EA(P)19 AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL

WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM TRANSFORM

1. Summary of comments

1.1 TRANSform Scotland supports the provision of rail access to .1 However, TRANSform Scotland wishes to object to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL) scheme as currently proposed. We consider the current proposal as excessively expensive and poor value in the context of other, more pressing, requirements for investment in the Scottish rail network.

1.2 Furthermore, the option development process has failed to consider lowercost, and more swiftly procurable, options for achieving rail access to the Airport.

1.3 We also consider the consequential lengthening of journey times on Scottish main line rail routes as an unacceptable consequence of this project.

1.4 The project additionally faces a number of serious technical issues, including (i) steep gradients for the rail line in going underground, (ii) the running of diesel trains underground, (iii) emergency egress, and (iv) tunnelling risk factors associated with river courses and mining.

1.5 In our response we set out, firstly, the benefits of the provision of rail access to Edinburgh Airport, and secondly, our concerns with the current proposal.

2. Benefits of proposed scheme

2.1 The scheme provides rail access to Edinburgh Airport

2.1.1 The scheme is beneficial in as much as it would provide rail access to Edinburgh Airport. Providing that BAA plc takes as its priority the delivery of increased modal share of passengers arriving at the airport by sustainable transport modes2 then improved public transport access to the airport should assist in the meeting of this goal. However, these benefits could be achieved through alternative proposals for providing rail access to the Airport.

2.2 The scheme provides benefits to the local rail network

1 TRANSform Scotland has given written evidence in favour of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link proposal, and has sought to give oral evidence in favour of the GARL proposal. 2 In its draft strategy (‘Edinburgh Airport outline Master Plan - draft for consultation May 2005’) BAA plc was distinctly lukewarm towards rail access to the Airport. 2.2.1 The scheme is welcome in as much as it would provide investment in the rail network of west Edinburgh. Firstly, such investment would reduce maintenance requirements on Almond Viaduct and Winchburgh Tunnel. Secondly, it would free up capacity on Haymarket West Junction - Newbridge Junction for Bathgate (and, eventually, Airdrie) trains. However, these benefits could be achieved through alternative proposals for providing rail access to the Airport.

3. Problems with proposed scheme

3.1 Failures in option development process

3.1.1 The Scottish Executive’s option development process for the project was flawed in as much as it excluded at an early stage the long-standing proposal for the development of a Chord and a station at either Turnhouse or , instead insisting that all options had to involve the railway running directly into/under the Airport.

3.1.2 In our response to the December 2004 consultation exercise, TRANSform Scotland questioned why there had been no analysis of the Turnhouse/Gogar option. TRANSform Scotland indicated that it thought this incompetent, given the presence of these options as existing City of Edinburgh Council policy as set out in the approved Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan, section 7.353. The option development process should have considered the construction of a station at Gogar or Turnhouse (incorporating check-in facilities), a short link in to the Airport terminals (by travelator or high-frequency people-mover, or by tram), and the construction of a surface-level Dalmeny Chord. Such an option would clearly be substantially less expensive than the current EARL proposal.

3.1.3 Even if we take the promoter’s evaluation of the costs of the Turnhouse station option uncritically, and reject the option of a sub-surface travelator/people mover, we still consider the option development process to be flawed. There has been no evaluation of the alternative option of a station at Gogar (with a surface tram/people mover interchange to the Airport terminal) on the Fife line. This option could achieve better integration into the heavy rail network by the provision of an interchange at Gogar between Tram Line 2 and the existing railway line to Fife, providing a fast surface link to the airport terminal. With the construction of a Dalmeny Chord and four-tracking of some or all of the line between Junction and a new Dalmeny South Junction, services to Glasgow and Stirling / Dunblane would also serve the new Gogar interchange.

3 At a very late stage, the promoter did commission an analysis into this option. In December 2005, the promoter published an analysis of providing access into the Airport from a Turnhouse station site. Amongst other things, this study estimated that the provision of a sub-surface travelator into the Airport complex would cost £207 million, and concluded that such a project would prove “poor value for money”. There has been no independent review of this cost estimate; however, this figure raises for us further questions about the likely outcome cost of the rail tunnel option if a sub-surface pedestrian travelator is judged to have a project cost of over £200 million.

3.1.4 This alternative proposal has the benefit of being incremental. A rail station at Gogar/Turnhouse could be delivered in a relatively short timescale given that it lies within the footprint of the existing railway; it also does not rule out long-term development of a rail tunnel option if and when finances allow. The sole drawback of this alternative is that it doesn’t provide a direct rail link from station to Edinburgh Airport - yet Tram Line 2 provides Edinburgh Park with a direct tram link into the Airport.

3.2 Increases in journey times for mainline train services

3.2.1 We consider the lengthening of journey times on the Scottish mainline rail lines as an unacceptable consequence of this project. Section 93 of the Promoters’ Memorandum sets out projected increases of 6.5 minutes on Edinburgh-Aberdeen, 3.5 minutes on Edinburgh-Fife and 6 minutes on Edinburgh-Stirling-Dunblane.

3.2.2 Whilst the promoters currently claim that the EARL project will not increase journey times on the flagship Edinburgh-Glasgow rail line, we do not have confidence in this claim. The recent press reports that Transport Scotland are investigating electrification of the E&G Line on the basis of mitigating the impacts of EARL on E&G journey times have increased our concerns in this area.

3.3 Excessive cost / Opportunity cost for other rail scheme development

3.3.1 At an estimated project cost of up to £650 million, the EARL project is excessively expensive. Should it be pursued as a priority project, it would undoubtedly damage the potential for other, more important, rail schemes to be delivered.

3.3.2 There are many rail schemes in south-east Scotland that the Scottish Executive and local authorities have made political commitment to yet have not provided secured funding. Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 & 2 – another tie limited project, and one which TRANSform Scotland strongly supports - still has a major funding gap. Furthermore, the long-promised rebuilding of Waverley Station to accommodate new long-distance and regional services has no funding beyond the current limited upgrade, while there are outstanding questions as to whether important regional projects such as the Borders and Airdrie-Bathgate rail lines have secure funding.

3.3.3 We note that a direct consequence of the EARL project – in order to mitigate journey time lengthening as a result of EARL – is expenditure on new rolling stock for Scottish inter-city and Central Belt regional services.4 While we welcome such planned enhancements, we consider that the cost of these enhancements should necessarily be attributed to the EARL project. There is a

4 Promoter’s Memorandum paragraph 93. compelling case for these enhancements to be undertaken in their own right, ahead of expenditure on EARL.

3.4 Risk elements make cost estimates questionable

3.4.1 In the context of large cost escalation evident with many other schemes of this scale, we are not reassured that the current cost estimates are realistic. The recent £150 million increase in the total expected cost for this project has increased our concerns in this area.

4. Conclusions

4.1 The current EARL proposal is poor value in the context of other, more pressing, requirements for investment in the Scottish rail network. Edinburgh would be much better served by the £650 million devoted to EARL to be spent on a genuinely nationally-important major rail project such as the reconstruction of Edinburgh Waverley Station.

4.2 The principal benefit of this EARL proposal seems to be that it provides a station within the footprint of the Airport. However, the failure to conduct a robust option development process that looked at other, better value, proposals severely undermines the EARL proposal. The Gogar interchange/Dalmeny Chord proposal would provide much the same benefit at greatly reduced costs.

4.3 Pursuing a more affordable project would allow finances to be released for higher priority projects such as Waverley station major rebuild or steps to improve reliability and line speed for Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh- Dundee-Aberdeen journeys.