Scotland • Edinburgh’s Telford College • Deutsche Bank • BAE Systems • Lothian University Hospital Trust • Miller Ventures Limited • Mary Erskine/Stewart’s Melville College • St George’s School for Girls • City of Edinburgh Council • Lothian Buses 3.4 Waterfront Edinburgh, on behalf of the consortium, commissioned a consultancy team to establish (inter alia) the economics of a comprehensive public transport solution connecting the Waterfront with the City Centre, considering all practicable modes of transport, and combinations of modes. The study was later extended to consider the route from the City Centre to Leith and finally the complete loop, with the addition of the link from Granton to Leith. 3.5 The consultancy team comprised; • Andersen • Steer Davies Gleave • Mott MacDonald supported by a number of specialist sub-consultants. 3.6 The Study concluded that the preferred option was a tramway loop with the alignment of the western side of the loop being the disused railway corridor from Roseburn to Granton. 3.7 The Study Report was used as the basis for a submission to the Scottish Executive for funding from the Public Transport Fund to allow the proposal to be taken forward through to, and including, the Parliamentary process. The appraisal within the Report had been conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the, yet to be published, consultation draft of the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG). The approach had been discussed with the Scottish Executive during the development of the bid. 3.8 The Scottish Executive assessed the bid and the Council was awarded £6.5m to allow the proposal for Tram Line 1 to be taken forward. 3.9 In 2002 tie was set up by the City of Edinburgh Council, on the encouragement of Wendy Alexander MSP, the then Transport Minister. tie was charged with taking forward the tram project. 3.10 In December 2002 Mott MacDonald was commissioned by tie to review possible route options between Granton and the City Centre and to evaluate the options using a “link sifting” process, based upon the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) 1 process. 3.11 In March 2003 the Scottish Executive announced funding of £375m towards the construction of the Edinburgh tram network. 3.12 The Council and tie were mindful that, although all the analysis, including STAG, indicated that the railway corridor provided the “best” route for the tram, the Western General Hospital was a significant destination and more should be done to see whether it could be served more directly. 3.13 tie therefore commissioned a further piece of work on an alternative route using Groathill Avenue and Telford Road which would take the tram closer to the hospital. The report then compared this Telford Road route with the route along the disused railway by evaluating both options against STAG objectives. 3.14 tie included the Telford Road option in the consultation material. Between May and July 2003 tie consulted (inter alia) on the proposed alignment of Tram Line 1. 4.0 ROUTE OPTIONS AT THE WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL 4.1 During the course of the development of the project a number of routes have been assessed as alternatives to the railway corridor option. For ease of reference these are now compared. 4.2 The Railway Corridor Option using the disused railway alignment would be amongst the most efficient sections of Tram Line 1. • The route is direct and has none of the twists and turns of the North Edinburgh bus network • The alignment has no small radius curves to restrict speeds, reflecting its heavy rail origins. • The line, again reflecting its former use, has no significant gradients. • Speeds would generally be higher because the tram would not be mixing with general traffic and would not be subject to congestion. (Tram drivers would of course have to take account of pedestrians and cyclists) • There would be no badly parked cars and lorries to delay the tram. These factors would result in excellent timetable reliability. 4.3 The railway corridor has been in existence since the 19th century. Indeed much of the land use and community patterns have developed around it. The introduction of the tram would therefore involve almost no increase in community severance. 4.4 For thirty years the disused railway corridor has been continuously safeguarded for a new road or, more recently, for light rail use. The likelihood of the route’s conversion to road or light rail should therefore have been taken into account by all those residents who have bought or developed property in the meantime. 4.5 At the moment, although the footpath/cycleway is lit at night, there is a perceived risk and little use is made of the route during the hours of darkness. The introduction of trams on the route would therefore have potential benefits. The frequent trams would be in direct radio contact with the tram control room which would be manned continuously - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The tram stops would be well lit and would have CCTV and ‘Help Points’. The new footpath/cycleway would be lit. As a result the introduction of trams would deter anti-social activity and increase security. 4.6 The Crewe Road South Option leaves the preferred route in the City Centre and runs via Queensferry Street and Queensferry Road before turning north along Orchard Brae and Crewe Road South to Crewe Toll. This option passes the Western General Hospital site but does not pass Haymarket and so misses the important interchange there. Transport modelling indicated over 20% greater passenger use of the proposed Tram Line 1 loop following the disused railway alignment, compared with the loop incorporating the Crewe Road alignment. This increased patronage is a reflection, in part, that the population living within 800m of the proposed loop is 30% larger than that living within 800m of the loop incorporating this Crewe Road South route. 4.7 The Telford Road Option runs along the railway corridor but leaves the preferred route at Craigleith and runs along South Groathill Avenue, Groathill Avenue and Telford Road.

Load more