GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT – WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL PROMOTER’S COMMENTS ON THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF MRS ALISON J BOURNE, GROUP 33 LEAD OBJECTOR
As this Witness Statement is quite long it is thought likely to be of convenience to both the Committee and to Group 33 for the promoter’s comments and rebuttal points to be made following each paragraph, where appropriate. This document is a companion to the other rebuttals that address the issues of principle the promoter considers have been raised by Group 33.
Executive Summary
1 “I do not think that we have a specific view on whether a closed loop is good, bad or indifferent. The better way of looking at it is to make sure that the right route is chosen. Stewart Lingard mentioned earlier that French and German systems make sure that the right connections are made where there are centres or points of economic activity such as hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, shops and the business district. Those places are the centres of economic activity and that is where the patronage base is. The route itself is the key.”
Quote from Keith Holden, NAO representative, to Tram Lines 1 and 2 Committees – September 2004. Promoter: We agree entirely with the quotation from Keith Holden. [A Oldfield]
2 The Western General Hospital (WGH) is often the first port of call in time of crisis for residents in the north and west of Edinburgh. It is anticipated that the north of Edinburgh will see a population increase of approximately 50,000 over the coming years. The areas of Granton, Pilton, Muirhouse and Drylaw are areas of very low car ownership and 70% of residents there have no access to a car. Often, people attending the Minor Injuries Clinic at the WGH are subsequently referred to A&E at the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) at Little France.
Promoter: We agree and appreciate the importance of the Western General Hospital although it is noted that the hospital does not have an Accident and Emergency Facility. [B Cross]
3 It is the view of the Group 33 objectors that the provision of a tramline to connect the Waterfront Development with the city centre does not preclude the provision of direct stops at key generators en route, particularly the Western General Hospital on Crewe Road South. Indeed, the prioritisation of key generators has been promised by the Promoter in their consultation leaflet and identified as highly important by the National Audit Office.
Promoter: Stops on the proposed route serve the WGH; either by pedestrian access or frequent shuttle bus. The shuttle bus arrangements provide better access to the WGH than simply alighting at the Crewe Road South. Tram stop proposed by the objector because it is able to take passengers to destinations within the hospital site. This is particularly important for people with impaired mobility. The pedestrian link from the WGH stop caters for able bodied passengers accessing the hospital via the Telford Road gate. This caters particularly for staff who, we understand, currently use the Telford Road gate as a means of access to the WGH. [A Oldfield]
4 The subsidised No. 38 bus currently links the WGH and RIE. It is not a direct service, but rather it weaves through the city. The journey is scheduled to take about one hour but frequently takes longer, particularly during Festival time. It is, therefore, more convenient, if one has access to a car, to use that mode of transport.
1
Promoter: The tram can only improve this issue. [B Cross]
5 The cost of a taxi from the north of Edinburgh to the RIE is expensive (depending on time of day but can be up to £26). This clearly represents a great deal of money to many people, who do not have access to a car or cannot afford the time to use the in-direct bus service.
Promoter: The tram can only improve this issue. [B Cross]
6 Hospital staff already park in surrounding streets and this has been increasing over the years. Such parking can be detrimental to road safety, for example by blocking access for emergency vehicles. The proposed extension to the restricted Central Area Parking Zone area will cover the area to the east of Crewe Road South. Parking restrictions are already in place to the west.
Promoter: Noted - It is accepted that the tram is a means of reducing travel by car. The proposed route does serve the WGH (see para' 3) and will therefore alleviate parking problems at that location to some degree. Experience from other schemes indicates that around 15 to 20% of the tram patronage can come from people who would otherwise travel by car. On that basis we expect that by 2011 about 42,000 more car trips per year will transfer to tram using the proposed route compared to the objector's proposed route via Crewe Road South (the difference for year 2026 being 75,000). The proposed route therefore offers a higher proportion of transfer from car to tram than the objector's route and consequently reduce the demand for parking overall. Much of the difference in modal shift occurs because the run time is shorter on the proposed route; which therefore attracts a larger number of through passengers. Overall, balance must be struck between achieving the run time required for the through patronage and measures required to attract local patronage.
The experience on successful tram schemes is that this is best achieved by a relatively direct and uninterrupted route through - and between -the points of economic activity referred to by Keith Holden. The alignment via the Roseburn Railway Corridor achieves this. The alignment proposed by the objector represents a large "dog leg" in an otherwise relatively direct and high-quality alignment. It therefore results in a shift away from the optimum balance between local patronage and through patronage. Furthermore, the pattern of ridership applicable to this through patronage is likely to be such that many passengers will use the tram during the peak times; thus providing relief to the congested transport network (and parking facilities) at times in the morning and evening, when it is most needed. This will therefore provide the greatest economic and environmental benefit to Edinburgh.
The pattern of ridership, associated with the WGH patronage, is likely, to be spread more evenly throughout the day and will be influenced by with shift change times, clinic appointment times and in-patient visiting hours. The result is a steady turnover in parking at the WGH throughout the course of the day, rather than the more problematic peak hour demands experienced elsewhere.
It should also be noted that, in accordance with current planning standards, the level of parking provision within the major new developments in north Edinburgh will be strictly limited. This will create a demand for public transport which, if unfulfilled, will result in car owners parking additional automobiles away from their homes and using streets in north Edinburgh that are not part of controlled parking zones for ‘fly parking’. [A Oldfield]
7 Many staff members and visitors use cars to access the WGH. This is not environmentally desirable and, in the long term, is not sustainable. In order to encourage as many people to switch to sustainable modes of travel, it is essential that improved public transport be provided, which is both direct and frequent, so that people can be tempted out of their cars. Tram Line One provides an opportunity to introduce such improved public transport but the current alignment, running along the former Roseburn railway corridor, is too far away to be attractive to people travelling to and from the WGH. The nearest tram stop would be circa 350m from the back entrance to the WGH, with a further circa 400m to the main public buildings – too far to be attractive for most people.
2
Promoter: The proposed route serves the WGH (see para' 3) also note the proposed WGH stop is about 190m from the WGH. A summary of journey times to destinations within the hospital site is provided as part of Mr Oldfield's rebuttal. For example, passengers travelling from the direction of the city centre direction via the proposed tram route arriving at the WGH main reception will take around 30 seconds less than by the Crewe Road option proposed by the objector. Proposals to reconfigure the Telford Road access would offer further improvement in travel time such that travel via the proposed route would be approximately 3 minutes shorter via the proposed route than via the Crewe Road route. [A Oldfield]
8 In order to seek to reduce car trips to/from the WGH, Tram Line One should serve the hospital directly and should, therefore, run along Crewe Road South. The current position of the proposed tram stop is between the Drylaw and Telford housing estates and the Royal College of Nursing Scotland have confirmed they do not anticipate many of their members travelling to/from the WGH early in the morning or after dark would be likely to use this tram stop.
Promoter: Safety, security and attractiveness of the proposed walkway from the WGH stop, in common with other access ways to and from stops on the system, is a concern and will be addressed as part of the detailed design. This particular access will be illuminated and is likely to have a full cctv coverage. The proposed Crewe Toll Interchange and frequent shuttle bus will provide a first class facility for those who choose not to make the short walk for whatever reason; darkness, inclement weather, mobility impairment for example. Discussions with the Lothian and Borders Police, Community Safety Department, have endorsed the promoter’s belief that the addition of the tram to the corridor will have a positive effect on safety and security in the area rather than a negative one. They will also be consulted as part of the detailed design on access routes to and from the Roseburn Corridor as well as on issues associated with the corridor itself. [G Turner/B Cross]
9 Although Tram Line One will be some distance from the WGH, it is proposed to reduce existing bus services on Crewe Road South by 30%, in order to provide patronage for the tram system. Some of the bus services that are to be altered/withdrawn currently serve the Social Inclusion Partnership area. It is the view of Group 33 that such a reduction is completely unjustifiable, given that the WGH will receive no compensatory benefit from the tram.
Promoter: In calculating the economic impact of the Edinburgh Tram an informed "best guess" was made as to the reaction of bus passengers and operators. Whilst the modeling assumed a reduction in bus service provision this will not happen in practice, and is certainly not an objective. Both Lothian Buses and Transdev have confirmed that they will not be reducing bus frequencies to the WGH as a result of the introduction of the tram. This reflects an obvious commercial view that even with both tram lines very many trips will continue to be made by bus. The creation of Transport Edinburgh Limited will provide the mechanism for this integrated approach. [B Cross & D Dapre]
10 The WGH is a teaching hospital and approximately 2,500 NHS staff and medical students per week use the free WGH/Royal Kids Hospital/RIE bus service provided by NHS Lothian every day. This bus service is a drain on Trust funds. Some members of staff, employed at the new RIE, park at the WGH because of the lower parking charges and then use the free hospital shuttle bus. The shuttle bus takes approximately 50 mins to complete the journey between the WGH and the RIE.
Promoter: Noted, although the relevance is unclear. [B Cross]
11 Since its relocation to Little France, the RIE has had serious problems in retaining and attracting staff, not least as a result of transport difficulties. Parking charges at the WGH have recently been introduced, causing further financial burden to hospital staff, many of whom are low paid.
Promoter: Noted, although the relevance is unclear. [B Cross]
12 The RIE at Little France is to have two tram stops on Tram Line Three. It would further appear that the stop serving the east side of the New RIE is to have a “travelator” at a cost of approx £1m as the 200m distance from the front door was considered unacceptable. No such benefit is proposed for the WGH where the most people-dense parts of which lie a considerable distance from the tram stop.
3
Promoter: Noted. However, there are many cases where walk distances are similar to that proposed in this case (such as those from hospital car parks) and in such cases such walk distances have usually not merited a travelator. It should also be noted that line 3 has no funding available for the travelator (or any other part of the scheme); the business case has not been accepted and the proposals have not been scrutinised by a parliamentary committee; the case for provision of the line 3 travelator has not, therefore, been proven. [B Cross]
13 It is difficult to understand how Craigleith Road was missed and I believe this to be a fundamental error as this street has the potential to provide the missing link that would allow Tram Line 1 to run along Crewe Road South, thereby serving the front of the WGH directly. Craigleith Road would address the reasons given by the Promoter for rejecting other links. Running Tram Line One along Crewe Road South would have the potential to provide a direct tram link between Edinburgh’s two main hospitals, with a journey of some 30 minutes.
Promoter: Tram line 1 does not serve the RIE. The tram link between the WGH and RIE would only be possible if Line 3 was in place. Following the ‘No Vote’ in the Congestion Charging Referendum, Line 3 is unfunded, no Bill has been lodged and no progress is being made. The importance of linking the two hospitals appears to be promoted at a cost of ignoring all the very many other major destinations across the City Region. Craigleith Road was considered prior to option sifting. It was not however considered as a potential means of detour from the former rail corridor to the WGH. Rather it was considered as a means of linking the former railway to the city centre. At that stage, it was not considered further because it offered, by inspection, no benefit over the parallel link via Queensferry Road. It was the Queensferry Road link, therefore that was included in the link sifting assessment. A large detour from the former rail corridor to the WGH and back was not considered until suggested by the objector for reasons discussed in para' 6. Instead, a shorter option was considered via Telford Road. In any event, in the promoter’s view, the tram will provide a frequent, comfortable, convenient and speedy means of travel between WGH and RIE in the event that Line 3 was to be implemented. [M Bain (previous consideration of Craigleith Road only) & B Cross]
14 To date, the Promoter continues to state that the Craigleith Option A - Roseburn Corridor option is the more appropriate one and has failed to provide an acceptable argument as to why the Craigleith Option C - Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road option should not be provided.
Promoter: The number of passengers who use the tram (and hence the benefit and the revenue) is higher for the proposed route than for the objector's route via Crewe Road South. The extent of patronage is, therefore, not a relevant argument for the objector's proposed alternative. Construction costs for the objector's proposal are also considerably higher than for the proposed option. The engineering assessment supports the proposed route. It is accepted, however, that providing access to the WGH is important from a social perspective. To some extent this importance is irrespective of the number of people that use the service. The level of importance which should be attached to this is not quantifiable, in Engineering terms. It is accepted that the Crewe Road South provides an opportunity for a stop to be located close to the main access road into the WGH. However, the proposed route does provide access to the WGH as described in para' 3. [Patronage : L Buckman, Cost : N Harper, Other: A Oldfield]
15 The Promoter has stated that the cost of this option is greater than that of Option A. Group 33 would assert that there should never have been any question that a direct tram stop at the Western General Hospital would be provided. Many of the 7,292 priority passengers who travel there every day are elderly and/or infirm, and the additional cost is therefore justifiable on the basis of social justice alone. I would also suggest that the additional cost is justifiable for increased patronage over the lifetime of the scheme.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 14. [A Oldfield]
16 The Promoter has stated that it would not be possible to segregate the tramline from general traffic. Group 33 would assert that, to the east of Crewe Road South, there is undeveloped land virtually which would allow segregation for much of its length, if required. Craigleith Road is a great deal wider than many other roads on which the Promoter is proposing
4 to run trams. I am still unclear as to whether a possible route which was segregated on Crewe Road South was ever considered by the Promoter.
Promoter: The segregation of trams on the East side of Crewe road would be physically possible (without building demolition) over part of its length. It would involve private land-take from a number of properties over the full width of the tramway. It would also involve loss of mature trees and habitat. [A Oldfield]
17 Primarily, however, the Promoter has stated that an extra 1 min 14 secs of run time in order to serve the front door of the Western General Hospital would have such a severe adverse impact on patronage as to jeopardise the financial viability of Tram Line 1. The Promoter is unable to provide any evidence to support this view and has produced no modelling reports, despite requests to do so. Group 33 would contend that the additional run time would not be a major disincentive to users of the tram, particularly given the absence of any direct competition from buses from Haymarket to Granton.
Promoter: Updated patronage forecasting clearly demonstrates that there is a material impact on overall Line 1 patronage arising from both the Telford Road option and the Craigleith Road option. [L Buckman]
18 It is the argument over what is more important: minimising journey time or maximising patronage, which is the main bone of contention here. This statement produces evidence to support my assertion that maximising patronage is far more important. The Promoter has yet to produce evidence that minimising journey time is paramount.
Promoter: Speed and patronage are not mutually exclusive. Any route should serve the places that people want to come from and go to, but this has to be at a speed which is acceptable and competitive with the alternatives. There is thus often a tension between serving demand generators and ensuring that journey times to passengers are not extended to the degree that they seek alternatives. Where those alternatives are relatively competitive with the tram, small changes in tram journey time will divert some passengers away to those alternatives and model testing has demonstrated that even 1-2 additional minutes can have significant impacts on demand levels. On that basis, the route development process will reflect this tension, seeking routes that serve demand generators, such as the WGH, but not to the detriment of other passengers. In this context, the Roseburn corridor does enable relatively fast run times to be achieved and hence capture a significant share of the demand between the City Centre and North Edinburgh. [L Buckman]
19 Given the huge expense and upheaval involved in constructing a tram system, it is essential that the route is correct. Group 33 believe that the current proposed alignment should, therefore, be amended to directly serve the WGH .
Introduction
20 My name is Mrs Alison J Bourne and I have prepared this witness statement to support the case being put forward by Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A) that the proposed alignment Edinburgh Tram Line One (TL1) should be amended, in order to better serve the Western General Hospital (WGH). It is with reluctance that Group 33 have put forward the suggested alternative alignment utilising Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road as we feel that there may well exist other alignments which may better serve other key destinations, including the Western General Hospital, but which may not have been identified by the Promoter. It is our view that there should never have been options offered at Craigleith during the public consultation because the Western General Hospital should automatically have been served directly by Tram Line 1. The result of offering two unsatisfactory options at Craigleith has resulted in the complete division of our community. This situation would clearly have been avoided if the Promoter had identified a more satisfactory route at the outset.
Promoter: The proposed route serves the WGH (see para' 3). The option offered at public consultation via Telford Road offered the opportunity for direct access to the rear of the hospital [B Cross]
21 This statement is based on my personal capacity as a local resident of the general Craigleith area rather than in any professional capacity.
5
22 I, along with many other objectors, concerned residents and interested parties, have, for almost two years, argued that the Promoter’s route alignment along the Roseburn Corridor in the vicinity of Telford will not provide adequate access for potential tram passengers wanting to travel to and from the WGH, which is a major public facility and significant traffic generator. My view is unchanged and the Promoter is unwilling to alter the alignment, claiming that the alignment along the Roseburn Corridor is adequate.
23 For two years, I have asked questions, read reports and argued the case for the alignment to be amended. This statement seeks to set out my argument, together with collated evidence and supporting information, which, I respectively submit, clearly demonstrates that at least one alternative alignment to serve the WGH has not been fairly or properly assessed. I believe this alternative option is viable and could be provided, in order to achieve a direct link to what is surely one of the most important of all key destinations – a main city hospital.
24 In my statement, I shall cover the relative points contained within my witness summary. I have also had to revisit issues which I raised in my original objection but which the Promoter failed to answer satisfactorily.
25 I apologise to the Committee for the length of this statement but have been advised that it is necessary at this stage to include as much detail as possible. To the Promoter, who has consistently refused to discuss, let alone answer, my concerns, this is the result and I look forward to at last receiving a proper response to the points raised.
Tram Line One Public Consultation (Covers Promoter’s consultation on Craigleith Options – initial and public consultation. Also covers Promoter’s treatment of Craigleith Options public consultation responses.)
26 Whilst I acknowledge that the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Parliamentary Committee (TL1 Committee) has considered that TL1 Public Consultation process undertaken by the Promoter, during the first stage, there is information, which came to light recently which is relevant to the case and which demonstrates a bias on the part of the Promoter towards the use of the Roseburn Corridor, and that the Promoter had failed to assess all the alternative alignments for serving the WGH and subsequently sought to cover up these failings rather than address them. I hope the Committee will allow me to refer to aspects of the consultation as I feel they demonstrate the Promoter’s determination that only the Roseburn Corridor would do and that they ignored early signs of dissatisfaction with this proposal on the part of other groups.
Promoter: Noted. The promoter did not ignore early signs of “dissatisfaction” nor was the Promoter biased. Evidence was given by, amongst others, the Promoter’s Communications Consultancy during the Preliminary Stage. [Barry Cross]
27 The public consultation “Tramtime” leaflet for TL1 (Doc Ref. AJB-WGH-001) stated:- “Where will the stops be? Possible stop locations are being investigated. Convenience for passengers is a priority, particularly at shopping centres, school, hospitals, railway stations and housing areas”. However, the proposed TL1 route did not provide direct stops at any shopping centre, school, hospital and housing area from Granton to Haymarket, via Roseburn? This point puzzled me greatly from the start.
28 The accompanying map on the leaflet was very vague and had no scale shown. It did not show that, where the route runs along West Granton Access, there is very poor pedestrian access from East Pilton to tram stop 18. The map did not show the new site of Edinburgh’s Telford College near tram stop 17 and, indeed, it made it look very close to the old site of the college, when that site in fact lies some distance away, past Crewe Toll Roundabout. The map did not show the front door of the WGH, on Crewe Road South, nor the sites of Fettes College, Broughton High School, Craigroyston High School, the Nursing College, Flora Stevenson’s Primary School or the Police Headquarters. It showed the Northern General Hospital, which closed years ago and is now a supermarket.
29 It is the view of Group 33 and many other objectors to the Tram Line 1 Bill that there should never have been any question but that Tram Line 1 would serve the front door of the Western General Hospital. There are clear arguments, including social justice, environmental benefit, safety and improved patronage, which should have ensured that a thorough examination of route options at this location was undertaken.
6
Promoter: Please see para' 20.
30 I attended the public consultation meeting at Granton, in June 2003, where Mr Howell, Mr Macaulay and Mr Callander of Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE) stated that after the introduction of the tram, they would be able to “move thousands of people from the Waterfront to Haymarket in minutes”. I noted no mention was made of where existing local residents may require to travel or how the tram will improve public transport provision for existing local communities. Mr Howell went on to state that, because the Promoter had been unable to decide on the route at Craigleith, two options were to be put to the public for it to decide. However, they all added that the Roseburn Corridor offered the advantages of speed and lower construction cost and made it very clear that their preferred option was, in fact, the Roseburn Corridor (Option A) rather than Telford Road (Option B).
Promoter: The comments attributed to tie representatives are not disputed, although they were made in the context of the total benefits that would accrue to the whole City and its citizens. Although the STAG analysis indicated that the railway corridor provided the ‘best’ route for the tram the Council and tie were mindful that the WGH was a significant destination and more should be done to see whether it could be served even more directly. This work included seeking the views of the public. [B Cross]
31 At the end of the meeting, I asked Mr Macaulay two questions: one related to the shortfall in construction costs; and the other related to social inclusion. I commented that TL1 appeared not to address at all well the issue of social inclusion and that it seemed that only a passing nod had been given to the importance of serving the WGH. He then reiterated how swiftly trams could run on the Roseburn Corridor and how much cheaper that option would be. I was concerned by the lack of understanding displayed by the Promoter’s representatives of the problems that the public face regarding access to the WGH. This, then, is how my own unease over the WGH began.
32 Other local residents and I were very concerned that the proposed TL1 scheme was not serving the local communities in the west area as best in could. Opportunities for maximising social inclusion and serving the WGH were being over- looked. A number of residents therefore submitted letters of objection to the TL1 public consultation. When TIE eventually replied, the responses were less than satisfactory.
33 In a response (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-002), dated 11 August 2003, to Ms P Craik, resident of Groathill Road South, TIE stated that a Crewe Road South/Orchard Brae route option had been previously assessed but had the disadvantages of difficulties with Crewe Toll Roundabout, steep gradients, difficult connection between Queensferry Road and the Roseburn Corridor and concluded that this longer route would have a slower journey time that the Roseburn Corridor. It was clear that TIE considered the fast journey time obtained on the Roseburn Corridor as the critical factor, rather than what facilities the tram was serving in this area.
Promoter: please refer to para' 18. In addition, the complex physical nature of this proposal makes it more likely to be costly to engineer this militating against its adoption. [L Buckman & A Oldfield]
34 In addition, the letter stated that the main objectives of the proposed northern tram loop is to provide a high quality public transport link between the socially deprived suburbs of Drylaw, Pennywell and Pilton to the waterfront developments. However, the tram route is too far away from Pennywell to be considered accessible and it only serves one half of Pilton, as the east is barely accessible to the tram route and runs along one edge of Drylaw, all with few tram stops. The most deprived suburb, Muirhouse, is not even mentioned.
Promoter: We accept that the Proposed Route does not serve the Muirhouse area, which does suffer from the highest levels of deprivation in northern Edinburgh (as shown in Figure 3.5 of STAG). However, the route and stops at Telford Road, Crewe Toll and Pilton will provide access to Drylaw and Pilton. In addition the integration of bus and tram will ensure access for all citizens of North Edinburgh. [L Buckman]
35 In relation to patronage, the letter stated that the important criterion is not population of the city but the catchment area. Strange then, that TIE should be seeking to use the Roseburn Corridor route, which has the lowest catchment area density of all the potential route alignments in the local area.
7
Promoter: The population density along the Roseburn corridor is comparable to that along Crewe Road South (see Figure 3.1 of STAG report). Also, please refer to para′ 18. [L Buckman]
36 In a response (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-003), dated 18 August 2003, to myself, TIE gave a list of routes that had been considered in relation to Crewe Road South. They all used Orchard Brae and then different sections of Queensferry Road. The letter stated that the Crewe Road South had been discounted due to low patronage arising from the omission of an interchange at Haymarket, the first time that this requirement had been mentioned. No mention was made of a Craigleith Road route option.
Promoter: The letter reflected the outcome of the patronage modelling assessment for the STAG appraisal of the Crewe Road option in the Work Package 1 report in December 2002. 2.42. Haymarket and the West End is an increasingly important part of the City Centre and Haymarket is a key hub in the public transport network. On this basis, it is desirable that it is served by Line 1. Haymarket was identified prior to the route development and sifting stage as a key point to serve to maximise integration. Section 3.1 of the WP1 report is quite clear on the advantages in this regard of serving the rail stations in Edinburgh [L Buckman]
37 The letter also made reference to a possible Pennywell Road option but stated that the increased run time of 3- 4 minutes would reduce the attractiveness of the system to through trips, notably between Granton and Haymarket/City Centre. This was the first time that TIE had implied that through journeys were more important than local centres of potential demand.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 18. [L Buckman]
38 At this time, the City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) Planning Committee approved a report on the Tram Project (Doc ref AJB-WGH-004). Paragraph 3.14 states:- “In the western part of the Line, a choice is to be made between a route along the cycleway (former railway line) which skirts Drylaw (west of Telford Road) or a route along Telford Road, connecting with the Western General Hospital.”
39 This would suggest that the Planning Committee did not consider that Option A was serving the WGH. In addition, to state that the route along the cycleway “skirts Drylaw” is hardly an endorsement for serving this residential area.
Promoter: The Planning Officer is merely describing in words the routes of the two options. [B Cross]
40 Further, paragraph 3.20 relates specifically to the WGH option. The report states:- “… it is clear that a route connecting with the Western General Hospital would help to reduce car travel associated with a major traffic generator within the city.” This accords with the views of local people.
Promoter: The planning report is describing the Telford Road route without reference to the patronage forecasts. [B Cross]
41 Paragraph 3.20 also states:- “Neither route serves the (Craigleith) retail park.”, Which implies that a tram stop some 300m from a destination is not considered as serving it properly.
Promoter: The planning committee's statement was made without reference to patronage modeller inputs. It should be noted that the retail park is expanding such that the facility will be directly served by the Craigleith stop. [B Cross]
42 Paragraph 3.20 concludes:- “… if connection with the hospital is not possible, despite the importance of achieving this, then consideration should be given to creating a connection with the retail park..” This shows that the Planning Committee acknowledged the importance of serving the WGH and raised it as a concern.
8
Promoter: Both the retail park and the WGH are served by the proposed route. Please refer to para' 3 and para' 41. [l Buckman]
43 In a response (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-005), dated 22 September 2003, to Ms P Craik, TIE again stated that the Crewe Road South route option had been considered previously but rejected due to the low patronage arising from the Haymarket interchange. A list of options was included but only included Orchard Brae, as a continuation of Crewe Road South.
Promoter: Please see para' 18 and para' 36. [L Buckman]
44 In September 2003, TIE announced details of the outcome of the public consultation. In a letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH- 006), dated 26 September 2003, to Mr and Mrs Bourne, TIE advised:- For the Craigleith Options, the results were:-
Option A (Roseburn Corridor) 535 (37.70%) Option B (Telford Road) 715 (50.40%) Don’t Know 169 (11.90%)
45 However, the letter stated that whilst the consultation responses show Option B as the favoured route, TIE was recommending Option A as the preferred route, after further analysis, due to:-
• Improved operations and running time; • Segregation from other traffic and additional safety factors; • Conversion of disused rail is more cost-effective.
Promoter: Aileen Grant’s Note “Selection of Route Along the Roseburn Corridor” remarks at her para' 4.3 “The [CEC] Planning Committee reviewed the outcome of the consultation exercise in October [2003] and noted the following: ‘The consultation responses favoured Telford Road. Some of the weighting, however, is the result of a number of petitions and actions by cycle groups. There was strong support for the railway corridor as a means of segregating trams from traffic and lessening congestion in the Telford Road area. Following further analysis tie is recommending the railway corridor as the preferred option due to [the bullet points mentioned in para' 45 plus the point made in para' 46 below.] [B Cross]
46 In addition, the letter stated:- “No cycleways will be lost - as these will be reinstated as part of the construction process. This was the main factor for influencing choice of Option A.”
Promoter: The statement is incorrect: this was not the "main factor influencing the choice of option A". Please refer to para' 14 [A Oldfield]
47 Naturally, many people were outraged that TIE was recommending that the democratic vote be ignored. In addition, the reasons put forward for selecting Option A made people question why two route options had been offered in the first place as Option A was always going to have a faster run time and be cheaper to construct. The idea that the cycling lobbies’ mistaken view that a cycleway would be lost did not seem a believable reason for TIE’s decision to select Option A.
Promoter: Public consultation was an important factor in coming to a recommendation on which option should be adopted. It was not however the only parameter, nor did it ‘trump’ all other factors. It should also be remembered that a sizeable minority (38%) favored the railway corridor option. [B Cross]
48 However, the argument about low cost being a deciding factor is contradicted in a letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-007), dated 26 September 2003, from TIE to R Bourne, as the letter states:- 9
“You are correct that the Telford Road scheme is more expensive to construct, however, the economics of the scheme are about achieving a balance between capital outlay and revenue returns and we therefore need to consider if there is significant public preference for either route.” I would agree, absolutely, that the cheapest option should not automatically be selected. The letter also contradicts TIE’s decision to ignore the significant public preference for Option B (Telford Road).
Promoter: It is correct to note that the cheapest option should not automatically be selected. It is one of a number of reasons why the proposed route is selected. Please see para' 14. [A Oldfield]
49 TIE’s treatment of the democratic process is also evident when the CEC Planning Committee approved another Tram report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-008), on 2 October 2003, regarding the public consultation responses and TIE’s recommendations.
50 Paragraph 3.5 referred to the Craigleith Options and repeated TIE’s recommendations of its 22 September 2003 letter, again stating that cycleways were the main factor for influencing choice for Option B (I think this should have been Option A). The report recommended accepting TIE’s position, with regard to progressing Option A, without any reference to the Committee’s previous concerns in August 2003. There is a section in Appendix 1, where TIE responds to the Planning Committee’s earlier concern about the WGH, but Option A does not serve the WGH or serve the Craigleith Retail Park, as the Planning Committee had previously recommended the tram alignment should. The report does not explain why Planning Committee’s previous significant concerns, with regard to the tram alignment at Craigleith, are now being set aside and despite recent attempts to ascertain the reasons for this from the Planning Section, I have to date received no explanation.
51 In March of this year, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Planning Section for all documentation relating to Tram Line 1 and the Western General Hospital. For some unknown reason, they insisted on treating my request under Environmental Information Act and, after waiting over 9 weeks, they finally produced to me one solitary e- mail and attachment. They advised that if I wished access to this information, I should attend their office to wade through all their tram files or alternatively, they would photocopy the contents of the files for me at a cost of £119.60. Unfortunately, I work full-time and have found it difficult to justify another tram-related day of work. Furthermore, I was not prepared to pay £119.60 for documentation, the majority of which I did not require. However, I feel it is important to bear in mind the chain of command here. It is my understanding that TIE was to take instructions from CEC. If the Planning Section stated they considered proper provision for the hospital to be important, why did we end up with no provision for the hospital at all?
Promoter: The report reflects the fact that the tram line 1 running on the railway corridor serves both the WGH and the Craigleith Retail Park. Whilst it is accepted that the walk distance is slightly longer to destinations within the WGH using the proposed route; the longer travel time by tram to the stop on Crewe Road via the objector's proposed alternative produces an overall increase in journey time for destinations as indicated in Mr Oldfield's rebuttal. [B Cross & A Oldfield]
52 Document AJB-WGH-008 also made reference to a background paper: TIE’s Consultation Report. This background paper was not presented to the Committee, at its meeting, and the public could only view the background paper at the Council’s Information Centre.
Promoter: Mott MacDonald requested a copy of a summary of the consultation report for the Roseburn/Telford Road options and incorporated it into an update of the options study report for Telford Road. The report (ref 203011/028C) was then issued to the promoter for consideration. [Andrew Oldfield]
53 On examination of TIE’s Consultation Report, I could not understand why the cycling reason should be more important than the WGH, for selecting Option A. It was at this time that I discovered that TIE had not fully reported the public consultation responses for the Craigleith Options to the public, tram objectors and CEC.
Promoter: The public consultation feedback including the view the Telford Rd option improved accessibility to the Hospital was included in the report. [B Cross]
10
54 Section 5 – Line 1 Comments: Craigleith Options (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-009) gives details of comments received that relate to the Craigleith Options. The comments make interesting reading:-
Option A (Roseburn Corridor) 535 votes 245 comments Option B (Telford Road) 715 votes 346 comments
55 Of the 346 comments for Option B, 291 (84%) stated serving the WGH as an important factor in support for Option B. Yet, TIE had made no public mention that this was the main factor why people had selected Option B. Instead, TIE had suggested that cycleways had been the main factor in influencing its choice, yet only 45 comments, regarding loss/impact on cycleways, were made by people supporting Option B. More people had commented on the need for serving the WGH than the total number of comments received for Option A, yet TIE did not report this fact to the public, to tram objectors or to CEC. I would suggest this is because the comments and the votes clearly show that the majority of the public, who responded, recognised that serving the WGH was the most important factor for the tram route in the Craigleith area, but that this was contrary to TIE’s obvious desire to have a fast commuter link between Granton and Haymarket using the cheaper Roseburn Corridor option. Hence, TIE sought to suppress the level of support for the WGH and suggested that people’s concerns that the possible loss of the cycleway was a major factor, which would happen, helped to justify TIE’s recommendation for Option A.
Promoter: Details of consultation responses were included in the consultation report. [B Cross]
56 In addition, Section 7 – Third Party Consultation (Doc Ref AJB-WGH -010) lists all third party submissions. Again, these were not reported to Planning Committee but left as a background paper for Committee members to read if they so wished. However, whilst the list details who responded, the corresponding summaries are inaccurate and misleading. For example, it was not reported that BAE had a preference for Option B – Telford Road. In addition, the summary for Friends of the Earth Scotland (should be Edinburgh) letter, dated 9 July, states:- “…with some comments on options given…”. but fails to mention that Friends of the Earth Edinburgh (FOEE) strongly supported Option B – Telford Road. FOEE subsequently provided me with a copy of their letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-011), which states:- “Option B is strongly supported given its proximity to the Western General Hospital. Although the capital costs might be higher it would be false economy not to serve such a development given the high number of trips generated by visitors and staff. The farebox revenue is also likely to be higher, so the infrastructure cost should not be the only consideration.”
Promoter: The inclusion of important supplementary information as ‘background papers’ rather than appendices is standard practice and is a balance between ensuring that the papers are available for perusal and keeping the size of committee agenda papers within reasonable bounds. [B Cross]
57 In addition, the summary of the response from Transform Scotland only refers to some comments on options. However, its letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-012) states:- “We prefer the Telford Road alignment because it runs closer to the Western General Hospital, a major trip generator.”
58 Further, the summary of the response from the Scottish Association for Public Transport is also incomplete but its letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-013) states:- “Craigleith Option B is preferred because better access to the Western General Hospital and better links with the bus network.”
59 I am disappointed, particularly given the level of importance now placed upon environmental issues, that TIE did not report accurately the responses from the environmental and sustainable transport groups.
Promoter: Care is taken in the preparation of summaries. Councillors and the public have access to the background papers as well as to the summaries. There is no evidence that any of the interested organizations objected to the way in which their views had been summarized. [B Cross]
11
60 Section 9 – Public and Community Meetings (Doc Ref AJB-WGH - 014) lists all the meetings undertaken during the public consultation, with transcript records. From these records, the Promoter gave answers and comments that conflict with the decision to subsequently recommend the Craigleith Option A – Roseburn Corridor route.
61 At the 3 June 2003 meeting, Mr Macaulay stated:- “The reason that the tram will run along streets is so that they serve local residents better.” (Q7 answer.) This conflicts with a route along the Roseburn Corridor.
Promoter: The tram does run on streets throughout substantial sections of its route (more so than on most other schemes). [A Oldfield]
62 At the 3 June 2003 meeting, Mr Brown stated:- “Bus services will not be displaced by trams.” (Q9 answer.) This conflicts with the Promoter’s proposals to reduce bus services, notably on Crewe Road South by 30%.
63 At the 4 June 2003 meeting, Mr Howell stated:- “Trams should run down the main roads so that they service more people adequately.” (Q4 answer.) This conflicts with a route along the Roseburn Corridor.
Promoter: Please see para' 9. [B Cross]
64 At the 4 June 2003 meeting, Mr Macaulay:- “Stressed that there was no preferred route at present but it was judged that it would be necessary for the selected route to stop close by the Western Infirmary.” (Q9c answer.) This conflicts with the route along the Roseburn Corridor, which is not close to the WGH.
Promoter: The proposed stop is close to the WGH. Please refer to para' 3 and 7. [A Oldfield]
65 A recent Freedom of Information (FoI) request to TIE revealed some documents relating to initial consultation, which was undertaken prior to the public consultation. The first is the Note of Meeting (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-015) held with Edinburgh Councillors Whyte and Jackson on 30 January 2003. The Note reveals that Councillor Whyte would be strongly opposed to running tram along Telford Road. Councillor Whyte had not consulted his constituents in this area at that time and Group 33 are most surprised to learn of his stance without first seeking the views of local residents.
66 The subsequent Note of Meeting (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-016) held with Edinburgh Councillors Whyte and Jackson on 27 May 2003 states:- “The Telford Road option provides better access to the local hospital and local business.” It is not clear who said this – Councillor Whyte or TIE/consultant - but it suggests that one of them considered Option B better than Option A for serving the hospital.
Promoter: Noted - we agree with whichever councillor said that the Telford Road option provided better access to the Hospital. [A Oldfield]
67 An undated Note of Meeting (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-017) held with Mr Alan Penman, LUH NHS Trust, reveals some interesting information. Mr Penman expressed concern that the proposed tram stops do not appear to serve the Social Inclusion Communities in North Edinburgh. Mr Penman asked if Crewe Road South was ever considered as part of the tram route and the representative of TIE/consultant was unable to answer his question. Mr Penman stated that the WGH’s “front door” is Crewe Road South and that neither of the route options is considered ideal, with Option A being too far away to be of much interest to staff or visitors. There is no mention of TIE/consultant having subsequently checked whether Crewe Road South was considered.
68 The above section shows that during the Promoter’s initial and public consultation, the Promoter was aware that Option A – Roseburn Corridor would be of no or little benefit to the WGH; that the Promoter made conflicting statements with regard to the benefits of running tram on street or off street; that the Promoter ignored the public vote in favour of
12
Option B; that the Promoter concealed aspects of public responses that favoured Option B; and that the Promoter ignored the concerns of the CEC Planning Committee, although the Committee failed to address its own concerns subsequently. From this period, it is difficult to understand why the Promoter recommended Option A, when it clearly fails to adequately serve the WGH, which was a desired by the majority of interested parties.
Promoter: The promoter does not consider that the Roseburn Corridor is of "little benefit to the WGH” [B Cross]
69 The undated document (Doc ref AJB-WGH- 018), obtained under an FOI request states:- “In Craigleith, Option B, which runs along Groathill Avenue and Telford Road has been selected for the final route proposal. The route options that were provided in this area, after many other options were discounted, each had their own advantages and disadvantages in terms of proximity to homes, cost and amenities served.
However, strong public feeling that a route option serving the Western General Hospital is required has prompted tie to move forward with this option, which runs through the Groathill area, and features more on-street alignment than the alternative.”
Promoter: We believe this document must relate to the intention to "move forward" with formal public consultation on the Telford Road option as well as "the alternative" presumably via the former railway. [b Cross/A Oldfield]
70 I find this absolutely astonishing! The public clearly had chosen Option B, the environmental groups had chosen Option B, the Promoter’s Planning Department had expressed a clear objective of serving the hospital and now apparently even TIE preferred Option B! It appears that the only party who did not think that Option B should be adopted could have been TIE’s consultants, Mott McDonald. What was the purpose of this document? Why was the content of this document not acted upon? Why did TIE apparently change its recommendation? I would appreciate an explanation of this from the Promoter.
Promoter: Mott MacDonald did not make the decision on route selection. The engineering facts, together with outputs from the public consultation provided by tie's PR consultants, were considered by tie and the Council and a decision taken on that basis. As summarised in the MM report reference 203011/028C. Mott MacDonald consistently recommended testing the Telford Road option through public consultation but were not responsible for undertaking or reporting on the consultation or for deciding upon the route selection on the basis of consultation outputs. To be clear, Mott Macdonald was responsible for technical development of the scheme and for appraisal of the engineering, operational and environmental aspects of options considered during its development. The team provided a professional view on the comparison of options but all decisions on route choice were made by our clients. [A Oldfield & B Cross]
71 The document undermines the Promoter’s argument that Option A – Roseburn Corridor is the most appropriate route at Craigleith and has the serious implication that the route contained with the Tram Line One Bill should not, therefore, be approved, if it has been selected for reasons other than sound, technical ones.
Promoter: The document is taken out of context. [B Cross]
72 When the Promoter announced its decision to adopt Option A as the preferred route corridor, I telephoned CEC’s Transport Planning Manager, Mr Barry Cross, and asked him why public opinion was being ignored in this matter. He replied that he had “been swayed by TIE’s argument about journey time”. Given that the Transport Planning Manager was employed by CEC, I would have expected him to have demonstrated more concern for the objectives of CEC (and thereby the public). I can find no trace of “minimising journey time” being a CEC objective of the tram scheme, but I have certainly found evidence that serving the Western General was. This was, I believe, a crucial decision when the City of Edinburgh Council, on behalf of the public, abandoned its objective to serve one of the city’s two main hospitals in order to minimise journey time. I would be most interested to learn the basis of Mr Cross’ decision.
13
Promoter: Journey time is key to capturing through patronage, as described in para' 6. The difference in local patronage between the rail corridor and the Telford Road option was not substantial enough to be detectable through the modeling. [L Buckman]
73 Around the same time, Ms Patricia Craik, an objector to the Tram Line 1 Bill, contacted Mr Cross and discussed the issue of the tram and the Western General Hospital with him. At that time, she had two friends who were receiving treatment at the WGH for cancer. She asked Mr Cross: “In the unfortunate event that you were receiving treatment for cancer at the Western, how would you get there?”, to which Mr Cross replied: “I’d get my wife to drive me”. Ms Craik was greatly surprised, upset and worried by the stance taken by CEC’s Transport Planning Manager.
Promoter: Mr Cross’ wife does not drive When he does require to visit hospital for treatment he always does so by bus. [B Cross]
Craigleith Route – Option A (Roseburn Corridor) v Option B (Telford Road) (Covers inadequacy of reasons used by Promoter for selecting Craigleith Option A over Option B.)
74 Under an FOI request, TIE provided various copies of a “Review of Telford Road Options” report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH- 019), which compares the two Craigleith route options. The May 2003 version was prepared prior to the public consultation and the September 2003 version was slightly amended to take account of the consultation. I would highlight the following points, within the 27 September 2003 version of the report:-
• Report states that there is little overall change in patronage between the two options. • Report states that stakeholders believe there is a strong argument for Telford Road, to improve accessibility, especially to the WGH. • Report states that Telford Road option gives easier access to tram system. • Report states that Telford Road option gives better transfer between buses and trams. • Report confirms that Telford Road option is longer. • Report confirms that Telford Road option costs more. • Report states that preferred route from Work Package 1 is the Roseburn Corridor option. • Report states that Telford Road option journey time is 55 seconds longer. • Report states that extended run time for Telford Road option reduces level of through patronage (No figures are given and no evidence presented to back this statement). • Report states that Telford Road option will maximise local patronage, as route is more visible, has more direct access and improved security. • Report states that Roseburn Corridor option has depressed local patronage through poor accessibility to stops and has security issues. • Report states that no patronage data is available for local stops. (Difficult to compare and make judgements!) • Report refers to Consultation – CEC Planning – link to WGH is considered important; other businesses would benefit from Telford Road option; location of stops should maximise passenger uplift; interchange with other public transport should be first class. • Report refers to Consultation – Sustran – Telford Road option seems sensible. • Report refers to Consultation – The Scottish Civic Trust – Telford Road option would increase the public accessibility of the line. • (Report makes no reference to any consultation with the WGH or NHS.) • Report states that accessibility is a key issue, which has influence on patronage, integration and security. • Report gives a summary of the public consultation. (Note Option A comment that it is not far from WGH, so long as a shuttle bus or suitable walkway provided. No mention of BAE, Friends of the Earth Edinburgh, Transform Scotland or Scottish Association for Public Transport support for Option B. ) • Report claims that support for Telford Road option is weighted as a result of petitions and actions from cycle groups. (Option A had one petition, Option B had two petitions – not a great difference. Do views of cycle groups not count? Already demonstrated that only 45 comments made reference to loss of cycleway whilst 291 mentioned the WGH.) • Report states that Telford Road Option is actually 47% segregated, although on street. 14
• Report states that recommendation is for Option A (Roseburn Corridor) because it is faster; segregated; cheaper and no cycleways will be lost. • Report states that there may be merit in commissioning a separate study to examine accessibility issues surrounding the WGH to investigate solutions that could be integrated with the tram system. (Has this been undertaken? If not, why not?)
75 The report shows that there was a clear preference for Option A on the Promoter/consultants’ part, even before the public consultation was undertaken, suggesting a strong bias towards the option, such that the consultation may have been compromised. The subsequent recommendation to adopt Option A, despite stakeholder responses, is questionable. In addition, the report admits that Option B would give better local accessibility to the tram system; have higher local patronage; better serve the WGH; better serve local businesses; better serve local residential areas; be more secure and integrate better with buses. These are surely fundamental requirements of any tram system.
Promoter: Mott MacDonald reported the outcome of an Engineering appraisal and incorporated information on the "Result of consultation" as provided by others following consideration and conclusion by the promoter on the basis of consultation outputs. [A Oldfield]
76 However, the Promoter claimed that the additional 55 seconds journey time affects through patronage, without giving any evidence or figures to back this claim. This argument has been put forward repeatedly by the Promoter as the reason why a front door stop at the Western General Hospital is not recommended. I have researched this point thoroughly and have been unable to find any expert opinion that says that “minimising journey time” is of paramount importance to the success of a tram scheme and would be grateful if the Promoter could produce expert evidence to substantiate this view.
Promoter: The objector is incorrect to state that run time “is of paramount importance”. However, it was a contributory factor in concluding that, on a technical basis, the preferred route was via the Roseburn Rail Corridor. Shorter run time is achieved by relatively straight and uninterrupted passage of the tram and is essential in order to maintain attractiveness for through patronage. This issue of the optimum balance between through patronage and local patronage is detailed in para' 6. The report set out the facts that the increased run times would give rise to a reduction in through patronage but that local patronage would be likely to be depressed. As regards the Telford road option the differences in through patronage and local patronage appear to balance each other such that there is little overall difference in patronage. It should also be noted that increases in run time are also an indicator of likely increases in operating cost (often arising from the requirement to increase the number of vehicles to maintain service frequency). Following further assessment involving analysis of the impact of traffic interface on run times patronage modelling does show a decline in patronage for the Telford Road option. [L Buckman]
77 A FOI request to TIE produced a number of e-mails (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-020), dated 5 September 2003 and one dated 4 November 2003, between TIE and Mott MacDonald and refers to journey time difference between Option A and Option B. The first e-mail, at 15:23 states additional run time is 1 min approximately (taken from Telford Road Options report – May 2003 version). Second e-mail, at 16:10 states that additional run time is 1.5 – 2 minutes. Third e-mail, at 16:35, again states the additional run time as 1.5 - 2 minutes. There is no explanation as to why run time increased by 0.5 - 1 minute.
Promoter: As stated in the report: the run time assessment within the report underestimates the run time on Telford Rd because, at that time, no quantitative traffic modelling assessment had been undertaken or included in the assessment of run time. The 1 minute estimated run time therefore was an underestimate of the run time and therefore conservative in terms of it’s impact upon through patronage. Following more detailed assessment of the run times we have concluded that, taking account of the traffic interface, the run time difference between option A and option B is 2.5minutes (even the 1.5 to 2 minute estimate is therefore conservative in terms of the assessment of impacts on patronage for the Telford Road option. However, even with the under-estimate in run time a further minute on the run time on Telford Road is likely to give rise to a loss of through patronage of around 150,000 passengers per annum with no discernable improvement in local patronage (Les Buckman can explain this further). [A Oldfield]
15
78 The figure of 1.5 - 2 minutes conflicts with the 23 September 2003 version of the Telford Road Options report, which has a 59-seconds run time difference. The fourth and final e-mail, dated 4 November 2003, confirms the additional run time as 59 seconds again. In an important and costly transport scheme, it is to be hoped that all information is accurate and consistent but, sadly, this is not the case.
Promoter: see para' 77.
79 The above two sections demonstrate that TIE has shown a clear bias for the Option A – Roseburn Corridor route and sought to play down the merits of any other option. TIE has also downplayed support for other options, especially Option B – Telford Road, during the public consultation exercise, in order to protect its preference for Option A. The fact that the democratic process had been, at best, “suspect” was not lost on Councillor Anderson, Leader of the Council, at a meeting of the Council Executive, on 21 October 2003. The Executive considered a report from the Planning Committee setting out its views of the tram public consultation exercise and a deputation from Blackhall Community Association (BCA) was heard. Points covering the issues of the Craigleith votes, their treatment and the need to serve the WGH were made by the deputation and Councillor Anderson agreed that the matter required further consideration and instructed that it be referred to the Council’s Environmental Quality Scrutiny Panel (EQSP).
Promoter: tie did not deliberately play down the support for the Telford Road option. [B Cross]
80 The EQSP meeting took place on 29 October 2003. A number of deputations were heard, including those of some affected Ward Councillors. I spoke, representing BCA, and my speech (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-021) covered the points made above, including the treatment of the Craigleith vote and whether Craigleith Road had ever been assessed.
81 A summary of the proceedings of the EQSP (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-022), prepared by Weber Shandwick, shows that neither TIE, Councillor Burns nor Council officials answered my question about the Craigleith Road option. The only reference was from Councillor Whyte, who suggested that information on why this option was not selected should be released and this was supported by Councillor Marshall.
82 It should be noted that Friends of the Earth Edinburgh (FOEE) attended the meeting and again stated its support for Option B and asked for more studies to be carried out. It is also interesting that Councillor Fitzpatrick, Ward Councillor for Pilton, one of the Wards that Tram Line 1 is supposed to be improving, stated that the majority of his constituents were in favour of Option B.
83 When Councillor Jackson suggested delaying matters, in order to get things right, Councillor Burns virtually leapt out of his seat to emphasis the importance of sticking to the timetable for lodging the Bill. This point is, I believe, critical, and why the consideration of the Craigleith Option was subsequently not assessed properly or fairly. It was simply the case that Councillor Burns wanted the tram bills lodged by Christmas Eve 2003 and nothing was to stop this - even if it involved submitting a poor alignment. This point is evidenced by the wording of a press release (Doc Ref AJB-WGH- 023), prepared by Weber Shandwick, dated 26 September 2003. A theoretical question is asked:- “Is the tram being rushed through to benefit developers?” To which the answer is given as:- “No. tie is working to a strict timetable set by the city of Edinburgh Council for the delivery of the tram scheme.”
84 This wording is very subtle in that it is clear that TIE is seeking to shift blame for any rushing of the tram scheme onto the Council.
Promoter: Weber Shandwick's statement was correct. The Promoter’s objective is to have trams running by the end of the decade and whilst that forms part of a programme it has not given rise to the type of errors and shortcuts suggested by the objector. [B Cross]
85 My impression, which accords with that of many other objectors at the time, is that our local councillors were keen to get the tram scheme “off their desks” and believed that, if there were any problems, these would be addressed during the parliamentary process. This stance dismayed us and has resulted in individuals, such as myself, having to expend a
16 great deal of time and effort in ascertaining exactly what has gone wrong with, amongst other things, the Western General Hospital.
Promoter: Whilst the scheme had not been developed in every detail the Council had sufficient information (whether quantitative or qualitative) to reach a decision. Any subsequent quantitative analysis or further development of the scheme has demonstrated that the basis upon which the decision was made by the Council was correct, in terms of the evaluation criteria used. If anything the qualitative assessment of the merits of the proposed option has been found to be conservative. [B Cross]
The “Andersen” Report (Covers failings of the Andersen Report, with initial bias for Option A and not considering all the route options. Covers inadequate and misleading assessment of Crewe Road South. Covers the fact that there was no initial assessment of Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road alignment (Option C).)
86 During September and October 2003, I was in contact with Edinburgh Councillor Andrew Burns, Edinburgh’ Transport Convenor, and we debated the merits of Tram Line 1 and its route. In late October 2003, Cllr Burns provided me with a copy of the “Feasibility Study for a North Edinburgh Rapid Transport Solution” report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-024), (commonly known as the Andersen Report), dated July 2001. This report essentially proposed the Tram Line 1 route.
87 Section 1.1 (numbered p1 of report) advises that the remit of the report was to consider the feasibility of a rapid transit linking the Waterfront development site with the City centre and, following discussions with Forth Ports, expanded to consider a North Edinburgh Loop. This is a specific remit and does not look at a rapid transit scheme for the North Edinburgh area, including existing local communities, but just the new development site.
Promoter: The "Andersen Report" formed the basis upon which the Scottish Executive agreed to fund the development of a STAG 2 appraisal. The City Council recognised that the scheme supported a number of their stated objectives for Edinburgh, as described during the “in principle stage of the Committee review. The brief given to the Line 1 technical, environmental and operational advisors (Mott MacDonald) reflected the outcome of the Andersen report. [B Cross]
88 Section 1.3 (p1 of report) states:- “It rapidly became apparent that the best-fit route alignment should utilise the former railway corridor running from Crewe Toll to Roseburn.” This is would suggest that there was an automatic assumption that the alignment should utilise the Roseburn Corridor, simply because it was there and is in direct contradiction to the recommendations in STAG for “open- mindedness”.
Promoter: An open minded approach was taken to the evaluation of route options, as explained in the rebuttals of Mr Oldfield and Mr Eyles. [B Cross]
89 Section 2 (p4 of report) gives details of the Steering Group, which is made up of various interested parties and stakeholders, being mostly businesses. No representatives from affected local communities are included in this list.
Promoter: CEC officers were represented on the steering group and consultations with elected members during earlier studies (such as the North Edinburgh Public Transport Strategy 2000) were considered as part of the context of the study. [B Cross]
90 Section 3.1.2 (p9 of report) refers to the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) and its five objectives – Economy, Environment, Safety, Integration and Accessibility. Report claims that the remit has been undertaken in accordance with the STAG objectives. However, only the selected final route alignment was assessed against the STAG objectives. All the original route options, which were discounted, were not assessed against the STAG objectives, but dismissed on purely brief and subjective consideration.
Promoter: The appraisal has been undertaken in line with STAG. Colleagues from Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) were involved in the development of STAG for the Scottish Executive and provided advice upon it's
17
interpretation and application for this project. Following Identification of potential route links; the links were assessed against a defined set of criteria, as detailed in the Work Package 1 Report. There is no requirement to apply STAG criteria at the link sifting stage. For clarity we would refer the objector to Figure 1 of the executive summary of STAG. The resulting route options were assessed in accordance with the STAG1 and 2 Appraisal Summary Tables. The options for Telford Road and Crewe Road have been properly assessed in accordance with STAG. [L Buckman]
91 Section 4 talks about problems in North Edinburgh but mainly considers how the new development proposals can be accommodated. Section 4.3.1 (p23-25 of report) refers to a previous report, undertaken by another consultant in 2000, which looked at public transport in North Edinburgh. This previous report recommended a guided bus route, using the Roseburn Corridor. The previous report advised that a light rail option between Granton and Haymarket was not cost effective. The Andersen Report appears to have simply picked up on the previous recommended route and just sought to show why a light rail scheme is acceptable.
Promoter: The statement is incorrect. The Andersen study did not simply pick up on the 2000 study referred to by the objector and "show why a light rail scheme was acceptable". A large range of route links and modes were considered from which a number of route options were developed and assessed (one of which was segregated busway from Granton to Haymarket). The best performing option was to the option using light rail for the full "northern loop". [A Oldfield]
92 Combining the above with Section 5.3.1 (p32 of report), which advises that the majority of the optional routes identified are alternatives to using the disused Granton to Haymarket railway corridor, it is clear that everything has been compared against the preferred Roseburn Corridor route, rather than starting the whole process with an open mind in order to consider all the possible options on an equal basis.
Promoter: It is incorrect to say that all options were compared to the Roseburn Option. The merits of each option were assessed against a defined set of criteria so that all options could be assessed objectively against one another. [A Oldfield]
93 Table 5.3.1 (p33 of report) gives a list of the route option links considered for Scenario 1 Granton to Haymarket only). This table shows that Crewe Road South was considered as part of the route options but closer examination reveals that Craigleith Road was not.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 13.
94 Option 6 includes Crewe Road South, with the route continuing along Orchard Brae. Section 5.4 (p39 of report) advises that Option 6 was discounted because route did not go to Haymarket interchange, there was an issue with Crewe Toll roundabout, and it involved longer journey time and higher cost. However, the Craigleith Road option was not considered, which would have provided the link to reach Haymarket interchange, whilst directly serving the WGH. This would surely offset any longer journey time and be worth the extra expense. Given that there are various major traffic interchanges on the rest of the route of Tram Line 1, the technical issue of Crewe Toll roundabout can surely not be considered critical.
Promoter: Alignment difficulties were encountered in identification of viable links between Crewe Road South and Haymarket. The viable Crewe Road option misses the interchange with Haymarket rail station and was found to perform worse at Work Package 1 stage. The use of Craigleith Road is discussed in para' 13 and para' 6 explains the problem of introducing the large "Craigleith dog leg" from and to the rail corridor in terms of patronage. It also introduces considerable additional operating and capital costs. By inspection it can be seen that the Telford Road Option offered a better means of access to the WGH than the Crewe Road option. It is self evident that passengers would take longer to travel the longer way around on the tram to reach the stop at the front gate of the WGH by the Crewe Road route than via the Telford Road route. On average 7000 people per day travel to the WGH, of which around 4500 are staff. For UK hospitals typically 10% of staff and 10% of patients and visitors use public transport. Thus it is anticipated that of passengers traveling by public transport to the WGH, the majority are and will continue to be staff (including students). As stated in Mark Bain’s rebuttal
18
the City of Edinburgh council investigated the feasibility of converting the Crewe Toll roundabout to a traffic signalled junction. This assessment did not consider the tram passing through the junction. The proposal was discounted as a workable solution could not be developed for traffic. Any alternative avoiding the junction would require the acquisition of land. [M Bain & S Turnbull – traffic & Crewe Toll; L Buckman – patronage “offset” from WGH]
95 As a matter of interest, it should be noted that Option 10 includes Telford Road and Groathill Avenue but this link is also discounted. Why was it then included in the 2003 public consultation if the consultant had previously dropped the option?
Promoter: The Telford Road Option continued to be put forward as an option, as recommended by Mott MacDonald in order that the importance of providing access to the WGH could be assessed through public consultation. The importance of this accessibility issue is a social, rather than an engineering issue and could not be quantified through engineering assessment. Note, though, the issue of numbers of passengers is separate and has been quantified. [A Oldfield]
96 Reasons are found to drop any link that might be used instead of the Roseburn Corridor but the sifting process appears to be very basic and purely subjective. There is no scoring system, which I understand is required by the Scottish Executive, using STAG objectives. Possible links are not compared against each other. There is no consideration of the needs of existing communities through which the links are running. Only after the preferred route has been selected, is it then assessed against the STAG objectives.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 90. [L Buckman]
97 Section 5.5 (p40 of report) mentions Options 4 and 5, which include Pennywell Road. These options are dismissed because the additional route length added increases to capital cost, journey times and operating costs.
98 Section 8 (p79 of report) covers consultation. Consultation is limited to a number of community organisations in or near the redevelopment area. There was no consultation with any other local communities through which the rest of route would run. The WGH was mentioned as important (p80 of report), through the consultation, and the business community, who formed the majority of the consultees, preferred a rail-based system rather than buses.
99 Appendix C (Route Alignment Option Appraisal) gives the details of the link options assessment. As mentioned previously, this assessment appears to be very basic and subjective. There is no logical or methodical approach; links are not compared but are individually considered and those options deemed “undesirable” seem easily rejected. The links are shown on Drg. No. 61664/EDN/0001/A.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 90. [L Buckman]
100 Option 6 is considered in Section 4.2.6 (p21-26 0f Appendix C). Notes that main benefit of link is that will give direct access to the WGH, as well as other facilities, such as Police HQ, Fettes College and Telford College. Says this may result in increased patronage compared to Option 1 (Roseburn Corridor). Disadvantages are that the link does not go to Haymarket and there are traffic problems with Crewe Road North and Crewe Toll roundabout, however, the main disbenefit is stated as being longer journey time. Crewe Road South itself is not mentioned as a problem road and, therefore, any reason that Promoter has since given that it cannot be used is difficult to accept.
Promoter: It is physically possible to put trams on Crewe Road South. The route is longer; more costly; has considerable traffic interface and potential for consequent impact on the wider road network (including residential roads); it has lower patronage and higher operating cost. Running off street to avoid traffic impacts creates further environmental impact. The views of the substantial number of residents who would be affected is unknown. [L Buckman (patronage) & A Oldfield]
101 It is interesting that not going to Haymarket is deemed a disadvantage but not the principal disbenefit. This would suggest that a route with a shorter journey time, even if not going to Haymarket, could have been considered. This
19 argument is reinforced by the assessment of Option 8 (p27 of report), which is discounted because of geometry rather than lack of connection with Haymarket.
Promoter: Missing Haymarket (as per the Crewe Road option considered at Work Package 1 stage) has considerably lower patronage. [L Buckman]
102 Some of the problems with Option 6 have been addressed by the current alignment, which uses the South Granton Access, hence addressing the problems with Crewe Road North. Using Craigleith Road would allow a link back to Haymarket.
Promoter: Noted. Again, the points raised in para' 18 apply - the effects of considerable detour from the straight and segregated alignment afforded by the rail corridor in terms of the adverse impact upon the balance between local and through patronage. [L Buckman]
103 Option 4 – Pennywell Road (p18-20) benefits West Pilton and Muirhouse but is dismissed because the longer journey times, of up to 5 minutes. However, this is not modelled, no actual patronage figures are given and what are the alternatives from Haymarket?
104 Option 17 – City Centre (p44-45) notes that there is no easy solution to the challenge of developing a LRT alignment …. however, few alternative alignments exist. It continues that, despite these challenges, the alignment would benefit from direct access to some key focal points for patronage.
105 Option 19 - Leith Walk to Granton (p57-58) includes the narrow roads of Constitution Street, Starbank Road and Trinity Crescent. Notes that there are several major challenges but route improves patronage, even though much of the route is on street with longer journey times.
106 The comments relating to Option 17 and Option 19 show how the Promoter switches an argument to suit its case. At Craigleith, the Roseburn Corridor is used because it is fast and there are no traffic problems, even if local patronage is lower. However, Options 17 and 19 show that traffic problems will have to be addressed in order to get higher local patronage, even if slower. The argument used to justify Options 17 and 19 can be applied to using Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road. Craigleith Road would address the reasons given by the promoter for rejecting other links. This option would give higher patronage and directly serve the key destination of the WGH. The provision of good access to a major health facility should not be determined purely by run time and cost. There is a clear social justice argument here.
Promoter: The objector ought not to draw comparisons from the options 17 and 19 in this way. Route selection has been undertaken on the basis of individual merits which vary; depending upon the local issues and options available. If, for example, there was a former rail corridor serving the city centre (option 17) which was reserved for future use as a transport corridor then we might well have been inclined to use it. [A Oldfield]
Treatment of Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road Route (“Option C”) (Covers Potential Option C – to directly serve the Western General Hospital – not properly considered during November/December 2003; Promoter’s reasons for not pursuing Option C and failings of the Craigleith Report.)
107 As mentioned previously, I had been exchanging e-mails with Councillor Burns on the subject of trams and, specifically, the WGH. As a result, Councillor Burns offered a meeting to discuss the issues, in more detail. This meeting was held on 3 November 2003 and there were 13 attendees. The official notes of the meeting (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-025), which were subsequently issued, differ considerably from my recollection of events. Notes of meeting, taken by Reinstate (now CHAG) and myself (Doc ref AJB-WGH-026), but not circulated to all attendees, demonstrate some of the differences.
Promoter: There appears to be no record of Mrs Bourne, nor any other attendee at the 3 November 2003 meeting, challenging the official note, despite the significance of the meeting and the attendance of Councillor Burns. [B Cross]
20
108 In particular, it was agreed by all present at the meeting that it would be highly desirable to serve the WGH directly but this is not noted in the CEC notes. However, the crucial discrepancy was that towards the end of the meeting, I asked if the Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road option had been assessed. The CEC notes state that Mr Callander explained that distances involved may have been the issue and that TIE would get back to me on various points. However, my recollection (which is substantiated by the Reinstate version) is that TIE/Mott MacDonald clearly admitted that they had failed to assess Craigleith Road but could provide no explanation for this omission. Far from turning cartwheels at the fantastic news that a direct stop for the WGH could be achieved, there followed a “ghastly silence” from the other side of the table! Councillor Burns (looking very shaken) then instructed TIE (looking even more shaken) to undertake an immediate and thorough assessment of that route.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 13, 34 and 6. [A Oldfield]
109 It was upon receiving the CEC version of the notes that I realised that it was going to be essential to check absolutely everything which the Promoter stated in regard to Tram Line 1 and the Western General, in particular, and that the assessment, when it was released, should be carefully scrutinised.
Promoter: please refer to para' 107. [B Cross]
110 On 10 November 2003, the EQSP continued its meeting of 29 October 2003, which had been adjourned. The minutes (Doc ref AJB-WGH-027) refer to the Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road option, but its connection with the Roseburn Corridor is not as suggested by the objectors but by an unknown party. The minutes show the Promoter’s contradictory argument for using former railway corridors. For the Roseburn Corridor, it is admitted that Ravelston will not have high patronage, due to high car ownership, but an alternative alignment in the Trinity area, using a former railway corridor is dismissed precisely because it goes through an area of low density and high car ownership!
Promoter: The railway corridor at Trinity does not offer anything like the same benefits as the railway corridor at Roseburn: It does not offer better patronage; it is longer than the on street option with slower run time; it is not all designated as an LRT corridor in the development plan; and it fails to serve key developments which form part of the driver for the tram scheme. [A Oldfield]
111 On 13 November 2003, CEC Full Council considered a report regarding Tram Lines 1 and 2 (Doc ref AJB-WGH- 028). Sections 3.14 and 3.15 reported the Craigleith options and again gave the biased view, with regard to cyclists, but it did report that Council officials considered the choice finely balanced. Section 3.18 does note that the route at Craigleith requires further analysis, but there is no mention of the new Craigleith Road option or that an instruction had been given for it to be assessed and, therefore, the councillors were not presented with all the facts. I spoke at the meeting (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-029), representing a number of residents in Groathill Road South, Groathill Gardens East and Groathill Gardens West, and sought to draw councillors’ attention to TIE’s unsatisfactory handling of the Craigleith options consultation and also the discovery of the Craigleith Road option, as a potential solution but which had not been assessed by TIE or its consultants. However, I was both shocked and disappointed at the level of disinterest from councillors with regard to the important issue of the WGH. The attitude seemed to be that it was too late and that any problems would be addressed at the parliamentary stage.
112 A FOI request disclosed documentation that shows how TIE was still seeking to ensure that the Roseburn Corridor was selected during this period. An e-mail, dated 13 November 2003, with an attachment, from Weber Shandwick to TIE (Doc ref AJB-WGH-030) demonstrates how statistics were used to distort results of the public consultation. Suggesting that, with regard to the total respondents, it is acceptable to combine the Option A and “Don’t Know” votes to state that there was almost a 50-50 split is simply disgraceful. Following such an argument, it would also be legitimate for objectors to say that 62.3% of votes were not in favour of Option A! The attachment states that 266 people mentioned the WGH as a reason for supporting Option B, but as mentioned early, a count of TIE’s own summary report shows 291 people mentioned the WGH. It is also disgraceful to suggest that, because only 323 out of the combined total of 1419 responses (including the 169 Don’t Knows) mentioned the WGH, this 22.76% is, therefore, low and can be ignored. However, I would point out that the WGH was the most common issue raised, with regard to the Craigleith options, and that if travel time, cost or the cyclepath were each treated the same way, their percentages would be much lower than 22.73%. As an
21 ordinary member of the public, I find this type of manipulation on the part of the Promoter, a body of public servants, to be quite shocking.
113 The FOI also produced an e-mail, dated 27 October 2003, with an attachment, from Dundas & Wilson to CEC (Doc ref AJB-WGH-031). This was a note setting out justification for not routing the tram along Crewe Road South. The content of the attachment is similar to that sent to objectors in August and September 2003. However, the fundamental flaw of the note is that it has not considered the Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road option, which would allow the tram to serve Haymarket and address most of the points of concern. Section 2 of the note acknowledges that neither of the Promoter’s route options serve the WGH directly but it is disappointing that the Promoter seems unable to comprehend that serving the WGH directly would have been desirable. It is this unwillingness to recognise that there is a moral argument involved here, which has been upsetting and worrying to objectors.
Promoter: The Crewe Road/Craigleith Road option would not have been reported in the paper because it had not been assessed at that time. [B Cross]
114 On 11 December 2003, CEC Full Council considered a further report regarding Tram Lines 1 and 2 (Doc ref AJB- WGH-032). Section 3.2.1 reported the Craigleith options and again gave TIE’s questionable view, with regard to cyclists. There was mention of the new Craigleith Road option but that it had been assessed and rejected as not acceptable or practicable and that Option A should be the recommended route. Reasons give were:-
• lower capital cost – (but if an issue, why give a choice in the first place) • greater reliability - (whilst generally true, the Promoter is stating that other on-street sections will be acceptable because priority will be given to the tram. Why is Craigleith Road different?) • lower running times -(Craigleith Road is longer and this is the crux of the Promoter’s argument that fast journey time is the most important objective rather than maximum patronage.) • higher overall patronage – (the Promoter has produced no modelling evidence to support the claim that through patronage will be significantly less. Indeed, the figures show that the Craigleith Road option has a higher total patronage in 2026.)
Promoter: The reasons provided in the report are correct. The capital cost is approximately £22m less for the proposed route; the reliability (relates to run-time reliability) is better for the proposed route (due to traffic interfaces on the objector's alternative); the run time is longer for the objector's alternative giving rise to lower through patronage and higher operating costs plus the cost of two additional tram vehicles at a further £4m. [A Oldfield]
115 I spoke at the meeting (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-033), representing a number of residents in Groathill Road South, Groathill Gardens East and Groathill Gardens West, and sought to draw councillors’ attention to TIE’s biased assessment of the Craigleith Road option and put forward the continued case for Option C as a feasible solution. I was again astonished at the level of disinterest from councillors. However, I should have expected such disinterest, given that I had sent an e-mail (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-034) to all 58 councillors the day before, drawing their attention to issues regarding the Craigleith Road option to which not a single councillor had bothered to reply.
116 At the Council meeting, there were a number of other deputations. Friends of the Earth Edinburgh were unable to attend but did submit a briefing note (Doc ref AJB-WGH-035) suggesting that the more visionary option for the tram system was to locate a tram stop directly outside the WGH. FOEE requested that any decision should be delayed so that it was not based on incomplete or partial information. Unfortunately, all 58 councillors chose to ignore this reasonable request.
117 One of the background papers to the Full Council tram report was the Craigleith Options Summary report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-036) and this is the document that TIE used to dismiss the Option C – Craigleith Road by comparing it with Option A – Roseburn Corridor and Option B – Telford Road. However, I would take serious issue with this report, which has factual errors and is written in a biased form, rather than a purely objective one.
Promoter: The report is factual and unbiased. [A Oldfield] 22
118 Given that the report was prepared by Mott MacDonald, who worked on the Andersen Report, missed Craigleith Road, worked on WP1 and has consistently recommended Option A, perhaps it is unlikely that this consultant would, at this stage, produce a report which arrived at a different conclusion. It would perhaps have been preferable if the assessment had been undertaken by an independent third party, who had had no direct involvement or interest in which option would be best.
Promoter: The option study undertaken by Mott MacDonald for the Andersen Report and that undertaken for the Craigleith Options Summary Report involved two different appraisal teams. It is unclear what Mrs Bourne is inferring here. [A Oldfield]
119 Section 1 – Introduction states that Option A – Roseburn Corridor was identified as part of Work Package 1 (WP1) but makes no reference to the Andersen Report, which first identified the option. Further states that WP1 also considered the alternative route Option B – Telford Road - which had the perceived benefit that it took the tram alignment closer to the WGH. However, there is no mention that TIE had intended only going for Option A and had only included Option B in the public consultation because CEC had instructed it to do so – this was stated, by Mr Callander, at the public consultation meeting, held on 19 June 2003.
Promoter: It is incorrect to state that tie "had intended only going for option A and had only included Option B in the public consultation because CEC had instructed it to do so". In fact it was Mott MacDonald who recommended to tie prior to the public consultation, that option B should be included (this recommendation was included in the Telford Road Option study report issued to tie before the public consultation). tie accepted this recommendation; as did CEC. As such all members of the promoters team were committed to the inclusion of Option B in the public consultation. The option was presented during public consultation on an equal basis to the Roseburn option . The two options were assessed objectively, against STAG criteria. For completeness, following the completion of the public consultation, the summary consultation report provided by Weber Shandwick was incorporated in an update (revision c) of the report in September 2003. It reflected the CEC conclusion drawn from the consultation process. [A Oldfield]
120 The Introduction Section continues that further consultation identified Option C – Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road, which would provide further improved access to the WGH and other local businesses. There is no explanation as to why Option C was never assessed initially, either in the Andersen Report or WP1.
Promoter: Noted: please refer to para' 13. [M Bain}
121 The Introduction Section states that it is difficult to identify any significant change in patronage between Option A and Option B but that increased runtimes for option C have a detrimental effect. However, there is no mention of difference in runtime between Option A and Option B. Indeed, no details of the different runtimes are given in this section but are given later in the report.
Promoter: The correct run times were incorporated in the body of the report section 2.2 (ii). However, as stated in the report, the run times presented did not incorporate delays arising from the traffic interfaces for the on- street options and were, consequently, underestimated. This aspect has now been assessed and the revised run times are: 5 minutes 45 seconds (Roseburn); 8minutes 20 seconds (Telford Road); 12minutes 52 seconds (Craigleith Rd). [A Oldfield]
122 Section 1.1.1 gives the key issues identified. Improved visibility, security and accessibility (especially to WGH) are provided by Options B and C. (Hence Option A is less visible and less accessible, thereby reducing its attractiveness and potential patronage, especially local patronage. Selecting Option A demonstrates how the needs of existing local communities were ignored in order to address the desires of private developers in North Edinburgh. Option A is also less secure, again detrimental for the local communities.)
Promoter: The list of key issues in the report is correct. Visibility security and accessibility are all issues that must be addressed on the proposed alignment. Proper lighting signing and security measures such as CCTV
23
will be required. Discussions with the Lothian and Borders Police, Community Safety Department, have endorsed the promoters belief that the addition of the tram to the corridor will have a positive effect on safety and security in the area rather than a negative one. They will also be consulted as part of the detailed design on access routes to and from the Roseburn Corridor as well as on issues associated with the corridor itself. [G Turner]
123 Section 1.1.1 states that Option C will have a greater impact, in terms of potential loss of amenity planting. (Given that detailed plans, at 1:1250 scale, similar as those showing Option A and Option B for the public consultation, it is difficult to see how the Promoter has reached this conclusion.)
Promoter: Alignment geometry gives rise to loss of amenity planting to the road referred to in the report the planting between South Groathill Avenue; on Craigleith Road and the Retail Park and on Craigleith Road. Also at the North West Corner of the Junction between Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South. Also any widening of Crewe Road south is likely to give rise to similar loss of roadside planting. It should be noted that any attempt to develop segregated running on Crewe Road, as suggested by the objector, would have more significant impacts [M Bain]
124 Section 1.1.2 gives details of key assumptions. States that the opportunity to reassess patronage has been limited due to the late availability of the model information and that statements are primarily qualitative in nature. (This implies that computer modelling of the various patronage scenarios has not been undertaken and that statements relating to patronage are qualitative in nature and, hence, open to being manipulated in order to give the “right” answer. Shows that production of the report has been rushed, in order to meet strict timescales for lodging of the Bill, ie , there has been insufficient time to properly and fairly compare the three Options.)
Promoter: The patronage modelling was undertaken and results included in the report section 2.2(iii). At the time the modelling did not take account of the likely run time delays arising from traffic interfaces on options B and C. The patronage modelling has been reassessed based upon updated run times described in para' 121. The results are as follows: for year 2011 - 9.21million p.a. (Roseburn); 8.93mpa (Crewe Road) and 8.88mpa (Telford Road). for year 2026: 13.66mpa(Roseburn); 13.15mpa (Crewe Road) and 13.03mpa (Telford Road). We can see, therefore, that the Crewe road option reduces patronage by around 500,000 passengers per year; leading to a revenue reduction of about 3.5% for the scheme, based on year 2026. This is a decline from previous figures, as expected, due to the increased run time applied due to traffic interface delays. [L Buckman]
125 Figure 1 shows the various Options. (No detailed plans are provided, at 1:1250 scale, hence the consultant has not considered opportunities along Option C in any detail. I would also query why no tram stop locations have been shown on Figure 1.)
Promoter: It is unclear why the objector assumes that the assessment of options has not been adequate based on the scale of the drawings. The drawings are held electronically and can be reproduced at ANY scale (within reason) [M Bain]
126 Section 1.2.3 gives details on Option C and states that Craigleith Road is approximately 12.5m wide. States that segregated trams would require removal of existing, on-street parking, amenity planting and possibly land take from adjacent properties and that parking restrictions will need to be instigated. (This width is incorrect – Craigleith Road is actually 21.35m wide from back of footway to back of footway. It is significantly wider that other sections of the alignment, for example, Constitution Street.. The widest section of Constitution Street is 16.8m, from wall to wall, and over 50% of the road is less than 13m wide, wall to wall, yet this does not seem to have been a major problem for tram. Why is Craigleith Road, at 21.35m, wide so different?
Promoter: The reference to a 12.5m road width was a typographical error and the road was assessed on the basis of being 21.5m. The point being made in the report is that to achieve segregation of tram on Craigleith Road it would be necessary to remove on-street parking; amenity planting and possibly to take land from adjacent properties. However, the objector goes on to compare the route with Constitution Street, which is much narrower (from back of footpath to back of footpath). [M Bain]
24
127 I understand that an on-street segregated tramway is no more than 8.0m wide. Hence, allowing for two traffic lanes, of standard 3.65m, and two 2.0m wide footways, this would be a total of 19.3m, leaving 2.05m to provide a mix of on- street parking and amenity planting, possibly on alternate sides of the road. It is clear that no land take from residential properties would be needed and I suspect the statement was inserted in order to weaken the case for Option C.
Promoter: There are arrangements for planting and parking that could be developed and, indeed, have been developed for the Craigleith Road alignment option. The impacts, however, remain correctly reported in the report - there would be loss of parking and planting. The statement by the objector that "it is clear that no land take from residential properties would be needed...” is not "borne out" by our own analysis. At the time we did not state in the report that private land take would definitely be required but that it may also be required. We go on to explain later in the report that this is likely to occur at the Comely Bank roundabout (this can be found under the heading of "Land Take and Demolition in section 2.1.(i)). In fact, further alignment design has confirmed that it is likely that this would be required. [M Bain & A Oldfield]
128 There are other locations where narrow width of the road does not seem to be such a problem – for example, Craigleith Road is wider than Starbank.
129 In addition, I would say that it is also misleading to raise the introduction of parking restrictions as such a negative issue for Craigleith Road, given that strict parking restrictions will be required at all other locations where trams run on- street, in order to ensure that trams are not blocked by parked vehicles. Given that the Council is seeking to introduce restrictions in the Craigleith area as part of its expansion of the controlled parking zone, it is must that some restrictions are necessary, even without the prospect of trams.
Promoter: Nevertheless the report correctly reports an impact of the proposed option. Where parking restrictions are required for other option studies they are reported also. [M Bain]
130 Section 1.2.3 states that Craigleith Road has high levels of traffic making the operation of shared running difficult. (Tram Line 1 will share with general traffic at Starbank and I would be very interested to know if traffic flows at Starbank are higher or lower than Craigleith Road. Furthermore, Craigleith Road is shown as a B-class road and only has significant levels of traffic, which are tidal, during the weekday peak periods.)
Promoter: The problem is more complicated than simply the road capacity. More significantly, the capacity of the Comely Bank junction is such that it is likely to delay tram and give rise to queuing traffic on Craigleith Road. The tram would therefore need to avoid this queuing taffic by remaining segregated on Craigleith Road. This issue does not arise at Starbank. [S Turnbull]
131 In any case, the Report’s argument is completely blown apart when one considers what the Promoter is proposing for Tram Line 3. The approved and safeguarded route of Tram Line 3 takes it along the Bridges and Southside Corridor before running down the A701 to Cameron Toll. This is a major transport corridor and one of the busiest roads in south Edinburgh. Between Nicolson Street and Craigmillar Park, its width, from back of footway to back of footway, is not greater than 21.0m at any point, and most of it is less than 20.0m, ie, narrower than Craigleith Road. This corridor currently has four lanes of traffic, with two being bus lanes. However, the approved alignment of Tram Line 3 will result in all traffic sharing two lanes, ie, one lane in each direction. The corridor has much higher traffic flows than Craigleith Road, yet in would seem acceptable for trams to share. There is a clear discrepancy here.
Promoter: The experiences of Line 3 are not transferable or relevant here, as there is no comparable situation where options exist to use a former railway corridor as opposed to a tortuous route via congested roads. [B Cross & A Oldfield]
132 Section 1.2.3 states that Crewe Road South is not sufficiently wide to accommodate segregated running. (Whilst this is technically correct, within the existing road boundary, the question is why shared running is not acceptable here, when it is acceptable at other locations? The Report also does not adequately acknowledge that it would be technically
25 possible to provide a significant length of segregated tram by acquiring land on the east side of Crewe Road South. The Telford College campus is to be re-developed and the front area is currently car-parking, much of land forming part of Fettes College is landscaping at this location and there is open space for the Police HQ. It is obvious that the Report has not even considered this possible solution. Whilst it is acknowledged that land acquisition is required, given that the promoter is seeking to acquire land elsewhere, in order to construct the tram network, this possibility cannot simply be dismissed out of hand).
Promoter: Shared running is likely to cause considerable additional delay to the tram- particularly on the approaches to junctions. The run times for this option are already producing significant reductions in patronage for this option. Segregation is possible but brings additional impacts - see para' 16. [A Oldfield]
133 Section 1.2.3 considers two options for connecting the alignment back onto the Roseburn Corridor. (I would query who suggested Option C1, as, to my knowledge, this was not put forward by objectors. The objectors had suggested Option C2, taking the trams through the car park of Sainsbury’s, directly giving significantly improved access to the supermarket and the rest of the retail park.)
Promoter: The loop through the Sainsbury's car park takes parking space and sterilises land within the loop and impacts upon established planting. It is a tortuous piece of tram alignment which is likely to increase the rate of maintenance and disruption at this location. A better arrangement for accessing (in alignment terms) the Craigleith Road alignment from the Roseburn alignment might be to incorporate a relatively straight head-shunt arrangement along the Roseburn railway alignment such that trams (by changing ends) could achieve a much tighter and more land efficient turn. Unfortunately the headshunt operation would create run time delays and impacts upon those who live close to the head shunt. [M Bain & A Oldfield]
134 Section 2.1 (i) states that some land take would be required from the cemetery at the western corner of Comely Bank roundabout. (This is obviously a very sensitive issue but again is incorrect, as the corner of land at the corner is actually garden area, belonging to the block of flats at this location.)
Promoter: We understand the confusion. The land was described on the basis of how it appeared to be named on the OS mapping. No Land Referencing had been undertaken at that time. [M Bain]
135 Section 2.1 (i) repeats the suggestion that some land take could be needed from properties in Craigleith Road. (This has been considered in Section 1.2.3 as unnecessary. In any case, in the absence of detailed 1:1250 plans, it is difficult to see how the Promoter can make such a statement. Given that the Promoter is fitting the tram into streets that are significantly narrower than Craigleith Road, without taking land, it is difficult to understand why there would be a problem on Craigleith Road. The only answer is that the consultant was perhaps basing the assessment on the width of 12.5m, which is wrong, hence making the report findings flawed.)
Promoter: The assessment was not based on flawed information. As stated above the design and the mapping are held electronically and can be operated at any scale, irrespective of the scale of the paper drawing in the report. The capacity and the geometry of the junction is the problem here - rather than the width of the road. [S Turnbull (capacity and geometry of junctions only) & M Bain]
136 Section 2.1 (i) again states that existing parking and amenity planting in Craigleith Road would have to be removed. (This was addressed in Section 1.2.3 – there would be room to retain some, if segregation was necessary and none need be removed if shared running adopted, ie, possible solutions are achievable.)
Promoter: Agreed, nevertheless the impact is correctly reported in the report. [M Bain]
137 Section 2.1 (ii) states that Option A is preferred because it is the easiest to construct. (Whilst I would accept that Option A is probably the easiest to construct, one has to be very careful in adopting such reasoning for selecting one route option over another and it certainly should not be a principal reason. I would argue that this preference should have been be set aside until Option C has been designed in more detail so that all factors could have been taken into account..)
26
Promoter: Ease of construction has never been indicated as the "principal reason” for selection of the proposed route, as suggested by the objector, again it is a part of a number of factors, as detailed in the option study and summary reports. [A Oldfield]
138 Section 2.1 (iii) states that Option A is preferred because it is the cheapest. (Whilst I would accept that Option A is the cheapest, it is clear that “cheapest is not necessarily the best”. The long-term issue has to be considered – what is the best for the area and city – serving the WGH is more expensive but has the clear advantage of improving accessibility and patronage. In any case, if cost was a major factor, why was Option B given as a possible alternative, during the public consultation? Hence, this preference should have been set aside until Option C had been designed in more detail so that all factors are taken into account, in order to assess if spending a more now is better in the long run.)
Promoter: The proposed route is around £22m cheaper than the objector's proposed route. Again this is one of a number of factors which include the fact that there will be considerable construction disruption associated with the proposed route; it attracts considerably less patronage and arguably serves the WGH no better than the Objector's proposed alternative. The operating cost is higher and the revenue is lower. [A Oldfield & N Harper]
139 Section 2.2 (i) states that Option A is preferred because it has the best segregation. (Option C has 38.6% for segregated running, assuming Craigleith Road is segregated. I would contend that this could be higher if Crewe Road South was also segregated, thereby reducing the difference. In any case, the suggestion that, because Option A achieves 100% segregation, it is a better alignment is highly debatable, especially as it gives much poorer access to the WGH. Hence, this preference should be set aside until Option C has been designed in more detail, in order to assess the full extent of segregation that could be achieved.)
Promoter: Segregation is only one of the factors that favours the proposed route. The segregation of Crewe Road South alignment would be limited and introduce additional land take and environmental impacts. [A Oldfield]
140 Section 2.2 (i) states that refuse collection could interfere with trams. (However, this issue has been raised by objectors at Starbank and the promoter has responded that it will not be a problem as the refuse collection will have to work around the trams, even if this means changing collection times, say to evenings. This is another example of how the Promoter chooses its argument to suit the particular case and location.)
Promoter: Nevertheless the report correctly reports an impact of the proposed option (just because it happens elsewhere does not mean it is not an impact). Where parking restrictions are required for other option studies they are reported also. [A Oldfield]
141 Section 2.2 (ii) states that Option A is preferred because it has the best run time. Also states that Option C would require two additional vehicles to accommodate the longer journey. (The runtime table shows that the difference between Option A and option B is 1min 42sec. However, this does not seem to present a problem and both options were put forward for consultation. Option C is only 1min 14 secs longer then Option B, yet it suddenly becomes a major problem! It is important to note that no modelling report has been provided to me for consideration. The need for two additional vehicles due to 1min 14secs suggests that the viability of the tram scheme is highly sensitive. What if delays occur on the rest of the route? What if shared running elsewhere is found to be not as fast as modelled?. In any case, if the Promoter’s anticipated patronage figures are to be believed, the provision of additional vehicles will be required in future years to address capacity issues.)
Promoter: Nevertheless the report correctly reports an issue that would have to be addressed. Starbank Road is considerably shorter and has less bins to deal with than Crewe Road South. [A Oldfield]
142 Much of the argument over the Western General Hospital arises from the Promoter’s uncompromising contention that minimising journey time is the main objective of Tram Line, as opposed to the need to maximise patronage.
Promoter: See para’ 6 and 18 [L Buckman]
27
143 Minimising journey time can obviously be achieved by making the route as short as possible between point A and point B; avoiding key generators or busy streets, eg, by using disused railway corridors, thereby minimising the need for tram stops. However, the result of this method would be a very poor scheme, in terms of public transport provision – nice, fast trams with few passengers on them. A good public transport scheme links social/economic centres, as described by the National Audit Office, and would result in the tram targeting centres where there are large numbers of people, rather than relying on large numbers of people being prepared to travel to where the tram is. This is particularly important in the case of the Western General Hospital as the passengers in question are priority passengers, ie, the elderly and infirm. Saving 1 min 14 seconds of journey time is simply not sufficient justification not to serve one of Edinburgh’s two main hospitals. Furthermore, it is important to remember that, in the area around the WGH or the Granton Redevelopment area, there is no bus service to Haymarket, hence there is no competition and the tram, therefore, does not require to achieve the shortest journey time possible.
Promoter: The issue of balancing local patronage with through patronage is discussed in para' 6 and 18. It is impracticable in the design of a tram scheme to map out every major employer or source of patronage and simply join the dots. [ L Buckman]
144 It should also be remembered that the Promoter contends that the tram is so attractive that people are prepared to accept slightly longer journey times for the pleasure of travelling by tram.
Promoter: 2.37. Mrs. Bourne is correct that we do argue that there is an innate preference for tram over bus, and that this is included in the modelling and benefits. However, this does not negate the need to ensure that journey times are competitive with the alternatives as previously noted. [L Buckman]
145 Section 2.2 (iii) states that Option A is preferred because it has the best patronage. Section does state that patronage does not vary significantly between Option A and Option B. (Option B has 190,000 less than Option A – there is no breakdown about through trips and local patronage difference. It is interesting to note that even though Option B is longer by 1min 42secs, the promoter does not see any major difference in the patronage levels.)
Promoter: Please refer to para' 124. [L Buckman]
146 However, a preliminary assessment of Option C shows that in 2011, the longer journey time results in an 11% drop of through trips, 1,200,000, compared with Option A and that local patronage, 790,000, which is some 7.5% of the total, does not make up the difference. In 2026, however, the local patronage does exceed the lost through trips, hence Option C has the highest patronage levels of the three Options. (If 1min 42secs makes no significant difference between Option A and Option B, why should the additional 1min 14secs suddenly result in an 11% drop in through trips? Where is the technical evidence to back up this claim? No computer model runs data is supplied. There are no direct bus services between Haymarket and Granton to which passengers could revert. I do not accept that an extra 1 min 14 secs journey time will result in huge numbers of people choosing to travel by car instead. It is difficult to accept that 1min 42secs produces a 190,000 drop in through trips but a further 1min 14secs produces a dramatic 1,200,000 drop - a six-fold difference).
Promoter: Please refer to para' 124. [L Buckman]
147 Despite requesting all information from the Promoter regarding the assessment of Craigleith Road, no computer model runs have been provided to me and I must, therefore, conclude either that no model run was ever undertaken or, alternatively, the “back of a fag packet” on which they were written has subsequently been thrown out! Appendix A (Demand and Revenue Modelling) of the Tram Line 1 STAG 2 report (28 Nov 2003 Ed) (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-037), reveals that the last computer modelling was undertaken in September 2003. The omission of Craigleith Road came to light on 3 November 2003. It seems clear that the patronage for the three Options, despite Councillor Burns’ instructions, was not properly assessed, probably because the model runs could not fit in with the CEC timescales for lodging the Bill by Christmas Eve. This is further demonstrated by the fact that passenger levels for location stops on the three Options
28 have not been provided within the report. I would suggest, therefore, that the highly speculative assumptions regarding through trips have been incorporated in order to discredit Option C and thereby keep the Bill on course.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 124. [L Buckman]
148 A stop near the WGH would serve the hospital, the adjacent residential areas, Fettes College, the Nursing College, Police HQ and Broughton High School. It is clear that local catchment accounts for a significant percentage of the total patronage levels of Tram Line 1 and I believe that if the Promoter had produced a table showing the patronage levels for the local stops for the three Options, it would show that stops on Crewe Road South would probably be some of the highest along the entire route. It would certainly be much higher than the proposed stop near Telford Gardens.
Promoter: The scheme does serve the WGH (see para' 7). The patronage figures have been calculated and continue to support the findings in the option study reports. For patronage figures please refer to para' 124. [L Buckman]
149 The figures show that Option C will have the highest patronage in the long run. I believe the impact of longer journey time will have a much reduced impact on through trips than claimed, thereby increasing the total patronage for Option C, making it a more attractive route than Option A.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 124. The Crewe Road option does not have the highest patronage in the long run. [L Buckman]
150 Section 2.2 (iii) again mentions the need for additional vehicles to serve Option C and puts costs against this. (However, the Report fails to mention that the Promoter claims that additional vehicles would be needed in any case, in order to address patronage capacity issues in later years, even if Option A were used. Hence, it is misleading to attribute the additional expense to Option C: Option C would merely bring forward the requirement for additional vehicles.)
Promoter: Passenger capacity does not become an issue for some time and will not necessarily be addressed by the purchase of trams which also happen to address the problem of service frequency. In any case, in the meantime, the operating cost for the trams will amount to around £0.5m per year; which with less revenue from the Crewe Road option is likely to have serious implications for the business case for the scheme. [D Dapre]
151 Section 2.2 (iii) states that Option A will maximise through patronage but admits that local patronage will be depressed through reduced accessibility and security. (This clearly shows that the objective of the tram scheme is to cater for the new developments, to the exclusion and detriment of existing local communities.)
Promoter: Please refer to para' 6 and 124. [L Buckman]
152 Section 2.2 (iv) states that Option A is preferred because it has less impact on parking and servicing. (I would acknowledge that this is technically correct. However, as the Report has not produced any detailed plans of a possible design solution along Option C, it is difficult to accept that impact could not be minimised through design. Hence, the preference should be set aside until this work has been undertaken.)
Promoter: The statement in the report is correct - there are frontager impacts. Detailed development of frontager servicing measures for Crewe Road will only confirm this. The detailed solution to frontager issues is, in any case, developed during detailed design (except where they might impact upon tram feasibility). [A Oldfield]
153 Section 2.2 (v) states that Option B is preferred for safety and security. (Given that the public have been told that trams are safe, there is surely little difference between Option B and C, in terms of accident risk. For security, both Options are the same, as both are equally visible. Option B would only be marginally preferable because the route is shorter.)
29
Promoter: The accident risk relates to the potential for tram-vehicle conflict and given the greater length of the Craigleith Road option, this will increase the risk proportionately. It should be noted that, since tram is inherently safe; the more people travelling by tram (in this case via the proposed route) the greater the overall benefit in terms of safe travel. [L Buckman]
154 Section 2.3 (i) states that Option B is preferred for noise. (Must be a close call between Option B and C, as both are on-street. In addition, Report fails to mention that Option C could have the advantage of reducing traffic speeds and levels on Craigleith Road. Would suggest preference could be Option B or C.)
Promoter: Agreed. [S Mitchell]
155 Section 2.3 (iv) states that Option A or Option B are preferred because of townscape issues. (However, the issue of the impact of trams on the townscape does not seem to be an issue elsewhere, with the tram running on street. Indeed, it seems to be acceptable to have trams in the World Heritage Area. I would suggest that trams have less impact on-street with other traffic than on an environmental landscape and wildlife corridor. Hence, would suggest the preference is set aside until more detailed assessments are undertaken.)
Promoter: It is correct that the Craigleith Options report identified Options A and B as preferred in terms of their impact on townscape although I would note that the full criterion actually refers to Cultural Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact. The impact of trams on this criterion is of considerable significance elsewhere on the route and notably in the World Heritage Site, but it has to be appreciated that in those sections there is no alternative of an off road designated corridor available as an alternative route. [K Raymond]
156 Section 2 finishes at this point. However, Section 3 has a table of the key issues in relation to the STAG objectives. This table formed the basis for reporting Section 2. Nearly all the objectives have been reported except for one which is quite fundamental: Accessibility.
Promoter: Accessibility is the issue which was addressed through public consultation and reported separately as well as in the table 3 (last item). [L Buckman]
157 The last entry in the Section 3 table states that Option C is the preferred route for accessibility. It provides good access to the tram system from the adjacent residential area, the WGH, BAE, Police HQ and the retail park. (Why then was this issue not reported in Section 2? The criterion of “Accessibility” covers the sub-criteria of “Social Inclusion” and “Catchment”. It is, therefore, an extremely important criterion when considering a high-capacity tram system.)
Promoter: The tram does serve the WGH; BAE and the Retail Park via the proposed route. In terms of travel time the proposed route is generally better than the objector's route. It is accepted that walk distances are generally slightly longer (which is a disadvantage) but they are generally well within reasonable walk to/from the tramway and when combined with the faster tram run times typically produce an overall journey time saving. Safety, security and attractiveness of the WGH stop and walkway will have to be addressed as an important design issue. [L Buckman]
158 Section 4 is the recommendation, which is for Option A – Roseburn Corridor. (However, I would conclude that the Report is flawed. It is biased and incomplete. Some of the assumptions, especially regarding patronage, are highly questionable. Given the long term implications of the tram scheme, it is vital that the correct decision is made. Trams should be about connecting as many people as possible with the places they want to go. Option A fails to do this and for a slightly longer journey, which I feel most people would accept, Option C would give enhanced accessibility and higher patronage.)
Promoter: The report is not flawed; biased or incomplete. [A Oldfield]
159 A subsequent FOI request has revealed some interesting issues, regarding the Craigleith Report. An e-mail, dated 19 November 2003, from Mott MacDonald to TIE/CEC (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-038), states that a draft copy of the Craigleith Report, dated 19 November 2003, is attached. The e-mail states that the Report “…does not quantify patronage, as
30 agreed with A Homes yesterday...”. This is an astonishing statement. How can a report, which is supposed to be objectively comparing three route Options, involving the WGH, not include details of patronage differences? It is disturbing that the matter was agreed with A Holmes, whom I assume to be Mr A Holmes, the Director of City Development, of the Council. Councillor Burns’ instructions were very clear in that a thorough assessment of this route option should be carried out and, therefore, it is worrying that the Director of City Development appears to have countermanded this instruction.
Promoter: The report, was incomplete and in draft; this was understood by Councillor Burns who treated it as such. The Council's decision was based upon the final report which did include modelled patronage figures. [A Oldfield]
160 At this point, I should advise that none of the parties with whom I have dealt regarding the Western General Hospital and Tram Line 1 appear to keep file notes of meetings or attendances. I have asked specifically for these notes under my various FoI requests but absolutely none have been provided. This has made it difficult to piece together who has been responsible for what and, therefore, to ascertain who is accountable for decisions made.
Promoter: tie has endeavoured to keep notes of discussions and make them available to attendees. This is not always possible if, for example, the potential note taker is also presenting. [B Cross]
161 The FOI request disclosed a copy of the draft Craigleith Report, dated 19 November 2003, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-039). The report does not quantify patronage, as instructed, and just has the sweeping statement, in the “Introduction”, that increased run times for Option B and Option C are likely to have a detrimental effect on patronage. Amazing, therefore, that, in the final version, the increased run time for Option B does not have any detrimental impact worthy of note but somehow the increased journey time in relation to Option C has, the Promoter asserts, a massive negative effect on patronage).
Promoter: The report was draft and incomplete and not ready for distribution. It had not been checked or approved before issue and we understand, was only issued in that form for the purposes of agreeing format and scope of report. In any event the document should be regarded as an early draft. [A Oldfield]
162 The FOI request disclosed an e-mail, dated 25 November 2003, from Ian Mathie, the CEC City Development TL1 Project Partner to TIE (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-040). This e-mail is a direct contradiction of the previous e-mail, dated 19 November, as Mr Mathie states that the Craigleith Options Paper must include some text on likely patronage. This is opposite of what was agreed with Mr Holmes. It seems that a Senior Professional Officer appreciates the importance of patronage more than the Director of City Development!
Promoter: The final report included text on patronage - this was always the intention by Mott MacDonald, tie and the Council. [B Cross]
163 I was aware that the Craigleith Report was to be a background paper to the Full Council report, being considered on 11 December 2003. Given that the report contained some factual inaccuracies, I sent an e-mail, dated 7 December 2003, to CEC (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-041) and whilst I received acknowledgments from three of the four recipients, none of them asked what I considered the inaccuracies to be. I found this quite worrying and sent a further e-mail, dated 9 December 2003, to the same four CEC persons (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-042), asking why none of them was concerned that Full Council was being presented with and asked to vote on a report, which contained factual inaccuracies. Other than a brief acknowledgement of my e-mail by Councillor Burns, I did not receive a single detailed response.
164 When re-examining the Craigleith Report in June 2004, I exchanged a number of e-mails with TIE, during June/July 2003 (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-043). I asked if there were patronage details for the individual stops for the three options and if detailed plans for Option C were available. TIE responded that individual stop patronage was only available for Option A and that such information for the other two options was not required for the Craigleith review process. TIE confirmed that 1:1250 plans were not produced. I find it extraordinary that an assessment of three route options for a major public transport scheme should not include comparative patronage figures at individual stop options. TIE’s response also confirmed that there were no technical papers, such as modelling reports, available and that the assessment was based
31 on that mentioned in the STAG 2 Appendix A. Such papers would surely have been produced to back up the claims on the suggested impact on through trips. However, as mentioned previously, the dates in Appendix A show no modelling work was undertaken after September 2003. If such modelling has not been undertaken, how can the Promoter still claim that Option C will have such a detrimental impact on through trips if there is not a shred of hard, technical evidence to back this up? The assessment seems to have been based purely on the assumption that, because the journey would be longer, there must be some corresponding reduction in patronage and takes no account of what alternative modes of transport would be available. It also suggests that the shorter the journey the higher the patronage, but surely patronage is based on how many people wish to travel to a particular location, not just how long it takes to get there. The above merely confirms my believe that the Craigleith Report is a biased piece of work; that a full, detailed assessment was not properly undertaken; and that the case for Option C is still a valid one, which the Promoter has still to disprove.
Promoter: See para 124 [L Buckman]
165 A FoI request disclosed a note (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-044), prepared by the Promoter and dated 10 December 2003, to address the inaccuracies in the Craigleith Road, which I had raised at the Full Council meeting on 11 December 2003.
166 Point 1 acknowledges the correct width of Craigleith Drive (should be Road) but suggests that existing facilities would be retained, thereby requiring land-take from residential properties. (I fail to see why shared running cannot be provided or why some loss of facilities is not acceptable, to achieve segregated running, given that other locations are to lose such facilities. I understand that the banning of right turns is going to be a common requirement for much on the tram system, where running on-street, so why should Craigleith Road be so special?)
Promoter: A shared alignment is possible but a segregated alignment is desirable at this location to avoid delays to the tram. The banning of right turns is not desirable at this location as there is no easy facility to return vehicles. [M Bain]
167 Point 2 states that providing segregated running along Crewe Road South would require new signal controlled junctions, which would introduce significant delay to the trams. (However, it was my understanding that all signalled controlled junctions through which the tram will run will give maximum priority to trams, in order to reduce any delay. This comment, therefore, seems unnecessary.)
Promoter: It is unlikely that the tram would achieve absolute priority through these junctions. [S Turnbull]
168 Point 2 continues that patronage figures do not justify land take along Crewe Road South. (Given that the patronage figure for Option C is the highest in 2026 and if one dismisses the questionable drop in through trips, surely the argument for segregation is stronger? In any case, has the Promoter even approached the various landowners to seek their views? There are many sections along Tram Lines 1 and 2 where the Bills seek to acquire land.)
Promoter: Please also refer to para 124 for patronage figures. [L Buckman]
169 Point 4 does not make it clear if the correct width was assessed in the Report or not. If the report assessed a 12.5m width, then it would need to be re-assessed to take account of the correct width of 21.35m.
Promoter: The correct width of 21.5m was assessed. The figure of 12.5m was a typographical error [M Bain]
170 Conclusion states that Option C is worst for run time, patronage and engineering feasibility. (The report’s own figures show that Option C is best for patronage in 2026, ie long-term. I do not accept the massive drop in through trips and, hence, consider Option C would actually have the highest patronage in 2011, as well. Why is journey time the main factor? On that basis, should all stops between Granton and Haymarket not be removed in order to maximise patronage? With regard to technical feasibility, I fail to see why Option C should be any more difficult to construct than any other on-street section of the proposed tram network, including Tram Line 3.)
Promoter: The patronage for Option C is poor compared to the proposed route (see para 124). The drop in patronage has been calculated by applying the appropriate modelling tools and expertise. Option C is more
32
difficult to construct for numerous reasons: in maintaing road access and through road during construction; in the diversion of public utilities; in the surface treatments and reinstatements and tie-ins. [L Buckman – Patronage, A Oldfield – Construction]
Lack of Consistency (Includes STAG; Work Package 1; Promoter’s conflicting methods of route options assessment for Tram Lines 1, 2 and 3; Promoter’s conflicting treatment of hospitals on different tram routes (TL1/WGH and TL3/RIE))
171 At this point (and at the risk of causing further suffering to the Committee!), I feel it important to consider some guidance set out in the Executive Summary of STAG (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-050):-
172 Section 8 – “Clearly the amount of effort required for the appraisal must be balanced against the magnitude of the project.” Councillor Burns has said the Edinburgh Tram Project is the biggest transportation project in the Lothians since the Forth Road Bridge. One would expect, therefore, that appraisals would be extensive and detailed. Looking at Andersen Report sifting process, with some links dismissed in a couple of sentences hardly matches this.
Promoter: Although current guidance recommends that the level of effort dedicated to the appraisal process should be commensurate with the magnitude of the project, there is no guidance on the level of detail for the sifting process, and both the consultants and the Scottish Executive consider the sifting process applied to be appropriate. [L Buckman]
173 Section 10 – “Whilst the Guidance sets out required practice it is written on the basis of a core belief that good planning and appraisal result in good transport … It is also intended that the application of the guidance contained in it will result in the development and implementation of proposals to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, most importantly the public.” (Hmmm … no comment!)
174 Section 11 – “Open-minded – the Guidance suggests working up transport proposals on the basis of defined objectives supported by a thorough understanding of the problems and opportunities in the area, rather than seeking to “fit an existing proposal retrospectively to planning objectives.” (Mott MacDondald’s remit, as part of the Andersen Report, was to justify a light rail link between the North Edinburgh Redevelopment sites and the city centre. Mott MacDonald looked at a previous report, which had concluded using the Roseburn Corridor as a guided bus route. They appear to have changed the technology to light rail and selected the same route rather than start afresh, with an open mind.)
Promoter: The objector's statement is incorrect; the Andersen report examined a range of options and technologies - the conclusion was that the best performing option was a complete northern loop using LRT technology. The approach taken was "open minded". [L Buckman & A Oldfield]
175 Figure 1: Planning and Appraisal Process shows the step-by-step procedure to be followed when assessing a transport proposal. I would draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the national criteria should be used during the STAG1 assessment, ie, that all potential links under consideration should be assessed against the STAG criteria. I can see no mention of other criteria which may be determined by consultants/Promoters would be acceptable at this stage of the process.
Promoter: We agree that the STAG1 appraisal be undertaken against the STAG criteria. However, the sifting process is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG. The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Once full options have been developed (the four loop options set out in the WP1 report), STAG criteria are required in the Part 1 and Part 2 appraisal processes [L Buckman]
33
176 Section 27 – “The generation of options either for appraisal or subsequent refinement should be based on the widest possible set of potential proposals.” (Mott MacDonald missed some options out, including Craigleith Road, in the Andersen report.).
Promoter: Please refer to para' 13. [M Bain]
177 Section 29 – “Where the full set of potential proposals is unmanageably large, a transparent mechanism must be used to narrow the choice down …. This will require a structures and transparent process that is documented and auditable”.
178 Section 33 - “In addition, an initial view of the impacts of the proposal against the Government’s five objectives set out in the Part 2 appraisal is required”.
179 Section 34 – “All proposals which “pass” the Part 1 appraisal should then be subjected to the more detailed scrutiny required in the Part 2 appraisal. Planners should not attempt to rank proposals at this stage with the intention of only proceeding with a single or very limited number of proposals for the full Part 2 appraisal.”
180 The Craigleith Report made reference to a Work Package 1 (WP1) report. This was a report of which I had not heard before and was unaware of it having been a public document or a background paper to any Council report. A FoI request to CEC disclosed an e-mail which referred to this report but the report itself was omitted. I, therefore, had to submit a further FoI request specifically for Work Package 1 and wait another 20 days before it was produced. This report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-045) makes interesting reading in terms of reinforcing the bias for the Roseburn Corridor and also revealing how the Promoter has taken an inconsistent approach to assessing the three tram routes.
Promoter: Note that Work Package 1 report recommends that the Telford Road Report should be taken forward into Work package 2 for further assessment. [A Oldfield]
181 This report sheds much light on why the Western General Hospital, and all the other key generators in the vicinity of Tram Line 1, may not have been identified at the time of the route sifting.
Promoter: Transport modelling was undertaken to forecast the patronage for the Roseburn Corridor and Crewe Road route options (WP1). The sifting process was designed to develop those route options from a set of around 60 potential route segments. [L Buckman]
182 WP1 revisited and tested the options identified in the “Outline Business Case”, which, I assume, means the Andersen Report. A total of over 60 possible links were identified. WP1 assesses these and rejects the majority of them, before identifying four route options for detailed consideration. Option 2, shown in Figure S.1 on p4, includes Crewe Road South but this continues up Orchard Brae, onto Queensferry Road to the city centre. Craigleith Road was not identified as a potential link – Figure 3.2, p13.
183 Section 2.1, p7, gives the TIE remit as being a North Edinburgh Loop connecting the city with Leith, Newhaven and Granton and passing through the waterfront development. I note that there is no reference to Haymarket.
Promoter: Noted. However, the Andersen report's preferred route passed through Haymarket. The importance of serving Haymarket was underlined during Work Package 1. [A Oldfield]
184 Table 3.1 gives details of criterion weighting. Four criteria are mentioned:-
Technical Implementability 1.5 Economy 1 Transport 1.25 Environment 1.25
34
185 It is not clear where these criteria have come from. STAG requires that transport schemes be assessed against the five national criteria of: “Economy”; “Safety”; “Integration”; “Environment”; and “Accessibility; together with the additional criterion of “Technical Implementability” in order that a proposed transport scheme can demonstrate how it represents a beneficial scheme.
Promoter: STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sift options and reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration; there is no general guidance for the actual weights used. At such an early stage in the planning process, technical implementability was considered a crucial consideration in terms of weeding out infeasible or impractical links and as such was given a higher weighting. In many respects, the process adopted formalised the rejection of links deemed technically challenging, rather than starting from the basis of what was reasonably feasible. [L Buckman]
186 It would appear that the criteria of “Integration” and “Accessibility” were not included in the criteria against which potential route link was to be assessed. “Acccessibility” includes the sub-criteria of “Social Inclusion” and “Catchment”. I am unsure whether, at the time of the route sifting taking place, “Accessibility” specifically included these two sub-criteria but would argue that it was generally acknowledged that it did. Therefore, it would appear that, in arriving at the preferred route corridor for Tram Line 1, the Promoter did not take “Accessibility” in the form of “social inclusion” and “catchment” or “Integration” into account! This, then, may explain why Tram Line 1 fails to give direct access to many social/economic centres along its route. In using the criteria of “Economy”, the Promoter appears to have identified where all the business premises are, but the schools, shopping centres, hospitals, etc, do not appear to have been given their appropriate level of importance.
Promoter: Contrary to the objectors witness statement, the sifting process is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG. The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Once full options have been developed (the four loop options set out in the WP1 report), STAG criteria are required to be applied in the Part 1 and Part 2 appraisal processes. [L Buckman]
187 Furthermore, I can find no trace of the four chosen criteria or weightings in the Andersen Report, and, given the objective of the STAG sifting procedure I am surprised that the Promoter felt there was a subsequent requirement to use these criteria with weightings. Of the four criteria chosen, “Technical Implementability” was given the highest weighting of 1.5. This would suggest that “Ease of construction” was considered the most important criterion in determining the preferred route corridor and there is no scope for identifying the highest catchment locations the system could serve or how it integrates with other modes of transport - two vital considerations for a successful tram system. The use of weightings is questionable as STAG states that it should not be necessary to use such weightings.
Promoter: Please see para' 186. [L Buckman]
188 The omission of the criteria of “Accessibility” and “Integration” and the weighting applied to “Technical Implementability” would also explain why the Roseburn Corridor, which is virtually cut off from the road network, was identified as being the most suitable route for the purposes of the tram.
Promoter: The criteria adopted (technical implementability, transport, economy and the environment) were essentially a condensed set of criteria taking cognisance of the planning objectives and STAG criteria. The consultants aimed at a small number of criteria to facilitate the sifting of the large number of initial link options. Implementability is an essential consideration at such early stages in the planning process and in this case it was used as part of the sifting stage to help identify evidently unsuitable links. (In fact, including implementability at this stage is, if anything, more stringent than is usually the case, whereby link options are discarded on these grounds alone before proceeding to appraisal stage.) [L Buckman]
189 My interpretation of STAG is that sifting tables should have been included in the Andersen Report which I was advised was “STAG 1”. I would appreciate clarification from the Promoter as to why the sifting tables were not contained within STAG1.
35
Promoter: Sifting tables were included in the Work Package 1 report. [L Buckman]
190 I can think of no acceptable reason why any criteria, other than those set down by STAG, should have been used throughout WP1. Indeed, the omission of the criteria of “Accessibility” and “Integration” results in a situation where the Promoter is unable to demonstrate that the route of Tram Line 1 addresses these criteria at all. Having originally come up with a tram alignment which, for much of its length, runs through areas of not particularly high density population, one has to question whether the Promoter’s consultants would, at this stage, have been willing to recommend a different preferred route corridor than it had promoted from the outset. It seems quite possible, therefore, that different criteria and then arbitrary weightings may have been applied in order to ensure that the original conclusions were confirmed.
Promoter: Contrary to the objectors witness statement, the sifting process is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG .The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Once full options have been developed (the four loop options set out in the WP1 report), STAG criteria are required to be applied in the Part 1 and Part 2 appraisal processes and were so. [L Buckman]
191 Without “Accessibility” and “Integration” being considered when assessing route options, it would also make it more likely that a route utilising the former railway corridor and the stretch of line along Trinity Crescent/Lower Granton Road could be identified as suitable for the tram. Access to major trip generators, such as the WGH, is ignored. Integration is also ignored. Such omissions are fatal and explains why WP1 concludes that the Roseburn Corridor is acceptable and that it is also acceptable not to provide direct access to key social generators, such as the Western General Hospital. (Had Mr Macaulay advised me at the public consultation in June 2003 that these criteria had been omitted during the sifting process, then I may have been spared 21 months of trying to comprehend the lack of a tram stop for the WGH!)
Promoter: Accessibility and Integration, along with the entire set of STAG criteria, were considered during the route appraisal stage; this is set out in Section 3.6 of WP1. [L Buckman]
192 Bizarrely, Table 3.3, p22, of WP1 does refer to the five STAG objectives of Economy, Environment, Safety, Accessibility and Integration. The Promoter was, therefore, clearly aware of the five national criteria but has preferred to apply four different weighted criteria, rather than just assess each route option against the five STAG objectives.
Promoter: See para’ 191. [L Buckman]
193 Model results, p25, for the four route options show that for Option 1 – the Preferred Alignment - the 2009 total annual patronage is estimated at 14.8 million. Given that this report is dated December 2002, I find it worrying that the Tram Line 1 STAG 2 report gives a 2011 figure of 10.51million for the Craigleith Option A route – a reduction of almost 30% in less than a year.
Promoter: The WP1 work was based on the modelling framework employed in the Andersen report. For the later work contained in the STAG report and later option testing, the latest modelling framework available (as set out in the STAG appendices) was employed. However, the relative performance of the options at WP1 stage is considered robust. [L Buckman]
194 Option 2 – Crewe Road South has a 2009 total patronage forecast of 11.9million but this version of the route does not connect with Haymarket. (It seems clear that if the Craigleith Road, rather than Orchard Brae, was used, Option 2 could then link back to Haymarket, leading to patronage levels similar to Option 1.)
Promoter: Please refer to patronage figures in para' 124. [L Buckman]
195 On p34, it is reported that for Option 2 – Crewe Road South, its peak period demand is approaching capacity. (Not bad for an Option with significantly lower patronage! I assume that when an option reaches capacity, it would need more
36 vehicles to cope. Hence, if Option 1 is the best, it will need additional vehicles to cope with excess capacity. This counters the argument for running along Craigleith Road, when the Promoter says that such an alignment would need two extra vehicles (one in each direction, ie, the Promoter will need them anyhow, for Option 1.)
Promoter: The solution to capacity constraints on this section is not necessarily to provide additional trams in a way which might address the service frequency problem associated with the increased run times for the objector's option. [D Dapre]
196 Accessibility to the tram system is mentioned on p38. The population data is based on people living within 800 metres of the route option. (This takes no account of accessibility to the tram route. Just because someone lives within 800m, does not mean they will be likely to use the system. Option 2 is much lower because it is much shorter. Option 3 has the highest population but TIE does not consider it the best option, so the statistics have to be treated with caution. I would have thought that the more realistic method would have been to use a realistic distance from each tram stop in order to assess “catchment”. Using the Craigleith Road option would give a similar, and probably, higher figure than Option 1.)
Promoter: The population information noted was to appraise the route options against the accessibility criteria. The patronage forecasts are based on travel demand and patterns, the associated transport network and how Line 1 may capture some of that demand. [L Buckman]
197 Table 3.11 Option 2 STAG 1 Summary Appraisal Table (p42). Integration – notes there is no interchange with Haymarket. Other than lower patronage, the table is almost identical to Option 1 – Preferred Route. (Option C – Craigleith Road would provide interchange with Haymarket, thereby provide patronage and no disadvantage in comparison to Option 1.)
Promoter: Haymarket and the West End is an increasingly important part of the City Centre and Haymarket is a key hub in the public transport network. On this basis, it is desirable that it is served by Line 1. Haymarket was identified prior to the route development and sifting stage as a key point to serve to maximise integration. Section 3.1 of the WP1 report is quite clear on the advantages in this regard of serving the rail stations in Edinburgh. [L Buckman]
198 Page 45 mentions Telford Road and states that Telford Road would have the benefit of running closer to the WGH, in terms of patronage and in terms of the wider CEC Local Transport Strategy. (Why then go for Option 1, which is further away from the WGH, hence lower patronage and poorer in terms of CEC Local Transport Strategy? Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road would, following the above argument, be the best for running close to the WGH, in terms of patronage and fully meet the CEC LTS.)
Promoter: Model tests were undertaken on the Roseburn and Telford Road options and reported in the Craigleith Options summary report (referenced under AJB-WGH-035). This demonstrated that there is forecast to be a small reduction in Line 1 patronage with the Telford Road option compared to the Roseburn corridor. Whilst this would have a marginal impact on revenue, the principal impact of the Telford Road option would be the additional capital and operating costs to the degree that the scheme would become materially less beneficial overall. Also, see para 124. [L Buckman]
199 Appendix A lists the link sifting tables. These are the various links assessed, using the Promoter’s own four criteria, with weightings, and excluding “Accessibility” and “Integration”.
Promoter: The sifting criteria were determined by the consultant team, taking cognisance of the planning objectives and draft STAG. The consultants aimed at a small number of criteria to facilitate the sifting of the large number of initial link options. The sifting criteria adopted (technical implementability, transport, economy and the environment) differ slightly from standard STAG criteria in that they are more strategic and therefore could be applied to individual links using professional judgement. Implementability is an essential consideration at such early stages in the planning process and in this case it was used as part of the sifting stage to help
37
identify evidently unsuitable links. (In fact, including implementability at this stage is, if anything, more stringent than is usually the case, whereby link options are discarded on these grounds alone before proceeding to appraisal stage.) Contrary to the objectors witness statement, the sifting process is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG .The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Once full options have been developed (the four loop options set out in the WP1 report), STAG criteria are required to be applied in the Part 1 and Part 2 appraisal processes. [L Buckman]
200 Page A-3 - Link 3-9 is the Roseburn Corridor, between Roseburn and Queensferry Road – ranked 24th. No significant business or development. Residential area of medium (?) demand but high speed.
201 Page A-5 – Link 9-12 is the Roseburn Corridor, between Queensferry Road and Telford Road – ranked 32nd. No significant business or development. Residential area of low demand.
202 Page A-5 – Link 11-14 is the Roseburn Corridor, between Telford Road and Ferry Road – ranked 23rd.
203 No significant business or development. Residential area of medium (?) demand but high speed. (Selecting this combination is obviously based on the high speed rather than patronage. “Accessibility” and “Integration” objectives would have marked the links down and, therefore, affected the ranking.)
Promoter: Speed improves run time; improves through patronage : see para' 6 18 and 124. [Les Buckman]
204 In addition, some of scoring seems peculiar. For example, the criterion of ” Economy” appears unable to score less than 0, and is only given a weighting of 1. The Roseburn Corridor, which serves very little, gets 0. Crewe Road South scores only 1, but weighting keeps it at 1, so difference from Roseburn Corridor is small. Crewe Road South has a very high number of daily commuters and it is surprising that it has been given a score of only 1. There again, perhaps the Promoter does not consider that a major city hospital, together with schools, Police Headquarters, etc, can properly be classed as pertaining to “Economy”. The highest marks are (surprise, surprise) to be found for the North Edinburgh redevelopment areas, whilst Crewe Road South, despite the thousands of people requiring to travel there on a daily basis, only gets 1. Transport also never goes below 0.
205 Page A-4 – Link 7-15 is Crewe Road South and Orchard Brae – ranked 20th. States that there are no significant business sites on route. (This link is ranked higher than any of the Roseburn Corridor links. It serves the WGH, Police HQ, Fettes College, Telford College South and Orchard Brae has Lloyds Bowmaker. Residential areas are served but “Economy” factor only scores 1. It has obvious higher patronage, than the Roseburn Corridor, which is given 0 for “Economy”, so the difference is not scored as being significant, especially as “Economy” is given a weighting of 1. Nevertheless, this link was given the highest ranking between the options to serve the WGH, so why was it dismissed?) Promoter: This link was not dismissed; it was incorporated into the full loop Option 2 , which was then appraised against the STAG1 criteria (see section 3.6 of WP1). [L Buckman]
206 From the above, it seems that the findings of WP1 may be fundamentally flawed and may have been intended to simply reinforce the previous conclusion of the Andersen Report. For the Roseburn Corridor, tram speed and ease of construction are considered more important than maximising patronage, accessibility and integration. The latter are the three vital objectives for a successful tram system and are more important than minimising journey time, particularly when the opportunity to provide a direct tram stop at a main city hospital is at stake.
Promoter: The process was objective and acceptable to the Scottish Executive. Cost and revenue are both worse for the objector's option compared to the proposed route, see para 124. [L Buckman]
207 A FOI request disclosed CEC comments (Doc ref AJB-WGH-046) on WP1. Page 1 mentions that public consultation is noted as being extremely important and that there is a need to involve the community and its local representatives at
38 every stage in the process. (As we now know, TIE came to the local community after it had made its mind up on the route alignment..)
Promoter: Agreed, public consultation is important. [B Cross]
208 Page 2 refers to social inclusion and states that TIE will need to demonstrate that areas of low car ownership are included in potential patronage, in terms of line and stop locations. (I would suggest that the preferred route alignment is not the best in terms of accessibility for the areas of social deprivation and the location of tram stops is also poor. TIE has ignored the views of CEC, its client..)
Promoter: We accept that the Proposed Route does not serve the Muirhouse area, which does suffer from the highest levels of deprivation in northern Edinburgh (as shown in Figure 3.5 of STAG). However, the route and stops at Telford Road, Crewe Toll and Pilton will provide access to Drylaw and Pilton. [L Buckman]
209 However, most interesting is a paragraph on Page 2 which refers to Link Sifting Tables. It states:- “A link to the Western General Hospital is considered very important by CEC and a rigorous examination of the options at this locus should be undertaken. The comments made on Link 7-15 there were no significant business sites on this route is strange in the respect that the previous paragraph mentions the Police Headquarters, Fettes College, Telford College campuses North and South and the Western General Hospital to which could be added BAE Systems and the research complex, the Deutsche Bank and two supermarkets.”
Promoter: The link to the WGH is important. The proposed route provides a link. [A Oldfield]
210 (Clearly, CEC were dissatisfied by the level of assessment of Link 7-15. CEC instruct that a “rigorous examination” of the options at the locus of the WGH be carried out. It would appear reasonable to conclude, in light of this paragraph, that the Promoter itself is supportive of the provision of a tram stop which serves the Western General Hospital properly. However, despite the Promoter’s request, I can find no trace of any such examination subsequently being carried out, let alone a “rigorous” one. TIE and their consultants appear to have ignored the views of CEC, its client and the Promoter of Tram Line 1. At this stage, Options A and B and Crewe Road South/Orchard Brae had been identified, but CEC appears to be dissatisfied with the adequacy of these options and gave specific instructions to carry out further work on identifying a route which would be better serve, particularly, the WGH).
Promoter: Links to the WGH were considered further via Telford Road in numerous reports. Also, following consultations the Crewe Road Option was assessed. [A Oldfield]
211 Having examined WP1, I sent an e-mail (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-047), dated 14 April 2005, requesting clarification on a number of points. TIE responded by letter, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-048), dated 29 April 2005. With regard to weightings, TIE state that their use is acceptable, according to STAG. Accessibility, by population, was based on a 800m boundary along the route options, even though public transport accessibility is normally appraised using the sum of the population with a 800m radius of each stop. I understand that the distance of 800m is normally applied when considering catchment surrounding a railway station.
Promoter: Given the stop spacing on Line 1, an 800m radius around each stop and an 800m boundary around the line equate to essentially the same area. Guidance issued by the Institute of Highways and Transportation (Planning for Public Transport in Developments IHT 1999) suggests assuming walk distance catchments of up to 800m for tram and such distances are borne out by empirical evidence for the Midland Metro (Birmingham) tram line. [L Buckman]
212 TIE also state that “Technical Implementability” was considered very important at this stage, to exclude unviable options (What is defined as unviable? If a link is technically unviable, why include it in the assessment at all?), whilst “Accessibility” and “Social Inclusion” were deemed too specific for this stage. (Whilst difficulty of construction is a consideration, it is not sufficient justification in itself to discount socially inclusive or high catchment locations). This explains why the route of Tram Line 1 through North West Edinburgh is so flawed.
39
Promoter: Please refer to para' 188. [L Buckman]
213 TIE’s letter seeks to justify the use of weightings in WP1 by saying that STAG suggests using them and quotes the page number 4-5, of Chapter 4 of STAG (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-049). However, TIE fail to mention that on page 4-6, section 4.3.17 states:- “It is expected that few planners will consider it either necessary or desirable to produce a table of weighted planning objectives….”.
Promoter: An exercise has been carried out to test the extent to which weighting was decisive in including individual links in the route option selection. In this test, all weightings were removed, leaving only the scores. The results showed that both Crewe Road and the Roseburn corridor remained as selected links, hence demonstrating that even if the weightings were not applied, this would not have changed the initial route selection. [L Buckman]
214 TIE’s letter also states that their consultants were responsible for the use of the four criteria, as opposed to the national criteria.
Promoter: Please refer to para' 90. [L Buckman]
215 For Tram Line 1, the first assessment was the Andersen Report. The consultant carried out a selective sifting, seemingly based on a subjective opinion. Links are not assessed against either the five STAG objectives or any weighted objectives. Links are dismissed on what appears to be a purely personal opinion until the preferred route is arrived at. It is then assessed against the five STAG objectives.
Promoter: The sifting process was qualitiative assessment based on professional expertise. there is an important difference between subjectivity which implies personal bias and exercise of informed professional judgment in making a qualitative assessment. Please also refer to para' 213. [L Buckman & A Oldfield]
216 Next, the WP1 assessment. Not all the possible links are identified. Those that are instantly dismissed are not documented. The links are then assessed against four objectives, set by the consultant, with weightings added, rather than the five STAG objectives. Those links that remain are used to form four route options, which are assessed against STAG objectives, using a -3 to +3 scoring system. The preferred route is selected and matches that in the Andersen Report. CEC state that all route options around the WGH should be rigorously examined but this seems not to have been done by TIE or its consultants.
Promoter: The objector's interpretation of the process is broadly correct. The Preferred route selected did match that in the Andersen report, but only after a robust and auditable selection process has been carried out. Further work then considered in greater detail the options for better serving the WGH within this corridor. [ L Buckman]
217 Then there is the Telford Road Report and the Craigleith Report. These do use the five STAG objectives in the assessment of the route options. There is no mention of the earlier “special” criteria, with their weightings.
Promoter: Correct. [A Oldfield]
218 Tram Line 1 has only used the five STAG objectives after the preferred route was chosen. My interpretation (and, I would again reiterate that I am just a lay person) of STAG is that it is the sifting of every technically viable link should be scored against the five national criteria, which then determines a “preferred route corridor”. No weighting of criteria should be necessary.
Promoter: The Roseburn route was not chosen prior to STAG assessment of the alternative option via the Western General Hospital and the Crewe Road option identified by the objector was subsequently assessed against the same STAG criteria. [A Oldfield]
40
219 For Tram Line 2, the equivalent WP1 report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-051) looked at three route options. Section 5 of the report shows that options were assessed under the five STAG objectives, with two additional objectives, Implementation/Engineering and Traffic/Transportation, used. The three route options are compared against each other, using the seven objectives, sub-divided into various criteria, using the usual -3 to +3 scoring system. There is no use of the four different criteria or weightings, as used in the TL1 WP1.
220 Both Tram Line 1 and 2 documentation makes reference to the Edinburgh LRT Masterplan Feasibility Study, by Ove Arup, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-052), produced in January 2003. The Study had suggested routes for three tram lines. Tram Line 1 was based on the Andersen Report and TIE and its consultant seem to have accepted the alignment without question. Tram Line 2 had a particular alignment but Section 1 of the TL2 WP1 states that it became apparent that there were potential alternatives and, therefore, looked at these.
Promoter: tie and its consultant did not simply accept the Anderson Report Alignment without question (hence the link identification and sifting during WP1). The Anderson report was more advanced than the Line 2 Feasibilty by Arup. More work should therefore be expected on optioneering for Line 2 during Work Package 1 stage. [B Cross]
221 Then we turn to Tram Line 3, and the options assessment becomes even more striking. I have chosen to look more carefully at TL3 than TL2 because of the presence of the New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh on that route.
222 TIE appears to have commenced work on Tram Line 3 after the LRT Masterplan Study had been produced. The Study had suggested an alignment for Tram Line 3 that run out towards Danderhall in Midlothian. However, the Tram Line 3 Preferred Route Corridor Report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-053), produced by TIE/Faber Maunsell, in April 2004, shows that the assessment considered the LRT Masterplan Study route but then looked at ALL the potential route options and links again, virtually starting from scratch. At the end of this process, the final preferred route ended at Newcraighall P&R, rather than at Danderhall. This is interesting as it demonstrates what can emerge as a result of approaching the sifting process with an “open-mind” and also following the sifting procedure set down in STAG.
223 The sifting report is very detailed and is contained in two thick documents. Links which were deemed to be technically very difficult (usually due to steep gradients or tight curves) were not considered. Links were then compared against each other and there appear to have been no less than four sifts, using the national criteria, with no weightings, before the preferred route was selected. Section 2.7 says that links were assessed against the five STAG objectives, plus an additional one: “Implementation”. There is no sign of the four criteria used on Tram Line 1 or any weightings. Tram Line 3 also used the -3 to +3 scoring system.
224 I noticed from Appendix B to the Tram Line 3 Preferred Route Corridor report that, from the New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, three potential links were assessed. The longest link was selected. The sifting table at Section 7.3.10, p117, explains that this particular link was selected because it “had the greatest potential catchment”. This link scored +3 under “patronage and demand”. I sought to clarify this with TIE and received an e-mail, dated 27 June 2005, (Doc Ref AJB- WGH-084) together with an attachment, which explains that the two shorter routes were discounted during the sifting process as they had poorer potential patronage forecasts. This clearly differs from the situation at Craigleith where there were three potential links and, despite possible patronage and demand being much higher on the longest of these links, it was rejected.
225 The attachment also clarifies that Tram Line 3 used the STAG criteria with no weightings. It further states that all objectives were given the same degree of importance during the sifting process. (Compare this with Tram Line 1 where “minimising journey time” was given the highest priority.)
226 Given that Tram Lines 1, 2 and 3 are part of the same overall Edinburgh Tram Project, why is there such a striking difference in the option sifting processes? By studying the sifting tables at the back of WP1 and comparing them directly with the sifting tables of, particularly, Tram Line 3, one can appreciate the difference in standard. WP1 raises concerns about the nature of the Tram Line 1 assessment and I would suggest that, had Tram Line 1’s route been assessed in the same way as Tram Lines 2 and 3, it may well have produced a different answer for a preferred route alignment at the WGH, and probably other locations, as well. I would be very interested to learn from the Promoter what their explanation
41 is for the difference in standard of assessment, particularly between Tram Line 1 and Tram Line 3, and why a standard approach was not adopted.
227 I am aware that both the Tram Line 1 and Tram Line 2’s STAG 2 reports were passed to the Scottish Executive for approval. I, therefore, sent an e-mail (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-076), dated 30 May 2005, to the Scottish Executive, asking if WP1 for TL1 had been submitted to it for comment and/or approval; if it was aware of the use of the four chosen criteria; and their weightings. I enquired whether the Scottish Executive had approved these criteria or had comments to make. I have since received a response (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-077) but this is even more confusing, as Mr Ramsey seems to be suggesting that it is acceptable for a Promoter to use any criteria and weighting he chooses, during the option sifting process, as long as this is documented and then the STAG objectives used for the second stage. This is surely not correct.
Promoter: As noted previously, during the sifting process it is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG. The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Please refer to para' 90 and 199. [L Buckman]
228 Tram Line 1 concentrates on journey speed and considers that the lowest journey time is the main objective of the scheme, as stated in the STAG2 document (even if potential local patronage is lost, as a result). Tram Line 3 (Section 2.8.2 of report) seems to concentrate on patronage and states it is a pivotal component of the success of the scheme. It says that the greater the number of people who use the new facility, the larger the potential social benefit. There seems to be little reference to journey time and it appears not to be mentioned as the main objective of Tram Line 3. Why the difference?
Promoter: Please refer to para' 6 and 18. [L Buckman]
229 A good example of the above is the assessment of potential links on Tram Line 3, between the RIE and Newcraighall P&R. Appendix B of the Tram Line 3 report shows a plan of all the generated route options. Links 202, 203 and 204 are potential alternatives, which would connect with sections of Link 27 to run between the RIE and the P&R site. Section 7.3.10 of the main report gives the sift 1 comparison for 202, 203 and 204. On paper, 204/27 is the shortest route and 202/27 is the longest route, being over 1km longer. Although 202 would result in a longer journey time when connected to link 27, all three options are given the same score for the “Journey Time” sub-objective. 202 is given the highest score for “Patronage” and “Social Inclusion”. The text states that 202 was the preferred option as it has the greatest potential catchment. It seems clear that the Tram Line 3 assessment is placing patronage above journey time, in terms of importance, which contradicts the Promoter’s argument on Tram Line 1, in terms of serving the WGH.
230 Also, the Executive Summary for Tram Line 3 states that serving the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) was a major consideration of the Tram Line 3 sifting process and formed part of the brief. I am uncertain whether serving the WGH on Tram Line 1 formed part of the brief and would appreciate clarification of this from the Promoter. If it did not, then (given its priority on Tram Line 3), why not?
Promoter: It was not specifically specified within the brief [B Cross]
231 This leads on to the different and conflicting treatment of hospitals between Tram Line 1 and Tram Line 3. Tram Line 3 serves the RIE and has two tram stops, as shown on the Preferred Route Plan (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-054), in close proximity to the hospital. The main stop is No. 14 RIE/Bio Medipark. Whilst the stop is some 200m from the hospital building, it is my understanding that Tram Line 3 is to have a travelator from the stop to the building because 200 metres is considered too far for some people to walk!
Promoter: The stops do not just serve the RIE. [B Cross] Please see also para’ 12. [A Oldfield]
232 Yet, for Tram Line 1, the Promoter states that it is sufficient to provide a tram stop on the Roseburn Corridor, some 750m from the main entrance of the hospital. There is no suggestion of a travelator being provided from the Roseburn
42
Corridor to the main entrance. Indeed, I raised this point, in an exchange of e-mails (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-055), with CEC between May and August 2004. I asked Councillor Burns if Tram Line 1 would provide a travelator to the WGH. The initial response was that 375m (to the Telford Road entrance) was deemed to be an acceptable walking distance (but 200m at RIE is not?); that bus service 42 could be used (this involves a 300m walk to a bus stop and STAG2 suggests that this service may be halved once the tram becomes operational); a possible supply of taxis or minibus (but STAG 2 cannot identify any need for feeder services) and that a travelator would be difficult to construct. Moving Tram Line 1 to Crewe Road South would address this tricky problem. A travelator from a stop on Crewe Road South to the entrance of the WGH would be a clear benefit to those with mobility problems.
Promoter: The proposed route serves the hospital (see para' 7) via the WGH stop and via shuttle bus from the Crewe toll stop. A travellator is not proposed (see para' 12.) [B Cross & A Oldfield]
233 I responded as per the brackets. CEC’s response was that aspects of STAG 2 were not definitive and do not form a suitable basis for discussion or debate. STAG2 is the basis for justifying the case for Tram Line 1. It was approved by Full Council, has been approved by the Scottish Executive and submitted to the Parliament, yet the Promoter states that there may be aspects within the report that are not actually correct and could vary.
Promoter: The development of the scheme is a continuum from inception to implementation; the definition of the scheme develops throughout this continuum and in the early stages the definition is broad and tends to include assumptions and more qualitative assessments. As it progresses the assumptions are confirmed; or otherwise; the qualitative understanding becomes quantitative and the definition and the detail and the design itself crystallises. Until completion of the implementation; there remains some scope for change within agreed parameters. The STAG report should be considered to be at a relatively early stage in terms of many aspects of the detailed definition of the scheme. [A Oldfield]
234 It would be useful if the Promoter could clarify where the tram stop, which is supposedly to serve the WGH, is to be located on the Roseburn Corridor. The tram stop was originally sited next to Telford Road and is still shown on the STAG 2 plans. However, following the Craigleith Report, the Promoter decided to move the stop northwards and site it near to Telford Gardens. This was reported to Full Council in December 2003 and approved. TIE confirmed at a Craigleith CLG that the “WGH” tram stop had been moved and approved. It was, therefore, rather confusing that the site visit meeting, on 7 June 2005, took place at the old location and, worse, that the TIE representative was reluctant to be specific about where it is currently proposed the tram stop be located. It is this constant switching of arguments and the unwillingness by the Promoter to provide proper confirmation of virtually anything which is most exasperating and which results in mistrust and little progress.
Promoter: The stop location is indicated on the P7 version of the Technical Development plans. [A Oldfeld]
235 Lack of consistency also applies to the CEC Planning Committee’s treatment of Tram Line 1 and Tram Line 3, in relation to serving hospitals and retail parks, together with the Promoter’s response. As mentioned previously, the Committee had stated a desire that both the WGH and Craigleith Retail Park be served by Tram Line 1 and suggested that use of the Roseburn corridor did neither. The Committee then stated that if the WGH should be served but if that was not possible, then Craigleith Retail Park should be served. Why, then, did it accept neither?
Promoter: We disagree. The proposed route serves the WGH and the Retail park. See para' 7. [A Oldfield]
236 On 5 May 2004, the Committee considered a Tram Line 3 report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-056) and gave its initial views on the public consultation proposals. Section 3.27 refers to the proposed route of Tram Line 3 at Cameron Toll Retail Park. (I understand that the route runs through the car park of the Retail Park.) The route is some 50m from the Centre entrance but Committee considered it desirable to have the route even closer. (Compare this with Tram Line 1, where Committee has accepted a stop some 300m from Craigleith Retail Centre.)
Promoter: The stop at Craigleith is on the opposite side of the road to the retail park. The park is currently undergoing a major expansion along the western (Telford Road) side placing this new development within a road width of the tram stop. [A Oldfield]
43
237 Section 3.31 refers to the Tram Line 3 route at the RIE. The Committee notes that a travelator is proposed and states that this is important, in terms of the role of the tram serving the RIE, given that buses have a closer connection. (Compare this with Tram Line 1, where Committee has accepted a stop over 350m from the back of the WGH, being over 700m therefore from the front door, where buses run and where the car park is located.)
Promoter: We accept that the Proposed Route does not serve the Muirhouse area, which does suffer from the highest levels of deprivation in northern Edinburgh (as shown in Figure 3.5 of STAG). However, the route and stops at Telford Road, Crewe Toll and Pilton will provide access to Drylaw and Pilton. [L Buckman]
238 Section 3.37 refers to the Tram Line 3 stops. With regard to Cameron Toll, again concern is raised about the distance from stop to retail building entrance. The report states that it will be vital for the shopping centre to be served as closely as possible. (How can Tram Line 1, therefore, be considered to be adequately serving Craigleith Retail Centre when the route neither runs through the site or even adjacent to it? Tram Line 1 will not even be visible from the front entrance of Sainsbury’s and there will be almost a 300m walk to the tram stop. There appears to be a very worrying lack of consistency here.)
Promoter: The retail park is being developed such that the Craigleith stop will be even closer than it is at present (currently only about 3 minutes walk). [A Oldfield]
239 Section 3.37 also refers to the RIE/Bio Medipark and states that the close route is acceptable, providing linkages with hospital are enhanced. (Why was this not applied to Tram Line 1 and the WGH? Why is it acceptable for Tram Line 1 to be routed over 350m from the back of the WGH, with no linkages provided?)
240 On 3 November 2004, the Planning Committee considered a further Tram Line 3 report, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-057), which dealt with the outcome of the public consultation. Section 3.20 notes that the alignment of Tram Line 3 will run along the centre of the carriageway of the Clerk Street/Craigmillar Park corridor, sharing spaces with cars and buses and when trams stop, all other traffic will have to wait. (This corridor is a major route in and out of the City. If such a busy corridor can stand shared running, I would suggest that Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road, which is a “B” road, could do the same.)
241 Section 3.21/3.22 reports that the Promoter has pulled the Tram Line 3 closer to the entrance of Cameron Toll Retail Centre, as requested. (Why did Planning accept being ignored on Tram Line 1, with regard to the WGH and the Retail Park?)
242 Section 3.31 of the report notes that the amended alignment of Tram Line 3 will result in two properties being demolished. Report states that this is regrettable but a long term view should be taken about the best design and routing of such a major project of transport infrastructure. (This applies to Tram Line 1! The long term view is that the alternative alignment along CRS/CR is best, because in the long term it has the better patronage and will serve the WGH better.)
Miscellaneous (Includes various other items of supporting evidence.)
243 In the preparation of this Statement, the checking of various documents, amassed during the last two years, together with results of FOI requests to CEC and TIE, has produced a number of additional items that I consider demonstrate the Promoter’s flawed and biased position.
244 For example, an FoI request produced a copy of a presentation of the Tram Line 1 alignment proposed for public consultation, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-058), given to the TIE Board on 22 April 2003. It refers to WP1 link assessment but does make it clear that four “special” objectives with weightings were used, rather than five STAG objectives.
Promoter: Please see para’ 186. [L Buckman]
44
245 The presentation refers to Telford Road Route Option Study and states that Telford Road would result in loss of dedicated bus lanes (this is incorrect, as there are no bus lanes on the section of Telford Road that was under consideration) and states Telford Road would have only marginally improved access to WGH (how can saving a 350m walk for priority passengers be considered as just “marginal”?) . Does states that Telford Road does give better integration with public transport (which begs the question – why ignore this, when it is one of the five STAG objectives?)
Promoter: We believe that It is correct to say that the impact of having access to the front or rear gate of the hospital would have "marginal benefit" in terms of improved access to the WGH (see also para' 7) [A Oldfield]
246 The presentation refers to the previously discounted Crewe Road South option. States it would have adverse impact on existing bus services. (How? This is a new disadvantage. What about Integration with Public Transport – an advantage of using Telford Road!). Table states that it affords more direct access to WGH but summary states that this is marginally better access. (Totally misleading – all agree that Crewe Road South is significantly better for serving the WGH than the Roseburn Corridor.) States that option bypasses Haymarket Station, with reduced patronage. (As we all know, the Craigleith Road option, which WP1 failed to consider, would give the link to Haymarket.)
Promoter: Please see para’ 9. [B Cross]
247 The presentation refers to the previous Pennywell Road option. States that journey time is increased by 3-4 minutes but states that there is no significant difference in demand, despite accessing Muirhouse. (Why no mention of any reduction in patronage, due to increased journey time, given previously for dismissing option? If the Pennywell Road option resulted in an extra 3 – 4 mins journey time but had no significant effect on patronage, how come an extra 1 min 15 secs to serve Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road results in such a massive reduction in patronage as to make the entire tram line virtually unviable?)
Promoter: The basis of the analysis was a review of the travel demand from these areas. As noted in the WP1 report, the Pennywell Road route had marginally higher demand than the Granton Access Road route, but would take 3-4 minutes longer. This extended journey time would reduce the level of through trips and hence the impact on overall demand was considered neutral at best. Given the additional capital and operating costs, this option was ruled out. [L Buckman]
248 When the Craigleith Road Report was rejected in December 2003, the Promoter advised Full Council that access to the WGH from the Roseburn Corridor had been improved, by moving the proposed tram stop from adjacent to Telford Road to close to Telford Gardens. However, an FOI request produced an e-mail (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-059), from Mott MacDonald to TIE. This advises that the change in stop produces a reduction in walking distance from 350m to 300m, which Mott MacDonald considers “…not much of a saving”. (Hardly a significant improvement, then, according to the technical “experts”. I am not convinced the 300m figure is accurate and would suggest that the relocation of the tram stop from Telford Road Bridge is even worse as, although it is a shorter distance to the back door of the hospital, it is also more remote, less visible and more difficult to integrate.)
Promoter: The revised stop location is less than 200 m from the WGH. See also para' 7. [A Oldfield]
249 A letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-060), from Councillor Burns to A Bourne, dated 22 October 2003, says that there will not be a direct tram link from the WGH to the RIE. The letter was dated before the Craigleith options public consultation had been reported to Full Council for a decision. This suggests that the decision to reject this option had already been taken prior to the Full Council meeting and that the report was, therefore, prepared merely to demonstrate that TIE had “gone through the motions”.
Promoter: A link to the RIE from the WGH is not the purpose of Line 1. [B Cross]
250 The letter also states that Councillor Burns is of the opinion that the two hospitals are already served by an excellent public transport system, namely buses. The No. 38 bus winds all over the city and takes over an hour to run between the two hospitals. If people wish a more direct journey, they are obliged to change buses and this would, I suggest, be unlikely to encourage people to use public transport to and between the two main hospitals. In addition, if it is the case
45 that the existing bus services are so good, why is NHS Lothian currently running a shuttle bus service for its employees? If Tram Line 1 were to run along Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road, it would give a potential link to the RIE, which take some 30 minutes – a massive journey time saving which would almost certainly attract patronage. Even if Tram Line 3 does not go ahead in the near future, it would provide fast access to priority passengers to the centre of town and thereby make the journey quicker and easier.
251 A FOI request produced a copy of a letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-061), from CEC to Councillor Walker, dated 19 December 2003. In it, it is stated that current proposals to access the WGH consists of a walk of approximately 400m through Telford Gardens. This conflicts with the above e-mail figure of 300m. It also conflicts with the tram stop position, as shown on the STAG 2 plans, presented to the Parliamentary Committee – perhaps the Promoter could clarify, once and for all, where the stop, to serve the WGH, is to be located?
Promoter: Please see para' 248. [A Oldfield]
252 The letter (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-062), from Brian Cavanagh, NHS Lothian, to the PBU, dated 7 December 2004, confirms that NHS Lothian offered outline support for the Tram Line 1 route, on the understanding that existing buses and additional shuttle services should be adequate compensation for the fact that no tram stop will serve the WGH direct. Perhaps if Mr Cavanagh had been provided with a copy of the Tram Line 1 STAG 2 report, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-063), he may have withdrawn support.
253 In STAG 2, Section 6.8.1 states that bus services will change as a result of loss of passengers to the trams. Table 6.8/6.9 gives details of Crewe Road South and Inverleith Row – reduction in bus frequency by 30% and 15%, respectively. Section 6.8.3 states that a reduction in frequency of buses is justified when tram is in direct competition. Finally, Section 6.8.4 states that feeder bus services are possible but difficult to justify for Line 1, given its loop configuration and that any feeder services would be likely to require revenue support. I find it hard to comprehend how buses traveling on Crewe Road South can be considered to be in competition with the tram. Crewe Road South is too far away from the tram to compete for the same passengers! The argument that it is acceptable to reduce bus services which are in competition with the tram may apply on routes, such as Leith Walk or the Bridges Corridor, and, indeed, this seems to be what happens in France where trams are routed along the busiest public transport corridors (not disused railway corridors) and directly replace buses. They stop at distances similar to buses and are, therefore, easily accessible to passengers. However, there are no buses services on the Roseburn Corridor. Indeed, there is no direct bus service between Granton and Haymarket, let alone a bus service which replicates the entire route of Tram Line 1 and, therefore, it is difficult to see what exactly the tram is competing against and also how the Promoter’s argument that minimising journey time is of paramount importance.
Promoter: The objector continues to repeat the assertion that ‘the tram scheme proposes to reduce existing bus services’ this is simply not true. Bus services in the UK outwith London and Northern Ireland are deregulated. There is no provision by which the promoter of the Edinburgh Tram can reduce bus services. Bus services are often adjusted to meet what the private-sector bus operator perceives is to their financial advantage. In calculating the economic impact of the Edinburgh Tram the promoter has taken an informed ‘best guess’ as to what the reaction of bus passengers and bus operators may be. If the bus operator believes that the demand exists for a bus service they are free to provide it. If the existing operator fails to provide a service it is impossible for any authority to prevent a competent and suitably qualified operator from introducing a service. Nevertheless we understand that Lothian Buses intend to maintain the existing level of services on Crewe Road for the foreseeable future. [S McIntosh & A Oldfield]
254 The Tram Line 3 report had made reference to tram aspirational system objectives (SAOs). I had not previously heard of these and, following requesting same from CEC, I received a copy (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-083). It would appear that the SAOs are objectives, prepared by CEC, with which TIE are supposed to seek to comply, when designing the tram scheme. It is interesting to note, in the last paragraph of the first page, that CEC experience up to April 2004 was that TIE had not provided any evidence that the SAOs were being used. This suggests that TIE were not just ignoring objectors but their own client and comes as no surprise at this stage!
46
Promoter: The system aspirational objectives have been addressed through the development of the Design Manual which involved inputs from the Design Manual Working Group, a partnership among the Council Planning and Transport Departments, tie and TRaNSDEV. [B Cross & A Oldfield]
255 One of the high priority objectives in Section 3.4 is that stops should be more frequent through areas of greater density – this is not evident in the proposed tram stop locations. Another objective is that stops should be sited as close as possible to the main entrance of employment sites – how about the WGH?
Promoter: Throughout the development of Line 1, the location of tram stops was based on the consideration of technical issues (such as physical and engineering constraints and interaction with the highway network for on- street stops), demand potential, accessibility and social inclusion (to ensure stop locations have high levels of accessibility to the surrounding catchment area, including satisfactory physical access to the station) and network integration, to integrate the new service with existing public transport stops and services, providing wider connectivity across the public transport network, such as at Haymarket to integrate with rail and bus services through this hub. The WGH site is only approximately 200m from the associated stop on Line 1. [L Buckman]
256 The second high priority objective in Section 3.6 is that there should be easy, direct access to stops from the key trip generators that they serve – this is not evident with regard to the WGH. Another high priority objective is that the tram should not lead to reductions in bus services in areas not served by tram – this conflicts with the Crewe Road South bus services reductions.
Promoter: We believe the proposed route does provide easy access to the WGH. [A Oldfield]
257 During late 2004, NHS Lothian undertook public consultation of proposed healthcare changes. A consultation update, No 2, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-064), was published in February 2005. The consultation covered the whole of the NHS Lothian area and, according to the report, respondents had much to say about transport difficulties, with over 80% of respondents mentioning it. Comments included general concerns about time, expense and difficulty of travelling to NHS hospitals. (Tram Line 1 has a unique opportunity to address some of these problems, but only if the appropriate route is provided. A link between the WGH and Haymarket Station/Ingliston Park and Ride has obvious advantages for patients/staff/visitors who live in other parts of NHS Lothian’s catchment area.)
258 In response to criticisms that the Promoter has not addressed issues raised by the NAO Report, the Promoter has made much of the fact that Transdev has been brought in “early” to assist development of the Edinburgh Tram Network. However, Transdev were appointed after the preferred routes for tram Lines 1 and 2 had been selected. It would have been very interesting to know whether, if Transdev had been involved from the start, a different alignment would have been selected.
259 Transdev attended a March 2005 meeting of the Craigleith Community Liaison Group. The Minutes (Doc Ref AJB- WGH-065) are interesting. Section 3.4 refers to French tram systems and that bus services and interchange between tram and buses can be controlled, as the same organisation is in charge. Transdev suggested that this did not apply in the UK, hence they are more driven by journey times than those in France. (However, it is my understanding that CEC has set up a new company, TEL Ltd, which is to look at the whole issue of tram/bus interchange and bus services, so Edinburgh does have the potential to be more like a French system.) Section 3.7 – Transdev were asked whether a tram stop at the WGH would be better and the response was that it would be desirable but not possible to satisfy everyone. Transdev advised that journey times are critical and the Roseburn Corridor route had been selected on this basis. However, Transdev did not answer why the former railway corridor at Trinity is not being used, for the same reason of fast journey time. Section 3.15 – Transdev was asked if it was concerned about the pinch point at Trinity Crescent and responded that trams and road traffic can run smoothly together. (Why, therefore, is Craigleith Road considered so “special” that trams and road traffic cannot run smoothly together?)
Promoter: The disadvantages of the objector's route have already been described above. [A Oldfield]
47
260 A FoI request was made, by a member of the Craigleith CLG, to obtain Transdev’s comments of the Tram Line 1 proposals. This produced some interesting points, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-066). Firstly, Transdev made comments on the alignments of Tram Lines 1 and 2. The Roseburn Corridor is seen as close to perfect, as it has total segregation, with gentle curvature and gradients. However, Transdev note that the doubt in this area must arise patronage because of limited catchment, rather than engineering. On page 4, Transdev state that it is important that bus services are removed from Constitution Street, which is a new proposal, not suggested in the STAG 2 report. On page 5, Transdev questions the north alignment, because of poor patronage, and suggests it should be further south. Given that Transdev is one of the largest operators of light rail schemes in the world, its opinion is based on sound technical knowledge. The comments suggest that the alignment of Tram Line 1 is, in this experienced operator’s opinion, not “the right route”.
261 Transdev provided further general comments on tramway alignment. The first section states that the real test of a tram system is if passengers use it, with one of their interests being getting to a place they want to go to. However, Transdev note that during the conception and approval stages, passengers are not represented in any effective way. The key to success is optimal design of the alignment, because if it is wrong, the tramway is fatally flawed. (This is consistent with the development of Tram Line 1, where local communities, who will be using the system, have not be represented or properly consulted during the conception or approval stages. The conception stage was driven by the interests of private businesses, in the redevelopment areas. Hence, potential passengers were not asked where they might want to travel. When passengers objected to the alignment, they were earmarked as objectors to the principle of the tram scheme and their views/queries were ignored and/or dismissed. This explains why the WGH is not being properly served.)
Promoter: We believe the proposed route does serve the WGH. [A Oldfield]
262 On page 4, Transdev state that a tram built on an ex-railway corridor may enjoy total segregation, so will be very fast, reliable and cheap to construct, but they have to go where people want to go and that access to stops can be awkward. (These comments and the first part of the Alignment Review strongly suggest that Transdev is very diplomatically questioning the use of the Roseburn Corridor. I suspect that they feel that to do so more vocally may upset the stage which the Tram Bill has reached and may jeopardise the scheme.)
Promoter: Transdev strongly support the proposed use of the Roseburn Corridor. The concern over the “invisibility” of tram stops is an issue that the promoter is well aware of. This will be addressed through suitable signage that will give visibility to tram stop locations and their access routes to those users that are not familiar with the area. [G Turner]
263 On page 6, Transdev interestingly state that provision of junction priority for trams is never an insoluble technical problem. It is not even a difficult problem if one is prepared to be sufficiently ruthless about on other traffic, but that is may be deemed politically unacceptable. (This confirms that the Promoter could provide a technical solution for running trams along Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road, if the political will was there.)
Promoter: Impacts of a "ruthless" approach to junction design can be more than political - there are potential impacts upon the other road users not just on the tramway; but also on the wider network (potentially impacting upon road safety, congestion for all road users (including trams) and intrusive traffic on residential roads.) [S Turnbull]
264 The FOI request also produced an e-mail, from Transdev to TIE, dated 15 February 2005. This questions the competency of Mott MacDonald and suggests the consultant should not be given the SDS contract, which I understand is the detailed design of Tram Line 1. (Transdev, an experienced tram operator, is questioning the performance of Mott MacDonald, the designer of the initial Tram Line 1 proposals – I make no comment!)
Promoter: The email reflects the fact that, as one would expect, there are sometimes constructive differences of opinion between designer and operator (and indeed promoter) due to different perspectives on design issues. In this case Transdev were focussing upon tram operational requirements at a specific location; whilst Mott MacDonald were also considering the needs of adjacent properties and businesses. The two are not always
48
mutually compatable. Transdev, tie and Motts have subsequently resolved the issue satisfactorily. The promoter is very satisfied with the performance of Mott MacDonald. [B Cross]
265 A number of the objectors had had concerns about the experience of the Promoter and its consultants, with regard to light rail schemes, particularly in light of the NAO findings on the importance of selecting a route which serves key generators and TIE’s insistence that the preferred route they had selected was the right one (notwithstanding the omission of several key generators). An exchange of e-mails (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-067), between Lorna Johnson, a resident of Groathill Gardens East, and TIE, during April 2005, proved unsatisfactory, as TIE refused to provide any specific response regarding previous tram experience of the three TIE employees who were responsible for the assessment of Tram Line 1. TIE’s reference to consultants having experience could relate to the whole firms, rather than the individual persons who have worked on Tram Line 1.
Promoter: tie and its consultants have appropriate experience required for the development of the tram scheme. Experience was one of the selection criteria for consultants and Mott MacDonald, in particular have been involved in every existing or planned scheme in the UK and Ireland and more overseas. [B Cross]
266 As well as having concerns about the level of expertise of the Promoter’s consultants, I am concerned by the level of experience of those CEC officials, who were involved in Tram Line 1 at the time of the route assessment. I contacted CEC to raise this and was provided with an e-mail response (AJB-WGH-082), which advises that two such officials were involved in the Edinburgh Metro scheme and also the assessment of the NetCo scheme. I understand that the Metro scheme was subsequently dropped, due to mounting costs, and that the assessment of the NetCo scheme resulted in the Council not supporting the proposal. Hence, it seems that no CEC official at the time of the sifting process, had any direct experience of a light scheme which was ever actually constructed. It, therefore, seems even more important to ascertain the level of previous experience of the Promoter’s consultants but, sadly, TIE were adamant that they were not prepared to answer.
Promoter: It is essential that the CEC officials understand the requirements and objectives of the City. They are well experienced in a range of schemes throughout Edinburgh. [B Cross]
267 As mentioned previously, the NHS public consultation on service changes resulted in many comments relating to transport. Obviously, transport services for health service facilities are very important. This fact is supported by the recent proposed Amendment 68 to the Transport (Scotland) Bill, was debated and subsequently approved on 26 April 2005, during a sitting of the Local Government and Transport Committee. The debate, regarding Amendment 68, (from Section 9 to Col 2413 of the report), (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-068), was most interesting.
268 Mr Paul Martin, who proposed the Amendment, opened by saying that the Committee had received representations that referred to a lack of co-ordination in the delivery of transport to many national health service facilities throughout Scotland. Ms M Smith mentioned that transport and health services are big issues in Edinburgh and mentioned that a new tramline will not stop at the second largest hospital in the city (WGH). Mr B Crawford suggested that some irrevocable decisions are being made because some of the work has not been done properly by local authorities and the health boards. Other MSPs spoke before Mr Martin asked for members’ unanimous support for the amendment to add weight to the argument that there is a need for all transport services to improve how they deliver services to communities that are served by health facilities. Amendment 68 was agreed to. (It is a great pity that this Amendment will come in too late to apply to Tram Line 1. If such a requirement had been in place beforehand, it would have forced the Promoter to consult properly with NHS Lothian regarding Tram Line 1 and the Western General Hospital.)
Promoter: tie and its Consultants have consulted with NHS Lothian, and will continue to do so as the project progresses. [B Cross]
Support for Serving the Western General Hospital (Includes public, environmental and NHS concerns and desires; National Audit Office recommendations, SYPTE report recommendations, European tram schemes, such as Lyon.)
49
269 The Western General Hospital (WGH) is often the first port of call in time of crisis for residents in the north and west of Edinburgh. It is anticipated that the north of Edinburgh will see a population increase of approximately 50,000 over the coming years. The areas of Granton, Pilton, Muirhouse and Drylaw are areas of very low car ownership and 70% of residents there have no access to a car. Often, people attending the Minor Injuries Clinic at the WGH are subsequently referred to A&E at the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) at Little France.
270 The subsidised No. 38 bus currently links the WGH and RIE. It is not a direct service, but rather it weaves through the city. The journey is scheduled to take about one hour but frequently takes longer, particularly during Festival time. It is, therefore, often more convenient to take the car.
Promoter: Service 38 is a commercial service operated by Lothian Buses, not a supported service. Amongst many functions it links local communities to the WGH and RIE. Shorter journey times between the two hospitals are possible using the frequent services between each hospital and the city centre and interchanging there. The many commercial bus services serving each hospital are augmented by a NHS shuttle service linking WGH, RIE and the Hospital for Sick Children. [B Cross]
271 The cost of a taxi from the north of Edinburgh to the RIE is expensive (depending on time of day but can be up to £26). This clearly represents a great deal of money to many people, who do not have access to a car or cannot afford the time to use the in-direct bus service.
272 At no time, have local communities, the wider public, environmental groups or other interested parties/bodies ever been consulted about the tram serving the WGH directly. My experience has been that people are overwhelmingly in favour of the tram serving the front door of the Western General. The only exceptions to this were my local Councillor, Iain Whyte, who was concerned that his “constituents on Craigleith Road wouldn’t like it” (although I am unaware that he has asked them) and an official of The North Edinburgh Area Regeneration Group (NEAR), who was of the opinion that “people should be walking further” (although I am uncertain as to why this person should feel that the elderly and infirm should be among those expected to walk further).
Promoter: The extensive award-winning consultation exercise was the subject of evidence at the Preliminary Stage. [B Cross]
273 The official did advise me, however, that, at the time of the public consultation, the residents to the east of the West Granton Access Road were not happy with the alignment, and neither were the residents to the west of the route. However, to have asked the Promoter to alter the alignment to better serve one of these communities would have involved moving the tramline away from the other and, on that basis, it was considered easier to leave the line were it was. Whilst I appreciate that this may have been a very equitable way of dealing with the situation, it does little to encourage usage of the tram within this area. If local residents on either side of the West Granton Access Road were unhappy with the alignment at the time of the consultation, then there has to be doubt as to how much they will use the system once it becomes operational. Furthermore, I would suggest that if “Accessibility”, and thereby “Social Inclusion” and “Catchment” had been included in the assessment criteria, the West Granton Access Road would not have formed part of the preferred route corridor. I would remind the Committee that, accordingly to STAG2, a number of changes/withdrawals are proposed to bus services in the SIP.
274 In addition, 715 people voted for Option B – Telford Road during the public consultation, with some 291 specifically mentioning the WGH as the main reason for having chosen that option.
275 Three environmental groups (Friends of the Earth Edinburgh, Transform Scotland and the Association of Public Transport) supported Option B, again citing serving the WGH as the major reason. FOEE have felt strongly enough about this issue to have submitted a letter to the Tram Line 1 Committee (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-069), dated 22 October 2004.
276 The local Councillor for Pilton (SIP) has stated that many of his constituents preferred Option B.
50
277 NHS Lothian has given support for Option A, because TIE had promised feeder buses and no cuts in existing bus services on Crewe Road South. STAG 2 undermines this, which is why I understand that NHS Lothian wishes to raise its concerns and provide evidence to the Tram Line 1 Committee. Transport is an important issue for NHS Lothian, as a Paper presented to its Board meeting, of 9 February 2005, shows (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-070). Section 3.10 deals with transport, following the NHS consultation, and 3.10.7 states that NHS Lothian will appoint a travel co-ordinator who will consider a range of issues, including the timing and routes of the proposed tram lines in Edinburgh (especially in the north of the city and links straight into the WGH).
Promoter: Please see para’ 9.
278 The Royal College of Nursing Scotland supports the provision of a tram stop on Crewe Road South for its 1,000 nurses at the WGH. Its members consider that the proposed stop location is too far from the WGH. The RCNS agreed that for Tram Line 1 to be of any significant benefit to patients, visitors and staff, it should be routed along Crewe Road South (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-075).
279 Local MSPs, including my own MSP, Ms M Smith, are supportive of Tram Line 1 serving the WGH directly.
280 Then we have the technical experts, who recommend that hospitals should be served. Group 33 previously submitted the NAO report “Improving Public Transport in England through Light Rail”, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-071), published in April 2004, as part of a previous submission, dated 27 August 2004. The Report notes that most of the English schemes failed to meet patronage targets. There were various reasons for this, including over-optimistic forecasting and poor alignment. The Midland Metro does not run on the streets of Birmingham but on railways. In addition, some sections of the line run in a deep cutting below street level, making it less accessible to potential passengers than on-street systems. The summary table, on page 27, notes that in France and Germany, light rail systems connect hospitals, universities and commercial and shopping centres, generating high passenger numbers. It states that it is to be expected that future schemes in England would expect to better connect centres of social and economic activity. It notes that this has not always been the case, as some previous schemes have followed old railway lines remote from traffic generators.
Promoter: It should be noted that there are a number of schemes that successfully use former railways. Patronage is good, for example in Manchester and Croydon. It should also be noted that the NAO supports the use of former rail corridors. [A Oldfield]
281 The table also notes that French schemes tend to have more tram stops than UK ones. As a principle source of delay to tram journey times is caused by halting at stops, this implies that the French systems do not place much emphasis on minimising journey time but prefer to concentrate on patronage and serving key destinations.
Promoter: The typical range for inter-stop spacings for UK tram schemes is between 600 to 800 metres; this is normally higher than for buses, where stop spacings normally range from about 300 to 400 metres. The average space between stops for Line 1 is around 700 metres (22 stops within 15.5 km), towards the lower end of the spectrum for the range of UK tram systems. [L Buckman]
282 Whilst I understand that the Promoter assessed the NAO report and produced its own report to show how Tram Line 1 was complying with the majority of the general conclusions and recommendations of the NAO report, I do not believe that the Promoter reviewed the alignment of Tram Line 1, in order to see if it could improve potential patronage forecasts, if it could provide any park & ride opportunities or, critically, if it could better connect centres of social and economic activity, such as the WGH.
Promoter: The use of park and ride is inappropriate for Line 1given its route within the city itself. It is considered that access to the tram should be on foot, bike and importantly by integration with bus services (see also para’9). To do otherwise would be to invite the generation of additional feeder car trips to tram stops. Line 2 does include a substantial P+R at Ingliston outside the urban area on the edge of the City. This will provide (with tram line 1) the opportunity for drivers from West Lothian, for example, to park at Ingliston at Ingliston and travel by tram to Leith. [ B Cross]
51
283 The NAO gave evidence to the Tram Line 1 Committee last year. Patronage and alignment were amongst the topics discussed and when asked about the alignment of Tram Line 1, one of the NAO spokespeople responded:- “I do not think that we have a specific view on whether a closed loop is good, bad or indifferent. The better way of looking at it is to make sure that the right route is chosen. Stewart Lingard mentioned earlier that French and German systems make sure that the right connections are made where there are centres or points of economic activity such as hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, shops and the business district. Those places are the centres of economic activity and that is where the patronage base is. The route itself is the key.” To date, I have received no response from the Promoter to the points raised by the NAO and, for that reason, make reference to this evidence again.
284 Bearing in mind the conclusions of the NAO report, I would have expected the Promoter to look again at the location of tram stop no. 17 at the British Gas Headquarters. I am unsure as to whether, at the time of the route sifting process in 2002, Telford College had made a firm decision to relocate to Granton. However, their decision to do so was made well in advance of the Tram Line 1 Bill being lodged. Therefore, I would have expected, in view of the NAO report, that the Promoter would seek to provide an additional tram stop or move tram stop no. 17 closer to the new site of Telford College in order to better serve its 21,000 students and staff (students are generally considered to be a social group heavily dependent upon public transport). However, I can find no evidence to show that the Promoter took any steps to review the location of this tram stop. This demonstrates how unwilling the Promoter is to learn from previous mistakes regarding routes, as detailed in the NAO report, in order to ensure that similar mistakes do not arise in Edinburgh.
285 The question of Telford College is notable for another reason. If the Promoter’s argument that an extra 1 min 14 secs to serve directly the WGH would result in a major adverse impact upon patronage is accepted, then it would be logical to assume that relocating tram stop no. 17 from the front door of British Gas to the front door of Telford College (which would clearly, result in a longer journey time of, at least, say, 15 seconds) would also result in a decrease in passenger numbers boarding the tram. This is clearly complete nonsense. I would contend that the closer a tram stop is to high numbers of people, the more likely they are to use it.
Promoter: The last line is true; although to provide an attractive service the tram also needs to go where passengers want to go and to get there quickly. Run time is important both to patronage and the number of trams required to operate the service proposed. {A Oldfield]
286 As well as the NAO report, Group 33 submitted another report, in August 2004, produced by technical experts, which looks at French and UK light rail schemes. “Comparative Performance Data From French Tramways Systems”, produced by Faber Maunsell and Semaly for the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE Report), (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-072), is a very interesting document, especially as both Faber Maunsell and Semaly have worked for TIE on Tram Lines 2 and 3. The report examines why French light rail schemes are so much more successful than UK schemes. I am not aware that the Promoter has ever responded to the comments which Group 33 previously raised (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-073), with regard to the report, nor am I aware that the Promoter has ever reviewed the alignment of Tram Line 1, to take account of the findings of the report. I highlight below points raised in this report in the hope that, this time, the Promoter may provide a reason as to why they are right and their consultants, Faber Maunsell and Semaly, are wrong.
Promoter; The comments are noted, it is worth pointing out that Edinburgh has many similarities with French cities, not least its high population density and the close mix of residential and commercial areas. In this aspect it is very different to most English cities. [ A Oldfield]
287 Key points of this report are:- p7 1.4 Background Documents & Research A study concluded that dense urban corridors with strong attractors were considered to be sound bases for fixed-rail implementation. (The Roseburn Corridor is not a dense urban corridor. I assume that “strong attractors” are “key destinations”. The Roseburn Corridor has no “key destination”. The proposed alignment has no provision for access to the WGH, which is a major traffic generator and has missed the opportunity of providing front door stops at the site of the new or old Telford College and Craigroyston High School, all of which are “strong attractors”.)
52
Promoter: Edinburgh has a very tight urban structure and the entire area from the city centre to the waterfront has a higher density than many urban areas in the UK. In this aspect it closely matches the Beckenham Line of Croydon Tramlink – part of the UK’s most successful tramway (22mm pass in 2004/5) It has been established that Granton and the City centre are the strongest trip attractors along the west side of the loop, but other areas also have significant traffic potential The contention that because ET-L1 cannot serve EVERY potential traffic objective along the line and is therefore without merit shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the need to quantify and evaluate the merits of serving each objective. In this case it has been demonstrated that the traffic gains from serving the WGH would not outweigh the traffic losses from a less attractive service to the Waterfront. ET-L1 is not a universal panacea – it is intended to be part of an integrated transport network. [S McIntosh]
288 p14 2.3 Planning Process A French tramway is constructed in corridors with high existing public transport demand. (The Roseburn Corridor and the stretch at Trinity Crescent are not corridors with high existing public transport demand. Indeed, this has been described to the Committee as “the weak leg” by Lothian Buses. The Roseburn Corridor has been chosen solely on the basis that it is less disruptive and would be cheaper to adapt to tram usage. The Promoter has, therefore, fallen into the trap of selecting the wrong route just because it is easier to construct. The Promoter weighted the “Technical Implementability” criteria in order to ensure that the easiest route to construct was given greater importance. The Promoter ignored the basic and crucial need for a high-capacity transport system to serve high density areas and key generators, such as the WGH, directly. I would suggest that the omission of the “Accessibility” criteria, which includes “Catchment”, in the route sifting process is a monumental error.)
Promoter: The overall value of the route has been demonstrated by counting both the Waterfront – City centre and local traffic along the route. It is the overall traffic potential of the line that matters and it is facile to look at the local boardings along part of the route and think that these can be used to evaluate the particular link under consideration.. In this respect ET – L1 is like the Wimbledon and New Addington lines of Croydon Tramlink, these have strong end-to-end loadings as well as intermediate boardings, the intermediate boarding levels are lower than would be expected in Edinburgh – both lines pass through large, mostly uninhabited, open spaces on their journey – nevertheless they are very successful operations and have lead to a significant reduction in car trips, to the benefit of the areas relieved of car traffic. The same benefits will accrue to the residents in the Roseburn Railway Corridor. [S McIntosh]
289 p21 3.2 Corridor Characteristics The French tramways provide slower speed service with higher degrees of access than UK systems. French systems have much closer tram stops. (TIE have repeatedly stated that fast journey times on Tram Line 1 is vital to the viability of the scheme. This is why the alignment has few tram stops and uses the Roseburn Corridor where higher speeds can be reached. Both aspects are contrary to the successful French tram system principles, which raises questions about the suitability and success, or otherwise, of the Tram Line 1 proposal. I doubt that the French systems would give much weight to an extra 1min 14 secs increase in journey time, if route could serve higher density population centres and key generators, such as hospitals).
Promoter: This table compares tram stop spacings in France and the UK. SYSTEM No of lines System length No. of stops Average spacing km. m. Bordeaux 3 21.3 51 417 Caen 1 15.7 34 462 Grenoble 2 19.1 35 546 Lille 2 22 36 611 Lyon 2 23.7 48 494 Montpellier 1 15.2 28 543 Nantes 3 34.9 78 447 53
Rouen 2 15.8 31 509 St.Denis- 1 12.0 26 461 Bobigny [Paris} St.Etienne 1 9.3 26 357 Strasbourg 4 26.8 46 583 Croydon 3 28 38 760 Dublin 2 23.2 36 680 Nottingham 1 14 23 640 Sheffield 3 29 48 620 Friburg 4 24.1 46 536 Average stop 506 spacing Edinburgh Line 1 16 21 761
This demonstrates that Edinburgh tram stop spacings are broadly similar to other UK tramways and identical to those for Croydon. {S McIntosh]
290 p23 3.3 Operations Characteristics French tramway services tend to have slower speeds and closer stops than UK systems. (TIE have repeatedly stated that Tram Line 1 must be “high speed” with few stops, in order to reduce delay and shorten journey times. This is absolutely contrary to successful French principles.)
Promoter: French tramways are often introduced in conjunction with draconian traffic management schemes that are deliberately designed to make car trips into the city centre from the areas served by public transport slow and circuitous. This preserves the market attraction of the tram, even if commercial speeds are lower. In the UK – and particularly in Edinburgh – moves to restrict car traffic, reduce its speed, or increase its costs have often been vociferously opposed. This means that UK systems often have to operate at higher commercial speeds than French systems if they are to secure the modal shift away from the car if inner-suburban areas – such as Roseburn – are not to choke on traffic. [S McIntosh]
291 p25 3.3 Operations Characteristics The lowest daily ridership level in France, being Nantes Line 1 at 3,600 passengers per day per route km, is 80% higher than the highest ridership in the UK, being Croydon, at 2,000 passengers per day per route km. (Tram Line 1 is likely to have low ridership levels, as its catchment is far less than Croydon.)
Promoter: Comparisons with French systems are interesting, but not necessarily informative, for the reasons given at para' 290. The forecasts for Line 1 indicate around 1700 passengers per route km daily rising to 2400, comparable to Croydon. [L Buckman]
292 p34 French systems give high degree of attention to route planning – concentrating on high existing public transport markets, frequent stop spacings and higher urban densities. (Tram Line 1 does not focus on existing high public transport markets but gambles on new development. It has infrequent stop spacings and runs through areas of low urban densities because the Promoter believes that minimising journey time is the critical issue. These aspects all conflict with those in French systems, suggesting that Tram Line 1 is unlikely to enjoy the success of French tram schemes and is more likely to be yet another UK failure.)
54
Promoter: It is accepted that most French systems have been built to replace overloaded and inefficient bus operations, the French regard investment in improving public transport as a worthy use of public funds. Such investment has been harder to secure in the UK. However few French systems have had to serve major new housing developments as those currently taking place along the Edinburgh Waterfront. It is vitally important that residents in these new developments are attracted to public transport if all the roads in the city are not to become overloaded with commuter car trips. In this way ET-L1 has some similarities with the Docklands Light Railway – the UK’s most successful light railway. The point about varying urban density along the route has already been dealt with in Q288/289, with reference to Croydon Tramlink – the Uk’s most successful tramway. [S McIntosh]
293 TIE have argued that the Edinburgh system will not be like the existing poor UK systems because it is better designed. They have also stated that they aspire to have a system similar to European systems and, in particular, the Lyon system.
Promoter: This seems to be a statement, rather than a question. [S McIntosh]
294 However, it is clear, from the findings of the Faber Maunsell report that, in successful French tram systems, low journey time is not a critical, or even remotely important, factor. The French tram systems are very well used, despite having slower speeds and more frequent stops. French trams also run much more frequently and are situated on main public streets, serving key destinations. These points are contrary to the principles behind the design of Tram Line 1, where TIE have asserted that fast journey times are crucial to commercial viability. This is the main reason why they have elected to use the Roseburn Corridor and ignored the WGH.
Promoter: The crucial factor is the COMPARATIVE advantage that the tram has over other modes of transport, see answers to Q 286 – 293. [L Buckman]
295 What is particularly astonishing is that both Faber Maunsell and Semaly are TIE’s own consultants on the Edinburgh Tram Project, yet they have chosen to ignore the findings of their own report! Not only that, but Tram Line 3, whose sifting process was undertaken by Faber Maunsell, placed “maximising patronage” as the primary objective. I am puzzled by how the order of priority of construction of the three proposed tramlines in Edinburgh was arrived at. Given that they were assessed in different ways, using different criteria and weightings, I do not see how one line can be properly compared against the other.
Promoter: It is the duty of professional advisors to avail themselves of all the available evidence and then find an option suited to the particular conditions of each scheme, rather than start with a desired conclusion and then work back to find evidence to support the conclusion. The promoters are very well aware of the particular conditions that apply in France, they have also compared these with the conditions in other countries and elsewhere in the UK. The objective of designing any successful transport system is to balance the opportunities and drawbacks on each route. In the case of ET-L1 the best overall economic efficiency is achieved by following the route proposed. [S McIntosh]
296 TIE has repeatedly stated its objective that the Edinburgh Tram Network should be more like a European system than existing UK ones. However, TIE’s “model” example of Lyon was designed specifically to serve the city’s administrative, legal, educational and medical centres. The public transport map of Lyon (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-074), illustrates the findings of the NAO and SYPTE reports: French light rail systems consider the route as the main objective, rather than minimising journey time. The bottom right section of the Lyon map shows Tramway T2 diverting north, in order to serve hospitals, before turning back south to run onto university buildings. This is a large hospital complex and has four stops. However, the alignment of the tram is not the most direct, thereby increasing journey time, but it specifically targets this key generator. This scenario is similar to running Tram Line 1 along Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road.
Promoter: Any successful transport system should seek to serve all major traffic generators in the city. In the case of Edinburgh it is not pretended that ET – L1 and L2 can, or will serve all objectives; they will form part of an overall integrated public transport network. In the particular case of ET – L1 the line serves more traffic
55
generators by serving the route adopted than by serving any other putative route. The objector should also compare the size of the Hospital Campus in Lyons with the size of the WGH and reflect on their traffic generation characteristics. [A Oldfield]
297 And then there is the Promoter’s (The City of Edinburgh Council) City Development Department and Planning Section) …they both stated a strong desire that the Western General have a direct tram stop. Indeed, the City Development Department instructed TIE to carry out a “rigorous examination of the route options at this location” and yet no assessment at all was undertaken until the very dubious assessment of Craigleith Road in November 2003. It seems even the Promoter of the Bill has been ignored by its consultants!
Promoter: The analysis carried out by tie and their consultants has satisfied the Council that the route proposed offers the best overall balance. [B Cross]
298 The Promoter’s consultants then believe that the tram stop on the Roseburn Corridor in the Drylaw Housing Estate is acceptable for serving the WGH, yet virtually everyone else disagrees. The stop, like others on the Roseburn Corridor, is fairly isolated and lies a significant distance from the WGH. It will be difficult (if not dangerous, given the busy Telford Road) to negotiate by people with mobility problems. It is too far away from the hospital to offer an attractive alternative to cars. And, for those people who do not have access to a car, they are to suffer a reduction in bus services on Crewe Road South.
Promoter: The objector may not be speaking for “everyone”. The tram stop on the Roseburn Railway Corridor is only marginally further from the centre of the WGH site than would be a stop on Crewe Road South. Both Lothian Buses and Transdev have confirmed that they will not be reducing bus frequencies to the WGH as a result of the introduction of the tram. This reflects an obvious commercial view that even with both tram lines very many destinations will continue to be made by bus. The creation of Transport Edinburgh Limited will provide the mechanism for this integrated approach. The proposed Crewe Toll Interchange and frequent shuttle bus will provide a first class facility for those who choose not to make the short walk for whatever reason; darkness, inclement weather, mobility impairment for example. Tram feeder buses have been particularly successful in Croydon. [B Cross & A Oldfield]
299 It is clear, from the above, that there is over-whelming support for Tram Line 1 serving the WGH better than currently proposed. Given that CEC Planning and Transport officials initially wanted the WGH served properly, it would appear that it is just TIE and Mott MacDonald who disagree
Promoter: The promoter is firmly in favour of the proposed route. [B Cross]
Consequences of not serving the Western General Hospital directly (includes Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield.)
300 Not to provide a direct stop at the WGH will have a number of consequences. It will be a significant lost opportunity for providing major sustainable public transport improvements to Edinburgh’s second largest hospital, the Western General Hospital. The proposed alignment is too far away to be of any benefit to the vast majority of people travelling to and from the hospital, so will not attract people out of their cars. NHS Lothian will continue to experience difficulties in attracting and retaining staff.
Promoter: The proposed route does serve the WGH see para’ 3.
301 Not serving the WGH directly is contrary to central government objectives of encouraging sustainable travel and improving the environment. It is contrary to local government objectives of encouraging people out of the private vehicles and onto public transport, when travelling to and from a major trip generator. It is contrary to the objectives of the tram scheme itself, which is to provide high quality public transport to encourage motorists to drive less.
56
Promoter: The proposed route does serve the WGH see para’ 3. The objector’s route route sacrifices more through patronage for less local patronage at additional capital and operating cost. [A Oldfield]
302 As the current proposed alignment will fail to address existing traffic problems associated with the WGH, these will continue and worsen. Parking problems in the surrounding local streets will worsen. As the tram scheme proposes to reduce existing bus services, which currently serve the WGH, this is likely to result in more people driving to and from the WGH, causing more congestion, increasing pollution and incidences of accidents.
Promoter: See para’ 6. The objector continues to repeat the assertion that ‘the tram scheme proposes to reduce existing bus services’ this is simply not true. Bus services in the UK outwith London and Northern Ireland are deregulated. There is no provision by which the promoter of the Edinburgh Tram can reduce bus services. Bus services are often adjusted to meet what the private-sector bus operator perceives is to their financial advantage. In calculating the economic impact of the Edinburgh Tram the promoter has taken an informed ‘best guess’ as to what the reaction of bus passengers and bus operators may be. If the bus operator believes that the demand exists for a bus service they are free to provide it. If the existing operator fails to provide a service it is impossible for any authority to prevent a competent and suitably qualified operator from introducing a service. Nevertheless we understand that Lothian Buses intend to maintain the existing level of services on Crewe Road for the foreseeable future. [B Cross]
303 It will be a missed opportunity to serve the local community and tap in to the potential local patronage, which the Promoter accepts would be higher than the current alignment.
Promoter: The proposed route captures more patronage (see para’ 124) and will bring benefits to the local community in the Roseburn/Western General Hospital area by reducing commuter traffic from the Waterfront developments – thus permitting local bus services to operate more reliably and efficiently. These bus services will serve the WGH and act as feeders to the tramway as part of an integrated public transport network. [B Cross]
304 The alternative alignment along Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road would address the above problems. Group 33 accepts that this option is more expensive but is of the firm opinion that the additional cost is justifiable in order to achieve greater benefits.
Promoter: Economic case for the objector’s option is poorer than the proposed route, for the reason’s described above. [L Buckman]
305 It is certainly the case that no one wants to be in the position of being back in Parliament in a number of years, debating the Tram Line 1 Crewe Road South Extension Bill. This is not a jest, but a real possibility. One just has to look at the case of the Royal Hallamshire Hospital (RHH) in Sheffield to appreciate this.
Promoter: The argument is somewhat academic, since the proposed route does serve the WGH. However, if one looks elsewhere, to Manchester for example (which is certainly one of the most successful schemes in the UK) we see the opposite argument prevails compared to that presented by Mrs Bourne. On the Eccles line studies were conducted to assess the merits of serving the Hope Hospital verses the straight alignment along the main road which does not. The conclusion was to follow the straight alignment as this approach gave the best overall economic service. [A Oldfield]
306 When trams were introduced in Sheffield, a very similar situation arose, with the tram route not directly serving the RHH or many other key generators. The major area of social deprivation was subsequently demolished, thereby drastically reducing the patronage base of the tram system. Patronage figures for Supertram have only recently broken through the 50% of anticipated figures mark after several years in operation. It would appear that the Sheffield Promoter had a similar opinion to TIE, in that the tram should be fast and that it did not need to serve key generators – people would use the tram for the sheer pleasure of it.
57
Promoter: The reasons for the relatively poor initial performance of Sheffield Supertram are long and complex. Failure to serve the Royal Hallamshire Hospital is probably one of the least important reasons for these problems. A major reason for poor initial patronage was that the deregulation of buses in 1985 had fundamentally changed the public transport market in South Yorkshire. Edinburgh has recognised this problem and is working towards an integrated transport network for the city, with buses and trams acting in complementary roles. Transport Edinburgh Ltd has been set up to achieve integration between all public transport modes in the city. The proposed route generates more patronage than the objector’s route. The promoter does not believe that “people would use the tram for the sheer pleasure of it”, we have extensive evidence from successful schemes elsewhere that people use trams when they offer an overall advantage in terms of reliability, comfort and overall journey time, the route via the Roseburn Railway corridor offers these advantages. [S McIntosh & A Oldfield]
307 The website, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-078), for the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS gives details about how to travel to the RHH. This is a large medical campus with the RHH Jessop Wing, Charles Clifford Dental Hospital and Weston Park Hospital). With regard to trams, the website does say that they serve the RHH campus but points out that the nearest stop is at the University stop and states that it is important to note that the hospitals are still a 10 - 15 minute uphill walk away. For anyone who has difficulty walking long distances, the NHS recommends that alternative means of transport be used to access the hospital.
Promoter: Comparison cannot be drawn between this and the WGH. It takes only about 3 minutes to walk from the proposed stop location to the WGH. The RHH hospital campus is considerably larger; containing a number of hospitals and larger numbers of people. Also Mrs Bourne seems to attribute poor performance of the Sheffield Scheme to the fact that it does not serve the hospital. My understanding is that the scheme does now deliver an operating surplus. More importantly, it is my understanding that, historically, the principal problems associated with the patronage and revenue on the scheme arose from the lack of integration of public transport following bus deregulation and privatisation. A further contributing problem was that, whilst key destinations were served; only a relatively small proportion of the route passed within 400m of residential catchments containing the people who would seek to travel to those destinations. It underlines the need to penetrate residential areas and developments (including existing and proposed new developments on the Edinburgh scheme such as those at Granton and Forth Ports). [A Oldfield]
308 As a result of the poor alignment and the disappointing patronage figures of the tram scheme, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) is now proposing to attempt to correct the situation by building an extension, in order to serve the hospital. Sheffield City Council considered a report, (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-079), on this matter, in April 2004, and has interesting background information. Table 1 notes that the cost estimate of the extension is £94 million but I understand that, to date, no source of funding has been identified for the proposed extension. Having expended a large sum of public money on the original scheme, which has achieved limited success and popularity, it is debatable whether funds for the proposed extension will ever materialise.
Promoter: The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive has evidence that Supertram is achieving many of its objectives – particularly making a contribution to the economic and environmental well being of the area that it serves by achieving significant modal shift from the private car. A number of extensions to the network are now proposed, one of which is an extension to the hospital complex. Promoting extensions to the network is a sign of the success of the system, rather than an implication that the original network was misconceived. All the second generation tramways in the UK are seeking to grow and to serve wider areas. [S McIntosh]
309 It should have been served from the outset and is now a major problem and issue. This is virtually identical to the case of the WGH.
Promoter: Disagree. Please see para’ 307. [A Oldfied]
310 Section 3.5 of the report refers to consultation on the proposed extensions and notes that support centred around improved access and choice whilst section 3.6 notes that some residents, who were opposed to the Ranmoor extension, did support an extension to the hospitals.
58
311 Section 2.2 of Appendix A gives details of the route of the extension, which will run onstreet. Section 3.1 of Appendix B notes that the extension is to be assessed against the five national objectives. These are similar to the STAG objectives. There is no suggestion of using “special” objectives with weightings. Section 4 of Appendix B notes that the extensions will serve the Royal Hallamshire and Northern General and “link them directly to the rest of the public transport system”.
312 Rotherham Borough Council considered a report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-080), in July 2004, which makes reference to the extension and supports it.
313 In addition, an extract from a report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-081) of the Supertram’s extensions includes an assessment undertaken by Faber Maunsell, consultants engaged by SYPTE and notes that the proposed RHH extension route will run through an area that is relatively prosperous and that the main social inclusion benefits arise from improved access to health care and educational opportunities. The beneficiaries would primarily be residents in other corridors served by Supertram who would obtain improved access to healthcare and educational opportunities.
314 This is almost identical to the case of the Western General Hospital. The current alignment is too far and does not serve the hospital directly, whilst a direct link would provide improved access to health care for a wide catchment. The level of dependence upon the Waterfront/Granton development is very worrying and the Edinburgh Tram Scheme may well not achieve the Promoter’s anticipated patronage figures, which are already significantly reduced from the Andersen Report forecasts. If the tram alignment is not amended at this stage to serve the front door of the Western General Hospital, there is a very real possibility that this situation will be unable to be rectified as there may well be no money available for an extension. Group 33 believes it is important to learn from the Sheffield experience and ensure that the alignment is in the correct place to maximise benefits.
Promoter: The situation is not comparable (see para 307). The proposed scheme offers the best overall economic benefits. The proposed scheme also serves the hospital, which will be within a 3 minute walk of the tram stop. [A Oldfield]
Conclusions
315 Initially, we found that the Promoter was very reluctant to provide any background information regarding the tram scheme and this only changed after repeated complaints. The FOI Act has proved an invaluable aid to accessing information that the Promoter may have preferred to withhold. That said, it has been very difficult, given the Promoter’s total failure to keep file notes, notes of meetings/telephone calls, etc, to piece together the saga of Tram Line 1 and the Western General Hospital.
Promoter: Mrs Bourne has clearly been provided with a great deal of information. [B Cross]
316 It appears, from the documents provided to me, that the alignment of Tram Line 1 was initially driven by the interests of private businesses and developers in North Edinburgh, who were keen to secure a rapid transit link between the redevelopment sites in the north of the city and the city centre. TIE has been happy to satisfy these interests but it is the contention of Group 33 that serving the aspirations of the new property developments does not preclude serving the needs of the wider travelling public. Indeed, as the tram scheme is to be funded overwhelmingly by the public purse, it is the needs of the wider travelling public and, in particular, priority passengers, which should take precedence.
Promoter: The regeneration of north Edinburgh and the provision of housing within the existing boundaries of the city meets national objectives and is in the interests of the city and the nation as a whole. The city will benefit from the economic growth that the developments will bring, but is mindful of its duty to minimise the economic and environmental problems that would occur if development in Edinburgh was purely car-based and lead to significant increases in congestion. The promoters believe that the route selected for ET – L1 will provide general benefits to the population of the city by allowing sustainable development. It will also provide particular benefit to the residents of the Roseburn/WGH area by providing them with an attractive, reliable and rapid link to the city centre and – via the wider integrated public transport network – to the whole of the city.
59
Achieving a modal shift from private cars for residents in the new developments along the waterfront will also benefit Roseburn residents by reducing traffic growth in their area – allowing buses to provide a more reliable service in their area. The Roseburn railway Corridor route also serves the WGH via a 3 minute walk, feeder bus services and modifications to existing bus services could also provide additional links via buses serving the Crewe Toll and Craigleith stops. By adopting the proposed route the tram serves more people, overall, than the objector’s option via Crewe Road South. The future residents of the developments in North Edinburgh will also become members of that “wider travelling public”. [B Cross]
317 CEC does not appear to have been driving the project, most notably in regard to the Western General Hospital, and hence its transport objectives, which include integration and social inclusion, were compromised. CEC gave clear comments on WP1 that they were dissatisfied with the provision for the Western General Hospital on Tram Line 1 and instructed that a “rigorous examination of route options at this location be carried out”. This instruction appears to have been completely ignored and it was not until almost a year later, when the omission of Craigleith Road came to light, that any other route option was examined but, by then, of course, it was too late.
Promoter: The analysis carried out by the promoters has satisfied the Council that the route proposed offers the best overall balance. The objector seems to imply that any decision that is not congruent with her own prejudices is automatically flawed (see Q 2970. The proposed route does serve the WGH (arguably better than the Crewe Road option proposed by the promoter). The assessment of options was progressed in so far as was necessary for CEC to reach a conclusion. [A Oldfield & B Cross]
318 It is important, we feel, to remember that the Council was simultaneously promoting the Edinburgh Congestion Charging Scheme. We suspect that it was considered essential that the Council should be able to point at the fact that they had two Tram Bills lodged with the Scottish Parliament in order to demonstrate how they were “delivering” transport improvements. They may have believed that any delay to the lodging of the Bills would not have helped convince a sceptical public that significant transport improvements would, in fact, been delivered. Therefore, we believe that the possible provision of a direct tram stop for the WGH was sacrificed.
Promoter: There was no such linkage. The promotion of two bills gives better flexibility to progress one or the other scheme for whatever reason. [B Cross]
319 We are compelled to question whether the involvement of Mott MacDonald through all stages of Tram Line 1 has resulted in the disadvantages of the route never having been addressed. Perhaps if a new consultant had taken over at the sifting stage, a very different alignment may have emerged. One can see from WP1 that, instead of assessing links using the five STAG objectives and their sub-objectives, Mott MacDonald used their own objectives with weightings. The criteria of “Integration” and “Accessibility” were not included at all but “Technical Implementability” (“Ease of Construction”) was and this was given the highest weighting. We can see no logical or acceptable reason why any criteria, other than those laid down in STAG, should have been used.
Promoter: Please see para′ 199 and 213. [L Buckman]
320 Comparing the assessment of Tram Line 1 with Tram Line 2 and, especially, with Tram Line 3, there is clear inconsistency. We believe that the approach to the assessment of Lines 2 and 3 was more in accordance with the guidance set down in STAG and that the consultants exercised “open mindedness” in order to identify the best alignment achievable, in accordance with national and local objectives.
Promoter: The selection process was robust and acceptable to the Scottish Executive. It complies with STAG. [L Buckman]
321 Mott MacDonald failed to assess the Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road link initially – an option that would provide the connection back to Haymarket. It is not clear why they failed to identify this route and, to date, we have been given no explanation for this.
60
Promoter: The objector seems to imply that any decision that is not congruent with her own prejudices is automatically flawed. The technical advisors to the promoter carried out a selection process that was robust, was acceptable to the Scottish Executive and to the Council; (please refer to para’ 13). Note that the inclusion of the large detour away from an otherwise relatively direct and free-running alignment between and through centres of demand (a scenario which exists for the Roseburn Route) contradicts experience elsewhere on what the general philosophy of tram alignment designers should be. [A Oldfield & Barry Cross]
322 However, once this route was identified, it would appear that assessments seem to have sought to discredit the link – even down to incorrectly stating the width of Craigleith Road.
Promoter: Disagrees; the assessment of the Crewe Road option was made against the same evaluation criteria. There was no “attempt to discredit the link”. It has been conceded that the figure stated in the report was done so in error but the assessment was made upon the true width. The evaluation report is factual. .[M Bain]
323 Group 33 would contend that much of the assessment work of Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road is flawed and biased. Many statements have been made which are unsubstantiated and FoI requests have also failed to disclose evidence to substantiate the Promoter’s position.
Promoter: Disagrees; the objector seems to imply that any decision that is not congruent with her own prejudices is automatically flawed. [B Cross]
324 The Promoter would have us believe that an increased journey time of just 1 minute 14 seconds would severely weaken the business case for Tram Line 1 by discouraging hundreds of thousands of passenger journeys per year between Granton and Haymarket. Given that there are no direct alternative public transport services, this argument is not accepted.
Promoter: At this location an increased journey time of 1 minute is likely to cause a drop in through patronage of around 150,000 through passengers per year (this figure increases significantly as run times rise closer to run times by other modes). The objector’s proposed route gives a much more significant increase in run time and consequent drop in patronage (see para’ 124). [L Buckman]
325 We would agree that, where a tram is running on a route in direct competition with bus services, there is an argument (a) to reduce bus services on that particular route; and (b) that journey time is important. However, there is no competing bus service, which follows the same route as Tram Line 1. In particular, from the Waterfront to Granton to Haymarket, there is no direct bus service, which could compete. This section has been described by Lothian Buses (whom, we believe, are the public transport experts in the City of Edinburgh) as the “weak leg”. Therefore, there is a clear argument on this stretch of the route that providing direct tram stops at every possible key destination and, above all, the Western General Hospital, is crucial. The comments of the tram operator, Transdev, would tend to suggest that they may be of the same view.
Promoter:: The competition is not with buses on this corridor – it is with the private car, one of the objectives of providing improved public transport such as the Edinburgh Tram is to attract motorists out of their cars and onto more sustainable modes of transport. All the evidence shows that the patronage arising from the proposed route is better than the patronage on the objector’s alternative alignment. [A Oldfield & S McIntosh
326 It should also be considered that another bus operator could identify a route from Granton, via the front door of Telford College, along Crewe Road South, up Orchard Brae to the West End and Haymarket/City Centre and that this route would probably beat the tram on journey time and capture much of the patronage of this section of Tram Line 1. Can Tram Line 1 afford to run this risk?
Promoter: Bus services in the UK outwith London and Northern Ireland are deregulated. Bus services are often adjusted to meet what the private-sector bus operator perceives is to their financial advantage. If a bus operator believes that the demand exists for a bus service they are free to provide it. If the existing operator
61
fails to provide a service it is impossible for any authority to prevent a competent and suitably qualified operator from introducing a service. It is noticeable that no operator has proposed a route along the alignment proposed by the objector. Given the commercial operating speeds of bus services – and their proven inability to achieve the levels of modal shift that have been achieved with modern tramway systems – it is possible that such a bus route would be uneconomic, it is certainly probable that it would not achieve the overall economic and environmental benefits of the tram. [A Oldfield & S McIntosh]
327 Furthermore, we would point out that a direct stop at the site of the new Telford College and stop(s) on Crewe Road South would serve a potential patronage base in excess of 37,000 people (excluding residents), many of whom are either elderly/infirm or students (heavily dependent on public transport). The key generators on this section of route, including the Western General, attract large numbers of people throughout the course of the day, not simply at rush hour. It seems incomprehensible to us that the tram is not seeking to capitalise on this market. One could be forgiven for suspecting that the Promoter feels that serving this market does not quite accord with the image of the tram they are trying to promote in order to attract “businessmen out of their BMWs”.
Promoter: Patronage arising from “this market” is limited and is not borne out by the modelling which confirms that the Railway Corridor produces the best overall patronage. It is important to provide appropriate means by which people can access the hospital. For the majority of the population who are able bodied the proposed tram stop provides access to the WGH by means of a 3 minute walk along generally level, made up, roads. The promoter also proposes to secure a shuttle bus service from the Crewe Toll Interchange to the WGH, it is proposed that the feeder bus would enter the hospital site providing better access for the mobility impaired than would be provided, from alighting at a stop on Crewe Road (often on the wrong side of the road). [L Buckman]
328 Tram Line 1 is to be paid for from public funds. Its priority, therefore, should be to serve the needs of as large a proportion of the travelling public as possible. Group 33 feels strongly that the public will expect to see real benefits delivered as a result of Tram Line 1, particularly after what promises to be a painful construction period, and, of this, the provision of good transport links to one of the city’s main hospitals, already suffering significantly from the effects of poor transport, should be prioritised. The criteria of “Accessibility” and “Integration”, in order to maximise social inclusion and sustainable travel, were and are crucial to the success of Tram Line 1.
Promoter: The route via Crewe Road South may meet the aspiration of the objector in removing the tramway from the vicinity of their property, but the proposed route via the Roseburn Railway Corridor serves the general public throughout its length. It provides excellent links to major regeneration areas. It will lead to a significant shift in market share for public transport, leading to a reduction in future congestion levels. It serves the local areas through its ‘walk-in’ catchments and by transfer from bus services at all the major road corridors that cross the tram route. It provides access to the hospital via a short walk. The promoter proposes to secure additional bus feeder services to the hospital for those who are unwilling or unable to walk. The ability to access the hospital is an important issue and care has been taken to make it as good as possible. However there are many other issues that have to be born in mind in achieving a balanced appreciation of the options. Edinburgh Tram Line 1 is not intended to be an universal panacea, it is intended to be part of an integrated package of public transport services. The contention that it does not do everything perfectly should not allow the objectors to pretend that it does nothing. [B Cross & S McIntosh]
329 The public, the NAO, Faber Maunsell, Semaly, the environmental groups, local MSPs, NHS Lothian and the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, the Promoter’s Planning Section and even the Promoter itself recognise the importance of providing a direct link for a main city hospital. If Doc Ref AJB-WGH-018 is to be believed, even TIE concede that a stop to serve at least the back door of the hospital should have been recommended. It is most regrettable that, despite the fact that the Promoter’s consultants were supposed to act on the instructions of the Promoter, its views appear to have been overruled. This has put a very heavy onus upon individual members of the public to ensure that CEC’s original objective, on behalf of the public, were met in relation to Tram Line 1 and the Western General Hospital.
Promoter: The proposed route serves the WGH. [A Oldfield & S McIntosh]
62
330 In view of the deficiencies of the sifting process, we would suggest that the Promoter should be instructed to undertake the route sifting process again, using the national criteria laid down in STAG. Preferably, this should be undertaken by a consultant who has had no previous involvement in Tram Line 1. Tram Line 1 is clearly going to be very expensive and we believe it is imperative that it can demonstrate that it offers both “Best Value” to the public purse and that it will deliver the range of benefits which national and local objectives seek to ensure. We would argue that serving the city’s second largest hospital is a justifiable additional cost and one which should never have been in question.
Promoter: The route selection process was undertaken in a consistent and unbiased manner; using a consistent set of criteria at each stage. The process was compliant with STAG and was accepted by the Scottish Executive. No re-sifting process would result in an answer that would satisfy the objector. [L Buckman]
331 In the event that the Committee considers that “resifting” is unfeasible, we would respectfully request that the Committee seek to ascertain what expert evidence the Promoter has to substantiate the view that minimising journey time is more important that maximising patronage. Given the findings of the NAO, Faber Maunsell and Semaly, who make no mention of the importance of minimising journey time over maximising patronage, we believe this would be a prudent line of inquiry.
Promoter: Minimising journey time is not more important than maximising patronage – it is a means of achieving it. The achievement of attractive (quick) run times is fundamental to achievement of patronage on the tram. The run time also impacts upon operating costs - both vehicle and crew costs. It is, therefore at the heart of a number of key aspects of the scheme and well worthy of consideration in the evaluation of options. This is combined with a continuous professional effort to develop a route which achieves a balance between through patronage and local patronage throughout the route. [L Buckman]
332 The Promoter promised us in the Tramtime leaflet that: “Convenience for passengers is a priority, particularly at shopping centres, school, hospitals, railway stations and housing areas”. This is what Group 33 would like to see delivered on Tram Line 1 and, of all these key generators, the Western General Hospital is, we believe, the most important.
Promoter: The proposed scheme achieves the best balance of serving these – oft conflicting - needs. The use of the former railway line offers a service for all of these categories: which include; the Waterfront developments, the Craigleith Retail Park (including the new retail development at no 118); Schools, Western General Hospital; Haymarket Station and housing throughout it’s length. [A Oldfield]
Alison Bourne (For Group 33)
June 2005
63
LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Reference Number Document Name and Details
Tram Line One Public Consultation Leaflet – May/June 2003 AJB-WGH-001 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from the Promoter’s www.tramtime.com website.) Letter from TIE to Ms P Craik – 11/08/03 AJB-WGH-002 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from TIE to A Bourne – 18/08/03 AJB-WGH-003 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) CEC Planning Committee – Tram Report – 07/08/03 AJB-WGH-004 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from CEC website, under Council Business.) Letter from TIE to Ms P Craik – 22/09/03 AJB-WGH-005 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from TIE to Mr & Mrs Bourne – 26 September 2003 AJB-WGH-006 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from TIE to R Bourne – 26/09/03 AJB-WGH-007 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) CEC Planning Committee – Tram Report – 02/10/03 AJB-WGH-008 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from CEC website, under Council Business.) TIE Consultation Report – Section 5: Craigleith Options Comments AJB-WGH-009 (Electronic copy submitted. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) TIE Consultation Report – Section 7: Third Party Consultation AJB-WGH-010 (Electronic copy submitted. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from Friends of the Earth Edinburgh to Tramtime – 09/07/03 AJB-WGH-011 (Paper copy submitted.)
Letter from Transform Scotland to Tramtime – 10/07/03 AJB-WGH-012 (Paper copy submitted.)
Letter from Scottish Association for Public Transport to Tramtime – July AJB-WGH-013 2003 (Paper copy submitted.) TIE Consultation Report – Section 9: Public and Community Meetings AJB-WGH-014 (Electronic copy submitted. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.)
64
Note of Meeting – 30/01/03 – Cllrs Whyte and Jackson AJB-WGH-015 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Note of Meeting – 27/05/03 – Cllrs Whyte and Jackson AJB-WGH-016 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Note of Meeting – undated – Alan Penman, LUH NHS Trust AJB-WGH-017 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) TIE Note – undated – Recommendation of Craigleith Option B AJB-WGH-018 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) TIE Report – Sept 03 version – Review of Telford Road Options AJB-WGH-019 (Electronic copy submitted. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) Set of related E-mails – 05/09/03 and 04/11/03 – TIE/Mott MacDonald AJB-WGH-020 (Paper copies submitted. Assume electronic versions are available from the Promoter.) Speech to EQSP – 29/10/03 AJB-WGH-021 (Electric copy submitted.)
Summary of EQSP meeting – 29/10/03 – Weber Shandwick AJB-WGH-022 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Press Release – 26/09/03 – Weber Shandwick AJB-WGH-023 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Andersen Report – July 2001 AJB-WGH-024 (Electric copy submitted. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.)
CEC Note of Meeting – 03/11/03 – Cllr Burns/Objectors AJB-WGH-025 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Objectors’ Note of Meeting – 03/11/03 – Cllr Burns/Objectors AJB-WGH-026 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Minutes of EQSP meeting – 10/11/03 AJB-WGH-027 (Electronic copy submitted.)
CEC Full Council – Tram Report – 13/11/03 AJB-WGH-028 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from CEC website, under Council Business.) Speech to Full Council – 13/11/03 AJB-WGH-029 (Electric copy submitted.)
E-mail – 13/11/03 – TIE/Weber Shandwick AJB-WGH-030 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) 65
E-mail – 27/10/03 – CEC/TIE AJB-WGH-031 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) CEC Full Council – Tram Report – 11/12/03 AJB-WGH-032 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from CEC website, under Council Business.) Speech to Full Council – 11/12/03 AJB-WGH-033 (Electric copy submitted.)
E-mail – 10/12/03 – All CEC Councillors from A Bourne AJB-WGH-034 (Paper copy submitted.)
Briefing Note to Full Council – 11/12/03 - FOEE AJB-WGH-035 (Paper copy submitted.)
Craigleith Options Summary (final) – 29/11/03 – TIE/Mott MacDonald AJB-WGH-036 (Electronic copy submitted.)
TL1 STAG 2 Appendices – 28/11/03 – TIE/Mott MacDonald AJB-WGH-037 (Electronic copy submitted.)
E-mail – 19/11/03 – Mott Macdonald/TIE & CEC AJB-WGH-038 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Craigleith Options Summary (draft) – 19/11/03 – TIE/Mott MacDonald AJB-WGH-039 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) E-mail – 25/11/03 – CEC/TIE AJB-WGH-040 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Set of related E-mails –07-09/12/03 – A Bourne/CEC AJB-WGH-041 (Paper copies submitted. Assume electronic versions are available from the Promoter.) Set of related E-mails –09-10/12/03 – A Bourne/CEC AJB-WGH-042 (Paper copies submitted. Assume electronic versions are available from the Promoter.) Set of related E-mails –June/July 2003 – A Bourne/TIE AJB-WGH-043 (Paper copies submitted. Assume electronic versions are available from the Promoter.) Note – 10/12/03 – Promoter AJB-WGH-044 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) TL1 Work Package 1 Report – 19/12/02 – TIE/Mott MacDonald AJB-WGH-045 (Electronic copy submitted. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) WP1 Comments – December 2002 – CEC AJB-WGH-046 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) 66
E-mail – 14/04/05 – A Bourne/CEC AJB-WGH-047 (Paper copy submitted.)
Letter from TIE to A Bourne – 29/04/05 AJB-WGH-048 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) STAG – September 2003 – Scottish Executive AJB-WGH-049 (Electronic copy submitted, but suggest only Chapter 4 is necessary.)
STAG Executive Summary – September 2003 – Scottish Executive AJB-WGH-050 (Electronic copy submitted.)
TL2 Work Package 1 Report Extract – 2003 – TIE/Aegis Semaly AJB-WGH-051 (Electronic copy provided. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) Edinburgh LRT Masterplan Feasibility Study – January 2003 - Ove Arup AJB-WGH-052 (Electronic copy submitted.)
TL3 Preferred Route Corridor Report – 2004 – TIE/Faber Maunsell AJB-WGH-053 (Electronic copy provided. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) TL3 Preferred Route Map – TIE AJB-WGH-054 (Electronic copy provided. Assume paper version is available from the Promoter.) Set of related E-mails – May-August 2004 – A Bourne/CEC AJB-WGH-055 (Paper copies submitted.)
CEC Planning Committee – Tram Line 3 Report – 05/05/04 AJB-WGH-056 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from CEC website, under Council Business.) CEC Planning Committee – Tram Line 3 Report – 03/11/04 AJB-WGH-057 (Electronic copy submitted. Also available from CEC website, under Council Business.) Tram Line 1 Presentation to TIE Board – 22/04/03 AJB-WGH-058 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) E-mail – 16/09/03 – Mott Macdonald/TIE & CEC AJB-WGH-059 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from Cllr Burns to A Bourne – 22/10/03 AJB-WGH-060 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from CEC to Cllr Walker – 19/12/03 AJB-WGH-061 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from NHS Lothian to PBU – 07/12/04 AJB-WGH-062 (Paper copy submitted.)
67
TL1 STAG 2 – TIE/Mott MacDonald AJB-WGH-063 (Copy not submitted, as this is one of the Promoter’s supporting documents, previously lodged.) NHS Lothian Consultation Update No 2 – February 2005 AJB-WGH-064 (Paper copy submitted.)
Note of Meeting – 30/03/05 – Craigleith CLG AJB-WGH-065 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Letter from TIE to Ms P Craik – Transdev FOI request - 03/05/05 AJB-WGH-066 (Paper copy submitted. Assume electronic version is available from the Promoter.) Set of related E-mails – April 2005 – L Johnson/TIE AJB-WGH-067 (Paper copies submitted. Assume electronic versions are available from the Promoter.) Note of Meeting – 26/04/05 – SP Local Government & Transport Committee AJB-WGH-068 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Letter from Friends of the Earth Edinburgh to TL1 Committee – 22/10/04 AJB-WGH-069 (Paper copy submitted.)
Paper to NHS Lothian Board meeting – 09/02/05 AJB-WGH-070 (Paper copy submitted.)
Improving Public Transport in England Through Light Rail - NAO - April 04 AJB-WGH-071 (Copy previous submitted as part of earlier submission, on 27 August 2004. Joint letter regarding Promoter’s Accompanying Documents) Comparative Performance Data From French Tramways System - Faber AJB-WGH-072 Maunsell/Semaly (Copy previous submitted as part of earlier submission, on 27 August 2004.) Comparison of SYPTE Report with Tram Line 1 - A Bourne AJB-WGH-073 (Copy previous submitted as part of earlier submission, on 27 August 2004.)
Lyon Public Transport Route Map AJB-WGH-074 (Paper copy provided.)
Letter from Royal College of Nursing Scotland to A Bourne – 17/05/05 AJB-WGH-075 (Paper copy submitted.)
E-mail – 30/05/05 – A Bourne/Scottish Executive AJB-WGH-076 (Paper copy submitted.)
E-mail –29/06/05 – Scottish Executive/A Bourne AJB-WGH-077 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Extract from Sheffield NHS Hospitals Website AJB-WGH-078 (Paper copy submitted. Can also be accessed on www.sth.nhs.uk )
68
Tram Extensions Report – 28/04/04 - Sheffield City Council AJB-WGH-079 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Cabinet Report – 21/07/04 – Rotherham Borough Council AJB-WGH-080 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Extract from Supertram Extensions Report – 16/08/04 – Faber Maunsell AJB-WGH-081 (Paper copy submitted.)
E-mail – 13/06/05 – CEC/A Bourne AJB-WGH-082 (Electronic copy submitted.)
Tram Aspirational System Objectives – April 04 – CEC AJB-WGH-083 (Paper copy submitted.)
E-mail – 27/06/05 – TIE/A Bourne AJB-WGH-084 (Electronic copy submitted.)
69 GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF PATRICIA ALDERSON STATEMENT
ANDY COATES
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of Patricia Alderson representing Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A) regarding badgers in the Roseburn Corridor.
2 Issues of Concern
Badgers
2.1 In paragraph 3 of Mrs Alderson’s Witness Statement, she expresses some concerns over the construction of badger tunnels in the Roseburn Corridor, particularly in relation to drainage. It is correct that as part of the Badger Mitigation Plan (BMP) measures such as tunnels and fencing are proposed to prevent badgers from crossing the tram line (as described in my Witness Statement to this Group). Where tunnels are agreed as the best form of mitigation, these will be designed in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Edinburgh and Lothians Badger Group (ELBG) to the required specification and will be located as close as possible to existing badger pathways. The design of such mitigation measures will be developed alongside the detail design of the scheme and will allow for factors such as topography and drainage to ensure their effectiveness and longevity.
2.2 Mrs Alderson raises concerns in paragraphs 4-7 of her statement about the effects of the ETL1 proposals on the foraging habitat of badgers and that the proposals will deliberately increase badgers’ dependence on gardens for food. As described in my Witness Statement for this Group, the proposals for the Roseburn Corridor will have minimal effect on the foraging territory of the social groups along the corridor, much of which appears to lie outwith the confines of the corridor; as recognised by Mrs Alderson, there are badger paths both within and to and from the corridor. There is no deliberate intention to encourage badgers to forage more in gardens; the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) describes the proposals to enhance the habitats that will remain in the Corridor and to provide new foraging resources for badgers.
2.3 In paragraph 7, Mrs Alderson raises a concern about how badgers will maintain longitudinal access along the corridor particularly in locations
where the width of the corridor is somewhat restricted. All existing badger pathways, both along and across the corridor will be considered in design of the mitigation as part of the BMP and appropriate measures put in place to maintain access through existing social group territories along the Corridor.
2.4 Mrs Alderson raises concerns in paragraph 8 about the possibility of an increase in road kills if badgers are forced on to roads during construction. I recognise that this can be a risk if not properly addressed. As described in my Witness Statement, as part of the BMP mitigation measures will be put in place for both the construction and operation of the tram to minimise the risk of this occurring. Mrs Alderson describes the effects that a large housing development near Corstorphine Hill had on badger foraging resource and that this lead to an increase in road kills in the area. The ETL1 proposals differ from those of the development described at Corstorphine Hill, especially as the ETL1 proposals will not result in the loss of large areas of grazing pasture, a habitat type which is known to be favoured by foraging badgers. Mitigation measures will be designed in consultation with SNH and ELBG as part of the BMP to address these types of concerns.
2.5 In paragraph 9 Mrs Alderson raises the concern of badgers becoming trapped on the tram line and being hit by the tram. The Promoter is committed to producing a BMP which will detail the proposals for mitigation for badgers both during construction and operation, including measures to avoid badgers becoming trapped within the tramway. SNH has confirmed that they are content with the approach to mitigating the effects on badgers along the Roseburn Corridor.
2.6 Finally, Mrs Alderson suggests that a single rather than double tram track will improve the tram line for badgers. If construction of a single track option is adopted about a third less vegetation (or foraging area) will be lost compared with the twin track option. However, the ETL1 proposals will only have a small effect on the overall foraging territory of the badger social groups using the corridor anyway. Hence the benefit in terms of retaining foraging area will be very small in comparison to the total foraging areas used by the Roseburn badgers and in comparison to the advantages of double tracking outlined in a previous response to the Committee. The benefit from the partial single track option would be even less.
Andrew Coates Principal Consultant, ERM
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
ANDY COATES
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of Kristina Woolnough representing Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A) regarding loss of amenity, vegetation and wildlife. Ms Woolnough’s statement addresses various issues. My rebuttal addresses her comments on impact on vegetation, bats, insects, birds and badgers. My colleague Karen Raymond comments on points made in Ms Woolnough’s statement, paragraphs 15 to 22 and 25.
2 Issues of concern
Impacts on Vegetation – Adequacy of Surveys (paras 23-24)
2.1 Ms Woolnough suggests that the surveys undertaken to inform the EIA for the scheme were inadequate in that they did not provide us with sufficient information to understand the importance of the Corridor for wildlife. I can advise that this was not the case, as confirmed by the Committee in the Preliminary Stage of the Bill, which confirmed that the Bill and accompanying documents (including the ES) are adequate.
2.2 As my colleague Karen Raymond has indicated in her rebuttal to Ms Woolnough’s statement, we had available to us the results of surveys already undertaken by the Council, and these together with visits to the Corridor by experienced members of our team provided sufficient information for our purposes. This is in accordance with current ecological impact assessment guidance from The Institute of Environmental Assessment, ‘Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment‘ (Spon 1995) which indicates that detailed vegetation surveys are only required if Phase 1 Habitat Survey indicates the presence of protected, Red Data Book (RDB) and/or Nationally Scarce plant species. To quote from the guidelines ‘The inclusion of species in the British RDB (Perring and Farrell, 1983) is based on the occurrence of native species recorded in 15 or fewer 10km grid squares covering Great Britain. Nationally Scarce species are defined as those occurring in 16-100 10km grid squares in Great Britain.’
2.3 The Council survey was a standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken in 2001, the results of which were supplemented by habitats and species identified on site visits in 2002 and 2003 during the Environmental Impact
Assessment. The Phase 1 survey provided records of two nationally scarce plants, bog-rosemary (Andromeda polifolia) recorded from Leith docks and corn buttercup (Ranunculus arvensis) from Leith docks and Granton. No protected, RDB or Nationally Scarce species were identified within the limits of deviation for the tram
2.4 Ms Woolnough notes the presence of Allium vineale (wild onion) and Salix myrsinifolia (dark-leaved willow) in the Corridor. The record of dark-leaved willow was made 20 years ago from Granton in an area that will not be affected by the tram proposals. The wild onion was recorded from the Roseburn Corridor at Ravelston in 1992. These species are not protected, RDB or Nationally Scarce species, nor are they listed as notable rare species in the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan.
Loss of Trees (para 26-29)
2.5 Ms Woolnough queries the estimate of tree loss presented in the latest draft of the LHMP and suggests that the Promoter has failed to assess whether the embankments and cutting sides will need significant shoring up during construction and whether this will have an impact on vegetation. Some works may be required to provide enhanced stability of existing embankments and cuttings (see Tim Blower’s rebuttal to witness statements of Seonaid Mackay, Andrew Polson and Mark Clarke, para. 6.5) and it is possible that these works will require additional space and lead to further tree loss. However, if this proved to be the case and particular trees were affected that warranted protection, the works could be designed, or special measures (such as soil nails) deployed, to minimise the impact.
2.6 She also comments on recommendations made by SAC Arboriculture in reports of their recent tree surveys on protection of trees during construction. I can confirm that the Contractor will be required to follow current guidance on protection of trees on construction sites set out in British Standard 5837. This is addressed in the Code of Construction Practice which will form part of the contract for the works.
2.7 Ms Woolnough mentions SAC’s comments on the general amenity benefits offered by trees along the corridor, which I agree with, and comments on the role trees play in reducing noise and carbon dioxide levels. The LHMP is designed to retain the amenity benefits provided by vegetation along the Corridor as far as possible. It is, however, the case that although trees may provide a perception of noise benefit by obscuring the noise source, they provide little if any actual attenuation of noise. The role of trees in absorbing carbon dioxide has no impact on local air quality but only on global climate change. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant of concern for human health or vegetation at the levels at which it is present in the atmosphere. The benefits claimed are not therefore relevant to the assessment of impacts of tree loss.
Replacement Planting (paras 30 – 32)
2.8 Ms Woolnough mentions that in some areas, particularly around tram stops, landscaping will be planned to be very ‘civic’ in appearance and feels that this is inappropriate and counter to the ‘Urban Wildlife Site’ protected status.
2.9 As described in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) (Section B2.1), new and reinforcement planting will be designed to create and enhance habitats of benefit to wildlife, using predominantly native species obtained from local sources. A slightly more formal arrangement of planting will be undertaken around tram stops and access points to integrate the man-made features into the Corridor and soften the transition from hard surfaces to the softer nature of the planting elsewhere. The same species will be planted as elsewhere in the Corridor, but the layout will be slightly more structured, yet still in keeping with the nature of the corridor. The landscaping will be designed in consultation with City of Edinburgh Council Planning Culture and Leisure Department and the Natural Heritage Division of the Planning Department, Scottish Natural Heritage and local residents.
2.10 Ms Woolnough mentions the one-for-one replacement planting policy and says that the Promoter has not suggested where the planting will occur where there is no space in the Corridor.
2.11 The LHMP describes the general design principle of retaining as many trees as possible in Retention Classes A and B (desirable) defined in BS 5837: Trees in Relation to Construction, and to replace all trees felled for construction of the Tram on at least a one-for-one basis. Most of the trees planted will be young transplants, whips and feathered trees which are more likely to successfully establish. There will also be some planting of larger specimen trees (typically semi-mature standards) to provide a good mix of sizes of tree and act as a visual link to adjacent properties. The LHMP illustrates how this planting will be designed to provide screening and maximise amenity of corridor for neighbours and users. It also provides indicative locations of new standard trees which will be on a one-to-one basis, and new woodland planting of smaller trees (eg whips and feathereds) at 1 metre spacing, which will provide new trees in excess of the one-for-one basis.
2.12 Ms Woolnough states her concerns over the loss of vegetation and claims that the Promoter has persistently resorted to disparaging and derogatory descriptions of the Corridor to demean its value and status. She also says that the Promoter has stated that the tram will be a benefit, and that it will result in improved management of the Corridor.
2.13 The Promoter has always recognised the importance of the corridor for its amenity and wildlife value and is committed (through the LHMP) to retaining, protecting and enhancing the existing habitats, whilst maintaining the Corridor’s function as a wildlife corridor. Whilst the proposals will have an adverse impact they do present an opportunity to enhance the remaining vegetation in the Corridor for wildlife and amenity through new planting and improved management. The Promoter has consulted the local community
and other interested parties on the proposals for the corridor and will continue to do so as the detailed design develops.
Bats
2.14 Ms Woolnough claims that the bat surveys undertaken at the time of the ES were not adequate to determine the status of bats in the Corridor.
2.15 It is recognised in the ES that bats are protected species and are known to forage along the corridor. The bat survey undertaken for the EIA was undertaken by an experienced professional using standard, recognised methodology. The surveys recorded very few foraging pipistrelle in the Corridor and there were no signs of roosting bats. Buildings, particularly houses, are known to be the most favoured roost sites for pipistrelle bats, and it is likely that bats foraging along the corridor will be roosting in adjacent houses rather than in trees. Bats are very mobile species and their status and location are subject to change. A further survey will be undertaken for roost sites to assess whether any changes in status have occurred. This will occur prior to construction, but allowing enough time for any required mitigation.
2.16 In her statement Ms Woolnough suggests that mitigation proposals by the Bat Group do not appear in the LHMP. As described in my Witness Statement to the group, the LHMP will ensure that the Corridor’s function as a wildlife corridor (including its use as bat foraging habitat) will remain. Bat boxes will be erected as part of the LHMP to offer new roosting habitat (see Section B2.2). My colleague, Gary Turner has described the anticipated works required to bridges, particularly that all underline bridges (that the tram goes over) are to be widened to accommodate the tramway and walkway/cycleway. Where practical, these works can incorporate roost crevices in the bridge structures, as suggested in the letter from the Lothians Bat Group (39 June 03) [RC34/bat03], to provide additional bat roost habitat.
Insects
2.17 Ms Woolnough notes that no surveys of insects have been undertaken by the Promoter. This is correct. She mentions this in relation to a consultation letter received from the Scottish Executive during the EIA process (RC34/vegetation02). This letter refers to the need for identifying protected species on site before the application is considered for planning consent. Ms Woolnough refers to an article in ‘Dipterists Digest’ (RC34/insect01) which mentions the presence of a fly (Periscelis nigra) which is listed in the Red Data Book (Insects) as Category 1 (endangered), on an English elm tree in the Leith section of the network of former railway corridors. This lies outwith the route of the ETL1 and there is no record of this fly in the Roseburn Corridor.
2.18 Ms Woolnough suggests that invertebrates (including insects) should be surveyed by an independent expert. Detailed surveys for invertebrates are not considered necessary as the habitats that support them have been
assessed and sufficient habitat will remain to continue to support these species groups. This is based on guidance in the Institute for Environmental Assessment 'Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment', (Spon 1995), which states that detailed information on invertebrates is only required when there are previous records of protected, Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce species (see above for definitions of these), or when the Phase 1 survey identifies habitat of particular significance for invertebrates. No records of protected, Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce invertebrate species were obtained for this section of the Roseburn Corridor during the EIA and the habitat is common and not of particular significance for invertebrates.
2.19 The Landscape and Habitat Management Plan outlines proposals for retaining and protecting as much as possible of the existing vegetation along the corridor to retain its function as a wildlife corridor and to enhance the existing habitats for wildlife including invertebrates. It also outlines mitigation measures and management for wildlife.
Birds
2.10 Ms Woolnough claims that the bird population of the Roseburn Corridor has not been adequately assessed, nor the role of the Corridor as nesting and feeding grounds for birds. This is mentioned in relation to a consultation letter received from the Scottish Executive during the EIA process (RC34/vegetation02). This letter refers to the need for identifying protected species on site before the application is considered for planning consent.
2.21 Records of bird species of nature conservation importance were obtained through EIA consultation. No records of bird species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and amendments or EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) were obtained from the Roseburn Corridor. One protected species, kingfisher is present on the Water of Leith, and although the Roseburn Corridor crosses the water, it will not be directly affected by the proposals. Red List species (species whose population or range is rapidly declining, recently or historically and those of global conservation concern) known from the area were also recorded and their action plan objectives noted from the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (reported in Table 9.2 of the ES). Additional records of birds observed along the corridor were also made during site visits undertaken during the EIA studies.
2.22 Further breeding bird surveys have now been undertaken in May and June 2005 to assist with development of the LHMP. These surveys recorded 20 bird species breeding on or immediately adjacent to the Roseburn Corridor. All of these are common and widespread in the UK. Four species recorded are Red List (ie of high conservation concern) including song thrush (an Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan species), but all are still common and widespread. None of the bird species recorded is afforded protection under wildlife legislation other than while nesting.
2.23 Ms Woolnough suggests that there are no definite and detailed proposals for bird habitat compensation for nesting sites and food sources. These are in fact described in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (see Section B2.2) and include measures such as planting a variety of native trees and shrubs, including fruit and nut bearing species suitable as nesting and feeding habitat for birds and the provision of nest boxes in suitable locations.
Badgers
2.24 Ms Woolnough in her Witness Statement suggests that no work has been done on the impact of the tram on foraging grounds and badger access to foraging grounds and no work has been done to establish the foraging pathways into gardens and land adjacent to the Corridor, to ensure access is maintained.
2.25 As described in my Witness Statement for this group, the proposals for the Roseburn Corridor will have minimal effect on the foraging territory of the social groups along the corridor, much of which lies outwith the confines of the corridor. The sett and pathway survey did record badger paths both within and to and from the corridor and these are shown on plans included in that report. There are ongoing discussions between the Promoter, SNH and the Edinburgh and Lothian Badger Group about proposals for badger mitigation, which will include maintaining key badger paths. The LHMP describes the proposals to enhance the habitats that will remain in the Corridor and to provide new foraging resources for badgers.
2.26 Ms Woolnough describes her concerns over disturbance to badgers during construction. As described in my statement, The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will apply, and the Promoter will be required to obtain a licence from SNH before undertaking works in the vicinity of setts. The Promoter is committed to producing a Badger Mitigation Plan which will outline in detail the proposals for mitigation for badgers during construction and operation, including measures to prevent badgers from crossing the tramway. SNH have confirmed that they are content with the approach to mitigating the effects on badgers along the Roseburn Corridor.
Andrew Coates Principal Consultant, ERM
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
AILEEN GRANT
1 Background
1.1 I refer to the witness statement of Ms Woolnough (Vegetation and Wildlife), particularly those references in relation to policy context, impact on vegetation/biodiversity and the role of the Council as Planning Authority with regard to these matters.
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 It is agreed that the Roseburn corridor is identified as an urban wildlife site in the Central Edinburgh Local Plan.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 The Objector has suggested that the Roseburn Corridor is a “linear park”. This is not accepted. It is not designated as open space in any local plan.
3.2 The Objector has suggested that there is a policy conflict and that the local plan policy is that the corridor should be “retained for possible transportation purposes”. This is rebutted. The policy for this corridor actually states that the corridor is safeguarded for possible transportation purposes in the two local plans which cover it. The following terms are contained in Policy T4 in the Central Edinburgh Local Plan (CELP) - “The routes indicated on the Proposals Map will be protected for the possible construction of a light rapid transit (LRT) system”. In the North West Edinburgh Local Plan (NWELP) the corridor is similarly safeguarded by Policy T2 which states – Disused railway land from Queensferry Road to Davidson’s Mains, Granton and Newhaven, defined “walkways/cycleways” on the Proposals Map will be safeguarded for possible future highways of light rail proposals. The key in the Proposals Map states “Disused railway land to be retained as walkway/cycleways and reserved for possible future transportation purposes”. At the same time the corridor is designated as a wildlife site in CELP in recognition of the existing characteristics. There is no such designation on this corridor in NWELP. The policies allow for both urban wildlife and future transportation development, provided mitigation measures are included in transportation proposals. The tram proposals do make provision for mitigation measures.
3.3 The Objector suggests that two different symbols are used and this implies that the Roseburn corridor was identified as a cycle and walkway. The reason for the different symbols in CELP was to reflect that the proposals in respect of Leith Walk and Princes Street were more advanced and identified as “routes of proposed light rapid transit system”, whereas proposals affecting Roseburn Corridor were more tentative and hence identified as a “route to be safeguarded for possible transportation purposes”. This is the wording on the Proposals Map. There is no differentiation of symbol in NWELP.
3.4 The Objector suggests that there is no evidence that the Council’s Natural Heritage section was given the opportunity to have input to the principle of using the corridor for Tram Line 1. The Natural Heritage section is one part of the Strategy section within the Planning and Strategy “Service” within the City Development Department. Consultations which take place are purely internal. The views of this section are therefore incorporated within the various Planning Committee reports as the formal views of Planning and Strategy.
3.5 The Objector suggests that she sought evidence of consultation between the “two sections” and concludes that “normal inter- departmental consultative responses were waived”. As explained, Natural Heritage is not a separate department, and so there was no inter-departmental consultation. Records or evidence of internal discussions – effectively team working between colleagues - are not retained on a formal basis and not therefore available to members of the public. Formal views were not sought from the Transport “Service” as it was understood that tie’s proposals were in accordance with instructions emanating from them. If the Objector has concerns about the Council’s response under Freedom of Information provisions there is a separate complaints procedure for this. No such complaint has been received.
3.6 The Objector suggests that where “the City of Edinburgh Council’s own development is concerned, normal inter-departmental consultative responses were waived”. This suggests a misunderstanding of the role of the Planning Authority in this instance. The extent of the overall planning consideration of the proposals presented by tie was contained in the various reports to Planning Committee. Planning Committee could not assess the proposals as it is for Parliament to undertake that assessment in relation to the Private Bill. The Planning Authority will have a role in considering details at a later stage (see para 3.11). However, in promoting the Edinburgh Tram Project, the Council sought a view from the Planning Committee as a means of trying to ensure best practice, integration of planning and transport, and to promote a higher quality of design in the project. The three Planning Committee reports of 2003 have put this consideration in the public domain.
3.7 The role of the Planning Authority as “protector” of biodiversity and wildlife is now outlined in the recent Nature Conservation (Scotland)
Act 2004 which states that we have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of our functions. The Planning Authority fulfils this duty through the production of the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (and partnership working), the designation of locally important habitats (UWS/SINC), local plan policies to protect nationally and locally important habitats, the production of supplementary planning guidance such as the Development Quality Guideline on Biodiversity, policies to promote the proper management for nature conservation, policies to reduce the impact of development on the nature conservation value of development sites and the implementation of these policies. This role does not extend to a specific policing role to protect “on the ground” biodiversity and wildlife within the city - other than with the procedures relating to Tree Preservation Orders and protection of trees in Conservation Areas.
3.8 With regard to the management and maintenance of the Roseburn Corridor, this is not a matter under the control of the Planning Authority. Maintenance is carried out by the Council’s Department of Environmental and Consumer Services. I have made enquiries of that Department and understand that there is a budget of £25K for all the cycleways in the city. There is regular litter picking and broken glass clean-up. There is support given to local litter clean up events. There is also a once a year cut-back of vegetation for 1m either side of the cycleway. This form of low-key maintenance is considered by that Department to meet with the Biodiversity requirements. In additional they worked with both the Biodiversity Unit and 'Sustrans' - the cycle based body - to carry out pruning works around 2 years ago, to remove self seeded material growing on the track bed. They confirmed to me that they regard the bankings of the walkway as an important wildlife corridor but only manage the area by controlling invasive weed species such as Hogweed and tree works such as Dutch Elm Disease. I have also been in touch with the Department of Culture and Leisure which has a role in caring for much the city's public tree stock including trees in parks, gardens, woodlands and streets. Recently the Department has recruited two officers to work on trees and woodlands and is in the process of adopting new standards designed to improve the management of public trees. It has invested in new hardware and software and is engaged in pro-active inspections city-wide. They have advised that it will take some time for this all to be brought up to date but in the meantime specific issues relating to the safety of parks or street trees can be referred to that Department for attention.
3.9 With regard to the Objector’s criticisms, it is accepted that this management regime may not be perfect, but the Council has restricted resources for this work.
3.10 The Objector has suggested that the Biodiversity Action Plan (EBAP) has been “watered down”. This is rebutted. The old EBAP had a habitat action plan (HAP) for Wildlife Corridors and a separate HAP for
Urban Habitats. In the new plan, Urban Habitats and Wildlife Corridors have been consolidated into one HAP, the Urban HAP. The old EBAP had no proposed actions for the Roseburn Corridor but the new plan does. This action is to 'minimise disturbance to bank vegetation and wildlife during the construction of tram line 1 via input into the planning process’. This change indicates that the Planning and Strategy “Service” is taking a holistic approach to the corridor and that the EBAP reflects the change of status of the Tram from a safeguarded route to a definite proposal. The local plan established the principle of the corridor being developed for the tram. The new EBAP has simply responded to the fact that the tram is now a live project and accordingly promotes proper mitigation. It is not the role of EBAP to establish land use policy.
3.11 It is worth noting that the revision of the EBAP was done through partnership working. Stakeholder workshops were held with members of the Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership. A workshop was held in Summer 2002 and November 2004. A number of wildlife groups are represented on this Group, such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust, and so the change has been the subject of public and specialist scrutiny. The groups involved are listed in the Action Plan itself.
3.12 With regard to the Objector’s suggestion that there is a conflict of interest in relation to the “dual role”, the Council frequently acts as developer and there are special provisions under the Planning Acts about how such proposals should be handled – through a Notice of Intention to Develop. In such cases the Planning Committee of the Council is empowered to grant (or refuse) the Council consent, subject to certain checks and balances. In this case, however, Parliament is essentially being asked to grant or refuse consent and the role of the Council as Planning Authority will only formally come into play for “Prior Approvals”, listed building consent and any other planning applications required at a later stage (should Royal Assent be given to the Bill). Nevertheless, in promoting the Edinburgh Tram Project, the Council sought a view from the Planning Committee as explained above. Given the transparency of this approach, there is no conflict of interest.
3.13 It should also be borne in mind that the Planning Authority has a duty in making planning decisions on applications and particular projects to make these decisions in the public interest through the evaluation of all material considerations. In the case of tram line 1, biodiversity is one factor that is material to this application along with transport, social inclusion etc. It is considered that there is no conflict of interest, as the Roseburn Corridor has been identified in the local plan as a safeguarded transport route and an Urban Wildlife Site. The principle of the Roseburn Corridor having a dual function has been established in the statutory development plan and our duty to further the conservation of biodiversity has been fulfilled by commenting on the preparation of mitigation i.e. Landscape and Habitat Management Plan.
4 Conclusion
4.1 In the Central Edinburgh Local Plan, the Roseburn corridor has policy designations both as an urban wildlife site (reflecting its existing characteristics) and as a transportation safeguard for possible future LRT. It is not considered that there is a conflict between these designations, provided the tram proposals incorporate appropriate wildlife mitigation measures. The Natural Heritage section is part of the Strategy section of Planning and Strategy and their comments were incorporated into the overall planning response.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF ALISON BOURNE STATEMENT
ANDREW OLDFIELD
1 Background
In this Witness Rebuttal Statement I comment on the route selection raised in the witness statement of Alison Bourne, and her specific references to serving Western General Hospital.
My response to the other points raised by Alison Bourne in her witness statement is contained within the “Promoter’s comments on the witness statement of Mrs Alison J Bourne, Group 33 lead objector”.
2 Agreed Issues
There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in relation to my area of expertise.
Options to provide an alternative route along Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South were explored and rejected in report No. 203011/58B in November 2003. Further investigation into these options has been carried out in the light of representations by Ms Bourne. The following is a summary of our concerns over the use of this route. They cover the key route selection elements raised throughout Ms Bournes witness statement.
3 Issues in dispute
Ms Bourne quotes Keith Holden, NAO representative to Tram Lines 1 & 2 the ” the right connections are made where there are centres or points of economic activity such as hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, shops and the business district. Those places are the centres of economic activity and that is where the patronage base is. The Route is key” Mott Macdonald and tie wholly agree with that statement and have approached the route selection process in a way that takes full account of the opportunities generated by such centres and points of economic activity.
Patronage The number of passengers who use the tram (and hence the benefit and the revenue) is higher for the proposed route than for the objector's route via Crewe road south. My colleague Les Buckman will provide more detailed evidence on this. The extent of patronage is, therefore, not a relevant argument for the objector's proposed alternative. occurs because the run time is shorter on the proposed route; which therefore attracts a larger number of through passengers. Overall, balance must be struck between achieving the run time required for the through patronage and measures required to attract local patronage.
The experience on successful tram schemes is that this is best achieved by a relatively direct and uninterrupted route through - and between -the points of economic activity referred to by Keith Holden. The alignment via the Roseburn Railway Corridor achieves this. The alignment proposed by the objector represents a large "dog leg" in an otherwise relatively direct and high-quality alignment. It therefore results in a shift away from the optimum balance between local patronage and through patronage. Furthermore, the pattern of ridership applicable to this through patronage is likely to be such that many passengers will use the tram during the peak times; thus providing relief to the congested transport network (and parking facilities) at times in the morning and evening, when it is most needed. This will therefore provide the greatest economic and environmental benefit to Edinburgh.
The engineering and patronage assessment therefore supports the proposed route.
It is accepted, however, that providing access to the WGH is important from a social perspective. To some extent this importance is irrespective of the number of people that use the service. The level of importance which should be attached to this is not quantifiable in engineering terms. It is accepted that the Crewe Road provides an opportunity for a stop to be located close to the main gate of the WGH. However, it should be noted that the proposed route does provide access to the WGH as described elsewhere.
Accessibility The second objective is accessibility. As stated above, the importance in providing access to the WGH cannot be quantified in engineering terms. I recommended that the importance of providing access to the WGH should be considered further and assessed through public consultation. This recommendation was included in the Work Package 1 report and all relevant options reports prior to the public consultation. An alternative option running on street along Groathill Avenue and Telford Road was considered, the main advantage being the closer proximity of the Western General Hospital. The outputs from the public consultation were prepared by tie’s public relations consultants and considered together with the technical appraisal by CEC. CEC’s conclusion was in favour of the railway corridor. The outputs from the public consultation were passed to Mott MacDonald and incorporated in the Option Study Report.
Through further consultation an additional alternative route option emerged which required a diversion from the rail corridor at Queensferry Road to follow an on-street alignment via Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South. The basis for consideration of this new option was that it would further improve access to the WGH and thus improve both accessibility and patronage.
Whilst agreeing with Ms Bourne the importance of serving the hospital by tram, it would appear that the main point of contention is over the adequacy of the provision afforded by the railway route option as opposed to the perceived advantages of serving the Crewe Road South entrance as promoted by Ms Bourne.
In considering the options it is important that wider impacts and benefits of the tram system are considered. The hospital campus occupies a large site large site occupying an area approximately 500m square and bounded on the east by Telford Road and to the west by Crewe Road South. It’s key buildings are spread throughout the site, with no one central destination. Therefore, it is not possible to serve all areas of the hospital equally in terms of travel time or distance from stops on any route.
We would not disagree that in considering direct walking distances alone, some (but not all) of the key buildings would be closer to a stop located on Crewe Road South. It is essential, however, in considering the accessibility of the tram in relation to the hospital that the wider impacts of doing so via Crewe Road South are considered. My Colleagues Les Buckman, Karen Raymond Stuart Turnball and Mark Bain can elaborate on the precise impacts of an alternative route via Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South in terms of patronage, environment, traffic impact and alignment respectively.
However, there are a number of key impacts I would highlight. The overall route via Craigleith Road adds approximately 1500metres to the overall route, all of which runs on-streets with a predominantly residential frontage. The local impact on this route will effect a large number of residential frontages, require the removal of a significant number of designated parking bays, and, due to the number of access ways onto this section of street, increase the potential for traffic interface delay.
Alternatively, adopting Ms Bournes suggestion of using “open land” to the east of Crewe Road South to accommodate the tram would result in the removal of several large areas of landscaping, in addition to landscaped areas required from Sainsburys car park at Craigleith Retail Park.
It is estimated that the loss of mature vegetation to accommodate this route segregated to the east of Crewe Road South as Ms Bourne proposes in paragraph 15 of her witness statement would be in the order of 9500 square metres, virtually the same as the habitat loss over the Railway Corridor between Queensferry Road and CreweToll.
Consequently, we would anticipate significant number of objections to tram proposals on this route than the 21 current objections on the Railway Corridor.
Vegetation loss Craigleith/CreweRoad Vegetation loss opposite hospital
Considering the wider picture the route via Crewe Road South would result in an overall increase in journey time of 8 minutes resulting in a consequential fall off of patronage and a corresponding increase in private car use.
The capital cost of the project would rise by an estimated £22.5m (excluding additional vehicles) as a result of both the increased route length and the substantial amount of Public Utility diversions, the majority of which would not be necessary on the Railway route.
Operational safety is also impacted simply by virtue of the fact that it is longer and involves more travel. It should also be noted that, due to the inherent safety of trams and the fact that more people would travel by tram on the proposed route there is an overall gain in travel safety; by adopting the proposed route.
OPTIONS COMPARISON TABLE
Straight RRC Telford Rd option Crew/Craigleith Line Road option Distance Roseburn N 2800m 2940m 3174m 4472m Jun - Crewe Toll Estimated Run time 344 sec 498 sec 759 sec Tram track turns of 0 3 4 less than 40m No. of minor traffic 0 8 10 intersections No. of major traffic 0 6 4 junctions No. of on street 0 25 240 – of which parking bays affected 126 abolished Number of properties 11 35 168 passed within 10m of façade Number of properties 67 144 219 passed within 30m of façade Number of properties 115 182 340 passed within 50m of façade Properties to be 0 0 0 demolished Area of land outwith 0 700sqm 12500sqm * designated road or @ fire station 3000sqm** tram corridor to be grounds taken Number of mature 320 0 120 *** trees to be removed Number of 1000 per day Very little A lot pedestrians/cyclists Cost of utility minimal £5m/km £5m/km diversions Number of objectors All bar one 9 One [WGH] opposing route situated within 50m of RRC Level of local Low Med/High High disruption during construction Traffic flow impact Beneficial Negative Negative * includes land take required on eastern side of Crewe Road South to accommodate alignment as suggested by objector. ** includes only land take at Craigleith retail park and junction of Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South *** estimated tree loss on Craigleith Road. Does not include additional loss at Craigleith retail park and junction of Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South
Hospital Access Proposals
In order to address the perceived access difficulties over the promoted route we have consideration that location of stops in relation to the hospital in order to offer the most convenient and effective drop off locations for staff and visitors. It is planned that pedestrians will be served by a stop within the railway corridor at Telford Gardens and that a shuttle bus facility will be operated via CreweToll Stop.
Walking Route
The planned stop at Telford Gardens is 190m from the hospital boundary, and 320m from the current vehicular access. It is understood through discussions with hospital officials that the main access to the site by staff is via Telford Road. In addition to the existing vehicular access from Telford Road tie are currently exploring options with the hospital authorities for the provision of an additional pedestrian access in the northwest corner of the site to capitalise on this short distance from the stop. This route will provide a straight and direct access from the stop into the heart of the hospital campus.
Comparative journey times have been calculated on the promoted route, the alternative Telford Road route and the objectors alternative along Crewe Road South. Using common points at Ravelston Dykes Stop for northbound trips, and West Granton Access Stop for southbound trips. The results are presented in Figures 1 & 2.
The Figures demonstrate that due to the sprawling nature of the campus there are a range of journey times to the different locations within the hospital. When considering impact on overall journey times there is a far greater difference between the Railway corridor option and the Crewe Road South option. For northbound trips the journey time to the Anne Ferguson Building is almost three minutes faster than via Crewe Road South. For southbound trips the saving is two minutes. Distances to all destinations within the hospital are well within the accepted catchment area of a stop location in both Roseburn and Crewe Road South.
Journey Times from Ravelston Dykes to WGH
Journey Times from Ravelston Dykes to WGH
13:00
12:00
11:00
Time (mm:ss) 10:00 via Roseburn Corridor Option Tram Stop
via Telford Road Option Tram Stop
09:00 via Crewe Road South Option Tram Stop
08:00
07:00
06:00 Anne Ferguson Outpatient Neurology Cancer Centre Building Building Building
Destination
Anne Ferguson Outpatient Neurology Cancer Centre Building Building Building
Via Roseburn 6 min 57s** 9 min 18s* 9 min 15s 11 min 45s* Tram Stop Via Telford Road Tram 8 min 32s** 9 min 18s 8 min 03s 11 min 26s Stop Via Crewe Road South 9 min 45s 9 min 18s 12 min 47s 9 min 52s Tram Stop
* Journey time with a new entrance path between the laundry and estates buildings. ** Journey time with a new entrance path between the laundry and estates buildings and a back entrance to the Anne Ferguson Building.
NOTE: Assumed walk speed of 1.5 m/s used
FIGURE 1 Journey Times from West Granton Access to WGH
Journey Times from West Granton Access to WGH
13:00
12:00
via Roseburn Corridor Option Tram Stop 11:00 via Telford Road Option Tram Stop
10:00 via Crew e Road South Option Tram Stop
09:00 Time (mm:ss)
08:00
07:00
06:00 Anne Ferguson Outpatient Neurology Cancer Centre Building Building Building Destination
Anne Ferguson Outpatient Neurology Cancer Centre Building Building Building Via Roseburn 6 min 47s** 9 min 08s* 9 min 05s 11 min 35s* Tram Stop Via Telford Road Tram 6 min 25s** 8 min 33s 7 min 18s 10 min 41s Stop Via Crewe Road South 7 min 51s 7 min 24s 10 min 53s 7 min 58s Tram Stop
* Journey time with a new entrance path between the laundry and estates buildings. ** Journey time with a new entrance path between the laundry and estates buildings and a back entrance to the Anne Ferguson Building.
NOTE: Assumed walk speed of 1.5 m/s used
FIGURE 2 Bus Route
There is clearly a need for mobility impaired access to the hospital. It is therefore the intention to provide a shuttle bus service to the hospital. Whilst details of such a service have yet to be developed current proposals are that it will operate from either Crewe Toll Stop or Craigleith Stop as these sites offer the most convenient arrangements for cross platform interchange.
The service is intended to penetrate the hospital site, therefore affording Mobility Impaired tram passengers or those who are unable or unwilling to make the short walk from the stop.
The shuttle bus arrangements provide better access to the WGH than simply alighting at the Crewe Road S. tram stop proposed by the objector because it is able to take passengers to destinations within the hospital site. This is particularly applicable for MIP.
The pedestrian link from the WGH stop caters for able bodied passengers accessing the hospital via the Telford Road Gate. This caters particularly for staff who, we understand, currently use the Telford Road Gate as the principal means of access to the WGH.
The tram will therefore serve WGH. We understand that tie have obtained a commitment that existing bus frequencies will be safeguarded. Bus services will generally only be affected where they duplicate the service provided by tram. My colleague Barry Cross can provide more details on this.
Conclusion I therefore conclude that with respect to travel time and convenience of the majority of people travelling to the hospital, the impact on journey time between the two options is marginal.
The Crewe Road South option offers little appreciable benefits over the promoted route. And a number of key disadvantages including lower patronage (approximately half a million passengers less per year); higher construction cost (£22.5m more); greater construction disruption; higher operating costs and reduced operational safety.
When considering the merits of Ms Bourne’s alternative against those of the Railway corridor option I believe the case for the proposed route is compelling.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
ANDREW OLDFIELD
1 Background
1.1 In this witness rebuttal statement I comment on issues raised by Ms Woolnough on behalf of FRUWCA in relation to route assessment. In particular, her concerns over the choice of the Roseburn Corridor as the preferred option and her recommended alternative of a route via Orchard Brae and Crewe Road South
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in relation to my area of expertise.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 FRUWCA contend that the impact of the tram on the Roseburn corridor would be severe and adverse to wildlife, human amenity, walking and cycling. My Colleague Karen Raymond will address any issues raised in connection with flora and fauna elsewhere in her rebuttal statements. I will concentrate here on the choice of route and the witnesses Alternative.
3.2 The witness claims that ‘safety issues are unresolved and risk assessments do not appear to have been done’ for the selected route. The promoter, and all those acting for and on behalf of the promoter, take safety very seriously. Furthermore, the approval authorities will not grant approval to operate unless completely satisfied that the system is safe.
3.3 Ms Woolnaugh also contends that the route selection sifting process in Workpackage 1 was flawed. STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sift options and reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration; there is no general guidance for the actual weights used. At such an early stage in the planning process, technical implementability was considered a crucial consideration in terms of weeding out infeasible or impractical links and as such was given a higher weighting. In many respects, the process adopted formalised the rejection of links deemed technically challenging, rather than starting from the basis of what was reasonably feasible.
3.4 My colleagues from Steer Davis Gleave (SDG) were closely involved with the development of STAG for the Scottish Executive They are ideally placed to provide advice on the interpretation of STAG and the application of design criteria. They did so in the case of Line 1 and my colleague Mr Buckman can provide detailed evidence on this aspect.
3.5 Ms Woolnaugh, in paragraph four of her statement advocates a route that serves the WGH via Crewe Road South ‘from where all departments can be accessed’. However, her argument is accessibility and journey time. Stops on the proposed route do serve the WGH; either by pedestrian access or shuttle bus. The shuttle bus arrangements provide better access to the WGH than simply alighting at a stop on Crewe Road South because it is able to take passengers to destinations within the hospital site. This is particularly applicable for MIP. The pedestrian link from the WGH stop caters for able bodied passengers accessing the hospital via the Telford Road gate. This caters particularly for staff and students currently who use the Telford Road gate as their principal means of access to the WGH. The following table shows comparative journey times for northbound and southbound trips from the proposed stops at West Granton Access and Ravelston Dykes (common points on both routes).
Calculated Journey Travel Route to Anne Ferguson Building Time West Granton Access Tram Stop - Crewe Toll Stop: 5 min 37s Tram & Shuttle Bus *Promoters Route* West Granton Access Tram Stop - Roseburn Stop: 6 min 47s Tram & Walk *Promoters Route* West Granton Access Tram Stop - Crewe Road Stop: 7 min 51s Tram & Walk *Objectors Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Crewe Toll Stop: 8 min 10s Tram & Shuttle Bus *Promoters Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Roseburn Stop: 6 min 57s Tram & Walk *Promoters Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Crewe Road Stop: 9 min 45s Tram & Walk *Objectors Route*
3.6 We agree with her statement in paragraph four that the ‘best route for linking key destinations is the most direct one’. The alignment proposed by the objector represents a large "dog leg" in an otherwise relatively straight and uninterrupted alignment between the key destinations of the North Edinburgh Developments and Haymarket Station and the city. This adds approximately 7 minutes to the overall journey time of the direct Roseburn route.
3.7 FRUWCA claim that many passengers may be frail or ill. Whilst we have no figures on the number of frail persons attending the hospital, they will form a small proportion of the 7000 persons travelling to the hospital within each 24 hour period and an even smaller number travelling by public transport. Currently, those attending the WGH by public transport, will arrive by bus, with drop off points on Crewe Road South although some buses enter the site. A tram stop on Crewe Road South would at its closest, be sited around 250m from the main reception area in the hospital.
3.8 Whilst the number of “frail or ill” persons likely to make use of the tram scheme is low, it is recognised that in social terms it is important to provide appropriate public transport access, no matter how few the numbers. It is for this reason that we believe the provision of a feeder bus will best serve the needs of MIP tram passengers.
3.9 In paragraph seven, Ms Woolnoauh questions the constraints of the Roseburn route and claims that on road alternatives are technically less difficult – suggesting the Dean Bridge report on light rail an alternative. The Roseburn corridor was originally a twin track heavy railway. Its structures were built accordingly. In developing the tramway and through our discussions with HMRI we have demonstrated that the structures are capable of safely accommodating, or being modified to accommodate the additional requirements of the cycleway (subject to some local narrowing). More details on construction will be covered by my colleague Gary Turner
3.10 Alternative route alignment issues, including the difficulties associated with using Palmerston Place as an alternative to the route to Haymarket will be provided by Mark Bain.
3.11 Haymarket and the West End is an increasingly important part of the City Centre and Haymarket is a key hub in the public transport network. On this basis, it is desirable that it is served by Line 1. Haymarket was identified prior to the route development and sifting stage as a key point to serve to maximise integration. Section 3.1 of the WP1 report is quite clear on the advantages in this regard of serving the rail stations in Edinburgh. It will not be served effectively by a stop in Shandwick Place or Palmerston Place.
3.12 I would, however, point out that she incorrectly quotes the NAO report ‘Improving public transport in England through light rail’ which makes clear in section 2.3:
‘It is less expensive to build on disused railway lines without tunnels and other major construction works. For example, the first line of Manchester Metolink made considerable use of old heavy rail routes, reducing the need for new land and street running’
and continues in 3.46:
‘ It is easier to develop light rail along heavy rail routes because land purchase and utility diversion issues are likely to be less complex or non- existent.’
Loss of amenity
3.13 Ms Woolnaugh contests that the corridor is heavily used and ‘that the promoter had no idea of the levels of usage’ of the corridor. The promoter is well aware of the number of people using the corridor and the residents detailed surveys back this up.
3.14 No more than 1100 people per day use the 3km former rail corridor. In contrast, predicted flows for tram patronage over this section are in excess of 3000 per hour during the am. peak alone.
3.15 Around 500 (50%) of the users are cyclists. Surveys undertaken recently 04/08/2005) by Mott MacDonald indicate that 211 cyclists used the path during the morning peak (07:00-09:30), with a roughly equal directional split. Figures tailed off after 09:00. Assuming a similar usage during the evening peak, the remaining usage is spread over the rest of the day.
3.16 These figures suggest that the cycle path is used predominantly as a commuter route. The promoter is committed to retaining, and where necessary upgrading the cycle route within the Roseburn Corridor thus providing a safe and direct corridor for cyclists clear of the public highway. The operational tram scheme will not have an adverse effect on cycling provision.
3.17 The promoter is committed to maintaining, and in some areas widening the existing pedestrian/cycle route which at 3m wide is greater than the Council minimum standard. Lighting levels will be improved creating a much safer environment than the one that currently exists.
3.18 In contrast, only 30 pedestrians were counted over the same period, the majority of the 500 pedestrian users spread throughout the day. With total usage over a 10 hour day therefore averaging out at less than two persons per minute (cyclists and pedestrians), Ms Woolnaughs concerns over conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on a narrow cycleway would appear unfounded. In comparison to the light use currently made of the route, modelling undertaken by SDG indicates:
• Tram will carry over 3000 people on this section in the a.m. peak alone • The objector’s proposed alternative route will generate considerably less patronage for the tram.
3.19 In addition, all current pedestrians and cyclist users would still have full access to the route
3.20 Ms Woolnaugh is right to raise the issue of access to the corridor. There are currently 18 accesses onto the corridor, 12 ramped and six stepped. None are DDA compliant. The tram will provide 24 access points, 18 of which are DDA compliant, therefore making it easier than the current arrangements for accessing the corridor. Where necessary, properly signed, safe cross track provision will be provided.
Policy Context
3.21 Ms Woolnaugh refers to the 1997 Edinburgh Central Local Plan in defence of her claim that the corridor’s requirement for ‘transportation purposes’ is fulfilled through its use of a cycleway. I would comment as follows:
• Policy T4 of the Edinburgh Central Local Plan (1997) makes clear the corridor is protected for possible construction of LRT • Policy T7 safeguards disused railway routes NOT required for other purposes within the plan • Policy T6 of the West Edinburgh Local Plan (2001) reserves the corridor for LRT North- South route
Tram impact
3.22 Based on the current timetable there will be only 1 vehicle every 3.75 minutes
3.23 FRUWCA’s concern appears to be primarily that of the interaction between cyclists and pedestrians and the tram system. The system will operate at speeds up to 70kmh (43mph). All the UK tram schemes currently have sections of walkway/cycleway adjacent to the track and have not experienced any problems with vibration, wind drag or safety. My colleague Mr McIntosh can elaborate. I would however point out that even for high speed (200kmh/125mph) main line trains passing through stations, an indicative yellow line one metre from the platform edge is all that is deemed necessary in terms of safety measures.
3.24 In conclusion, I believe the Roseburn Corridor not only meets the goals of serving the North Edinburgh developments and Haymarket, but serves the WHG better than the objectors alternative. In developing the route, we have not only maintained, but improved the access and security of the corridor for the regular cyclists and pedestrians who use it. GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
ANDREW OLDFIELD
1 Background
1.1 In this witness rebuttal statement I comment on issues raised by Ms Woolnough on behalf of FRUWCA in relation to route assessment. In particular, her concerns over the choice of the Roseburn Corridor as the preferred option and her recommended alternative of a route via Orchard Brae and Crewe Road South
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in relation to my area of expertise.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 FRUWCA contend that the impact of the tram on the Roseburn corridor would be severe and adverse to wildlife, human amenity, walking and cycling. My colleague Karen Raymond will address any issues raised in connection with flora and fauna elsewhere in her rebuttal statements. I will concentrate here on the choice of route and issues raised in the first part of her statement.
3.2 The witness claims that ‘safety issues are unresolved and risk assessments do not appear to have been done’ for the selected route. The promoter, and all those acting for and on behalf of the promoter, take safety very seriously. Furthermore, the approval authorities will not grant approval to operate unless completely satisfied that the system is safe.
3.3 Ms Woolnaugh also contends that the route selection sifting process in Workpackage 1 was flawed. STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sift options and reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration; there is no general guidance for the actual weights used. At such an early stage in the planning process, technical implementability was considered a crucial consideration in terms of weeding out infeasible or impractical links and as such was given a higher weighting. In many respects, the process adopted formalised the rejection of links deemed technically challenging, rather than starting from the basis of what was reasonably feasible.
3.4 My colleagues from Steer Davis Gleave (SDG) were closely involved with the development of STAG for the Scottish Executive They are ideally placed to provide advice on the interpretation of STAG and the application of design criteria. They did so in the case of Line 1 and my colleague Mr Buckman can provide detailed evidence on this aspect.can provide further detailed explanation in his statement.
3.5 Ms Woolnaugh, in paragraph four of her statement advocates a route that serves the WGH via Crewe Road South ‘from where all departments can be accessed’. However, her argument is accessibility and journey time. Stops on the proposed route do serve the WGH; either by pedestrian access or shuttle bus. The shuttle bus arrangements provide better access to the WGH than simply alighting at a stop on Crewe Road South because it is able to take passengers to destinations within the hospital site. This is particularly applicable for MIP. The pedestrian link from the WGH stop caters for able bodied passengers accessing the hospital via the Telford Road gate. This caters particularly for staff and students currently who use the Telford Road gate as their principal means of access to the WGH. The following table shows comparative journey times for northbound and southbound trips from the proposed stops at West Granton Access and Ravelston Dykes (common points on both routes).
Calculated Journey Travel Route to Anne Ferguson Building Time West Granton Access Tram Stop - Crewe Toll Stop: 5 min 37s Tram & Shuttle Bus *Promoters Route* West Granton Access Tram Stop - Roseburn Stop: 6 min 47s Tram & Walk *Promoters Route* West Granton Access Tram Stop - Crewe Road Stop: 7 min 51s Tram & Walk *Objectors Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Crewe Toll Stop: 8 min 10s Tram & Shuttle Bus *Promoters Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Roseburn Stop: 6 min 57s Tram & Walk *Promoters Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Crewe Road Stop: 9 min 45s Tram & Walk *Objectors Route*
3.6 We agree with her statement in paragraph four that the ‘best route for linking key destinations is the most direct one’. The alignment proposed by the objector represents a large "dog leg" in an otherwise relatively straight and uninterrupted alignment between the key destinations of the North Edinburgh Developments and Haymarket Station and the city. This adds approximately 7 minutes to the overall journey time of the direct Roseburn route.
3.7 FRUWCA claim that many passengers may be frail or ill. Whilst we have no figures on the number of frail persons attending the hospital, they will form a small proportion of the 7000 persons travelling to the hospital within each 24 hour period and an even smaller number travelling by public transport. Currently, those attending the WGH by public transport, will arrive by bus, with drop off points on Crewe Road South although some buses enter the site. A tram stop on Crewe Road South would at its closest, be sited around 250m from the main reception area in the hospital.
3.8 Whilst the number of “frail or ill” persons likely to make use of the tram scheme is low, it is recognised that in social terms it is important to provide appropriate public transport access, no matter how few the numbers. It is for this reason that we believe the provision of a feeder bus will best serve the needs of MIP tram passengers.
3.9 In paragraph seven, Ms Woolnoauh questions the constraints of the Roseburn route and claims that on road alternatives are technically less difficult – suggesting the Dean Bridge report on light rail an alternative. The Roseburn corridor was originally a twin track heavy railway. Its structures were built accordingly. In developing the tramway and through our discussions with HMRI we have demonstrated that the structures are capable of safely accommodating, or being modified to accommodate the additional requirements of the cycleway (subject to some local narrowing). More details on construction will be covered by my colleague Gary Turner
3.10 Alternative route alignment issues, including the difficulties associated with using Palmerston Place as an alternative to the route to Haymarket will be provided by Mark Bain.
3.11 Haymarket and the West End is an increasingly important part of the City Centre and Haymarket is a key hub in the public transport network. On this basis, it is desirable that it is served by Line 1. Haymarket was identified prior to the route development and sifting stage as a key point to serve to maximise integration. Section 3.1 of the WP1 report is quite clear on the advantages in this regard of serving the rail stations in Edinburgh. It will not be served effectively by a stop in Shandwick Place or Palmerston Place.
3.12 I would, however, point out that she incorrectly quotes the NAO report ‘Improving public transport in England through light rail’ which makes clear in section 2.3:
‘It is less expensive to build on disused railway lines without tunnels and other major construction works. For example, the first line of Manchester Metolink made considerable use of old heavy rail routes, reducing the need for new land and street running’
and continues in 3.46:
‘ It is easier to develop light rail along heavy rail routes because land purchase and utility diversion issues are likely to be less complex or non- existent.’
Policy Context
3.13 Ms Woolnaugh refers to the 1997 Edinburgh Central Local Plan in defence of her claim that the corridor’s requirement for ‘transportation purposes’ is fulfilled through its use of a cycleway. I would comment as follows:
• Policy T4 of the Edinburgh Central Local Plan (1997) makes clear the corridor is protected for possible construction of LRT • Policy T7 safeguards disused railway routes NOT required for other purposes within the plan • Policy T6 of the West Edinburgh Local Plan (2001) reserves the corridor for LRT North- South route
3.14 The scheme has been developed to make full use of this availability as it not only removes a significant section of the route from difficult on street environments, but also serves key areas of patronage by the most direct route.
3.15 The corridor is also, as Ms Woolnough notes, an Urban Wildlife site. It is for this reason that in conjunction with the development of the tram system a detailed Local Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) has been developed to protect flora and fauna. My colleague Karen Raymond will expand on the details of this.
3.16 In conclusion, I believe the Roseburn Corridor not only meets the goals of serving the North Edinburgh developments and Haymarket , but serves the WHG better than the objectors alternative. In developing the route, we have taken care to preserve and enhance the urban wildlife qualities of the corridor, whilst providing an opportunity for an efficient and sustainable form of urban transport.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT – WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL
PROMOTER REBUTTAL TO ALAN PENMAN, DR DERMOT GORMAN, VINCE CASEY AND CHRIS NICHOL
ANDREW OLDFIELD
1 Background
1.1 In this witness rebuttal statement I comment on issues raised by the objectors (ALAN PENMAN, DR DERMOT GORMAN, VINCE CASEY and CHRIS NICHOL) in relation to the alignment of the ETL1 in relation to the Western General Hospital (WGH)
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 We are in agreement with the witnesses that the hospital is an important link in the tram route and that all efforts should be made to encourage the use of public transport of all modes.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 The witnesses for the hospital express concern over the proposed route and in particular over two issues which I would summarise as follows:
• the possibilities that there may be some loss of bus services resulting from the introduction of the tram • the distance of the tram from the hospital and concerns that it will not therefore deliver a level of service to the hospital that an alternative on Crewe Road South may offer.
3.2 On the first issue I would refer you to my Colleague Barry Cross of tie who can advise on the commitment to maintain bus services at their current levels. He can also provide more details on the feeder bus services that are proposed in support of the Roseburn Corridor option.
3.3 On the second issue, we would confirm that a study was carried out to assess the option of diverting the alignment from the corridor at Queensferry Road to run along Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South. (Craigleith Options Summary. Report 203011/58B). This report concluded that the Route via the hospital did not offer any advantages
over the promoted route other than a stop outside the hospital main entrance. The key disadvantages with the option include:
• The route is less attractive to passengers (model outputs confirm that it yields a lower patronage by around 500,000 passengers per year by 2026) • There will be higher construction and operating costs • There will be a greater impact on local residents during construction and operation – especially on Craigleith Road • There will be impacts on parking and servicing of frontager properties
3.4 We are currently undertaking further work on access and believe that, through discussions with WGH, optimum solutions can be developed that serve the requirements of the hospital better than a stop on Crewe Road South. 3.5 Stops on the proposed route do serve the WGH, either by pedestrian access or shuttle bus. The shuttle bus arrangements provide better access to the WGH than simply alighting at a stop on Crewe Road South because it could penetrate the hospital site. This is particularly applicable for mobility impaired people.
3.6 A pedestrian link from the WGH stop would cater for able bodied passengers accessing the hospital via the Telford Road gate. Such a route would afford a short direct 190m walk to the hospital gate.
3.7 The following table shows comparative journey times for northbound and southbound trips from the proposed stops at West Granton Access and Ravelston Dykes (common points on both routes). The times assume a pedestrian entrance is available from Telford Road at the North western corner of the site and that a feeder bus can penetrate the hospital road network.
Calculated Journey Travel Route to Anne Ferguson Building Time West Granton Access Tram Stop - Crewe Toll Stop: 5 min 37s Tram & Shuttle Bus *Promoters Route* West Granton Access Tram Stop - Roseburn Stop: 6 min 47s Tram & Walk *Promoters Route* West Granton Access Tram Stop - Crewe Road Stop: 7 min 51s Tram & Walk *Objectors Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Crewe Toll Stop: 8 min 10s Tram & Shuttle Bus *Promoters Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Roseburn Stop: 6 min 57s Tram & Walk *Promoters Route* Ravelston Dykes Tram Stop - Crewe Road Stop: 9 min 45s Tram & Walk *Objectors Route*
3.8 Currently, those attending the WGH by public transport, will arrive by bus, with drop off points on Crewe Road South although some buses enter the site. A tram stop on Crewe Road South would at its closest, be sited around 250m from the main reception area in the hospital.
Conclusion 3.9 I therefore consider that the Roseburn corridor alignment offers the best combination of optimised tram route and access to the hospital and that the Hospital can be accessed from the proposed route.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL TO STATEMENTS BY K WOOLNOUGH, CRAIK, D GORMAN, C NICHOL, A PENMAN AND A BOURNE
BARRY CROSS
1 Background
1.1 I refer to the witness statements by K Woolnough, P Craik, D Gorman, C Nichol, A Penman & A Bourne.
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 It is agreed that the introduction of tram services on Line 1 will be paralleled by a reduction in bus services.
3 Issue in Dispute
3.1 The objective of the Promoter is to develop an integrated public transport network rather than independent tram and bus networks. Evidence has been given on this subject at the Preliminary Stage.
3.2 Significant progress has been made with developing this integrated approach.
3.3 On 16 September 2004 The City of Edinburgh Council approved the establishment of Transport Edinburgh Limited. The Company has, as one of its main objectives, the promotion of the integration of all modes of public transport in Edinburgh.
3.4 The City of Edinburgh Council approved the Memorandum and Articles of Association on 30 June 2005. Directors have been appointed. Neil Renilson, the Chief Executive of Lothian Buses, is the Chief Executive Designate of Transport Edinburgh Limited (TEL).
3.5 Under the aegis of TEL discussions have begun between TRANSDEV, the tram operator, and Lothian Buses in respect of the development of the integrated public transport system. In particular these discussions are addressing the shape of the bus network that will complement and integrate with the tram lines, as well as timetabling, fares and ticketing issues.
3.6 TEL has also initiated discussions with other principal bus and train operators.
3.7 This integration is in the spirit of the National Audit Office report.
4 Conclusion
4.1 The promoter has embarked on a process to ensure the delivery of a fully integrated public transport system. Good progress is being made. This integrated system will offer a very attractive alternative to the private car for many journeys, and it is anticipated that there will be a significant shift from private car to public transport use.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL TO STATEMENTS OF D GORMAN, S SPENCE, A PENMAN & A BOURNE
DICK DAPRE
1. BACKGROUND 1.1. At the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee meeting of 17 May 2005 it was decided to take no further evidence on a number of issues, including integration of trams with buses, as these issues had already been considered and reported on by the Committee in its Preliminary Stage Report.
1.2. However, various objectors in this group have raised the issue of bus service reductions in their Witness Statements. Whilst we agree that this issue has already been considered and should not be reopened, this rebuttal has been prepared to address the objector’s comments should the Committee consider it appropriate to hear evidence on this issue.
1.3. The evidence presented here relates specifically to the basis for any potential reduction in bus services in the Tram Line 1 corridors. Evidence on progress by the operators and authorities towards an integrated public transport network for Edinburgh will be presented by my colleague Barry Cross.
2. AGREED ISSUES
2.1. There are no agreed issues.
3. DISPUTED ISSUES
Context
3.1. The Edinburgh Tram scheme is being planned as part of an integrated transport network, with the objective of increasing the total use made of public transport in the City. This includes the examination of ways in which the tram and bus networks can complement each other by means of through ticketing, feeder services, interchanges. As part of the process, there will inevitably be changes to the bus network, but the same would be true without the tram.
3.2. Transport Edinburgh Ltd (TEL) has been established with the objective of promoting this integration. My colleague Barry Cross will provide further evidence on this issue.
STAG Bus Network Assumptions
3.3. The STAG Appraisal report, in Section 6.7, sets out a series of bus network changes that were used as an input to the appraisal process, including the environmental appraisal. It must be emphasised that these changes are assumptions only and do not represent the intentions of the Promoter. They were required for the economic appraisal of the tram and represent an estimate of changes that might occur naturally as a result of the introduction of the Line 1 tram service.
Powers
3.4. Bus services in Edinburgh are operated mainly by Lothian Buses, an ‘arm’s length’ company owned by the City Council, and by First, a wholly private sector company. Under the Transport Act 1985, all bus services except in London are deregulated: subject to certain requirements to ensure safety and fair competition, operators are free to run whatever services they wish, setting the routes, frequencies, timetables and fares. Only a part of their operations is influenced by the public sector, chiefly through support given to specific services that would not otherwise be commercially viable (which must, in general, be subject to competitive tender) and through concessionary fares. In Edinburgh, as in most urban areas, the majority of services are commercial, and therefore it is for the operator to decide service levels and routes.
3.5. There is, therefore, no provision whereby the Promoter can reduce bus services in the tram corridors. Even if this were to be the case for (say) Lothian Buses routes, there would be nothing to prevent First or any other bus operator from introducing new services to fill the gaps. Although the aim is to develop an integrated network, the tram will have to ‘hold its own’ in a competitive environment.
3.6. There is no question of bus services being reduced “in order to provide patronage for the tram system” (Groups 33 and 34, Witness Statements of Alison Bourne).
Competition and Capacity
3.7. Trams will provide a significant amount of additional capacity, some of which will be taken up by new demand and some of which will be attracted from buses. A certain amount of reduction in bus services therefore appears likely, but the precise nature and timing of this is a matter for the operator. If sufficient demand remains for specific services, they will continue to be operated.
3.8. Section 6.7.3 of the STAG report describes the process whereby the assumed bus network changes were derived. In summary this was based on the principle that services running directly parallel to the tram route (i.e. on the same road or effectively so) would probably be reduced, but links not provided by tram would continue to be provided by bus.
3.9. Almost all public transport routes serve a complex pattern of overlapping demands, ranging from ‘short hop’ trips to those travelling the whole length of a route. Routes that run parallel on the same route (as with buses and trams on Leith Walk) will tend to have more trip opportunities in common than routes which have less in common. However, even if routes use separate corridors, they may have a significant common catchment if the ends of the routes are in the same area.
3.10. Keeping in mind that these changes have the status of assumptions only, an example will help explain the rationale.
3.11. The 19 is an example of a route in competition with the tram for certain trips, which was assumed to be removed between Granton and the City Centre. Although it runs via Crewe Road South, the 19 links a large area of Granton and Pilton to the City Centre, and is therefore in competition with the tram via the Roseburn Corridor for trips between these locations. The section of route 19 from Crewe Toll southward is shared with the retained 37/37A, providing an alternative facility to the City Centre1, while the section from Granton to Crewe Road South and WGH was provided for in the STAG assumptions by a diversion of route 38. Direct links to the City Centre would still be provided from the Boswall Parkway area of Pilton (by route 8) and from West Granton Road (by an extended route 17).
3.12. This answers the points made by Alison Bourne (Groups 33/34 Witness Statements, paragraphs 253/220):
• “I find it hard to comprehend how buses travelling on Crewe Road South can be considered to be in competition with the tram. Crewe Road South is too far away from the tram to compete for the same passengers!” Buses are in competition with tram - for trips other than those boarding and alighting on Crewe Road South.
• “However, there are no buses (sic) services on the Roseburn Corridor”. It is true that there are no buses along the corridor, but there are buses
1 It is worth noting that the 19 running every 15 minutes and the 37/37A running every 10 minutes do not combine to give a regular service interval. The reduction of the combined service between Crewe Toll and the City Centre from 10 to 6 buses per hour would therefore be much less noticeable to the passenger than the proportional reduction in total service level would suggest.
between its ends (City Centre and Granton) as well as between areas on the corridor and the City Centre.
3.13. The changes assumed in the STAG report represent a reduction of about 2,200 places per hour between the City Centre and Waterfront areas, which would be offset by a combined capacity of some 4,000 places per hour on both sides of the Line 1 tram loop.
3.14. Finally, specific misconceptions that appear in Objections and Objector’s Witness Statements need to be corrected. The 28% reduction in supply shown in Table 6.9 of the STAG report applies only to certain radial corridors in the area covered. It does not imply a blanket reduction of this magnitude applied to services in the area, and still less does it imply such a reduction citywide. In terms of overall supply, the changes are estimated to represent only about 4% of the total of Lothian Buses’ vehicle mileage.
Conclusion
3.15. Bus services are frequently changed to enable the operator to ‘match services more closely to demand’ and improve financial performance. The introduction of the tram will cause changes in travel habits, including some diversion of trips from bus to tram. In calculating the economic impact of the tram, the Promoter has made an informed judgement as to what the reaction of bus passengers and bus operators may be.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
DICK DAPRE
1. BACKGROUND 1.1. This Rebuttal statement is presented in response to the Witness Statement of Kristina Woolnough, representing Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A). Ms Woolnough’s statement deals with loss of the amenity represented by the footway/cycleway.
1.2. My rebuttal addresses only the tram speed and safety issues raised by Ms Woolnough over which there is no agreement between Promoter and Objector. I have described these in my Witness Statement for this Group. Other issues of contention will be addressed by my colleagues.
2. AGREED ISSUES 2.1. It is agreed that the Roseburn Railway Corridor serves an important function as a transport link for non-motorised modes, i.e. walking and cycling, and thus, a recreational facility.
2.2. The proposed scheme will stop up the existing footway/cycleway, which is a road under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and construct the tramway with a new footway/cycleway alongside. The tramway will not be a road under the Act, but the new footway/cycleway will be.
3. DISPUTED ISSUES 3.1. Disputed issues centre on the impacts that the tram scheme will have on the footway/cycleway, its users and local residents. Clearly there will be some impacts, but the Promoter is of the view that these will be limited to the extent that the new facility will enable and encourage people to continue to use the footway/cycleway as a safe transport and recreational resource.
3.2. The current condition of the footway/cycleway appears less than ideal in terms of cleanliness, safety and personal security, because of dog excrement, litter, nettles, poor light caused by overhanging trees etc. Whatever the reason for this, the impact of a tram is likely to be lessened as a result.
3.3. The areas I am addressing are the safety of the tramway, the speed of tram operation and general issues of interaction with users of the footway/cycleway. In the sections below I deal with specific issues in these areas that have been raised by the Objector and are disputed by the Promoter.
3.4. Issue: “Safety issues are unresolved and risk assessments do not appear to have been done” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 1).
3.5. I have dealt with the operation of the tramway parallel to the footway/cycleway in terms of HMRI guidance, design layouts and precedents in my Witness Statement referred to above. The conclusions are that: • The design and operation of the tram route are in accordance with HMRI guidance and have been discussed with HMRI throughout the project development process. Approval in principle has been obtained. • Operation of a tramway alongside the footway/cycleway is not equivalent to operation alongside a carriageway and there is no reason to apply the same speed limits to trams as would be applied to a road in a similar environment. • There are precedents for this type of operation in the UK and to my knowledge no safety problems have arisen.
3.6. Issue: “Whilst the Promoter is offering to re-instate the cycleway…trams travelling at speeds of up to 50mph, with the associated noise, vibration, and wind drag etc introduce high speed traffic onto the Corridor, with associated dangers and the destruction of the amenity value of the Corridor” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 17).
3.7. Noise/vibration and wind drag have been covered elsewhere by my colleagues Steve Mitchell and Scott McIntosh. As far as safety is concerned, Scott McIntosh’s evidence shows that there is no wind drag effect from a tram passing at speeds of up to 80 km/h.
3.8. Issue: “The May 2005 user survey shows that, if trams were to be introduced, 70% of current pedestrians and cyclists state that their usage would be affected” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 18).
3.9. We do not believe that it is possible to draw any conclusions from people’s stated intentions in response to an imagined situation. The Promoter does not underestimate the strength of people’s views or wish to criticise the conduct of the survey, but people do not necessarily act in accordance with their statements in such surveys. Nor do the survey results give any indication of how, or how much, people’s usage of the corridor would be affected – in terms of frequency of use or the amount of enjoyment they gain from it.
3.10. It is the Promoter’s contention that once the tram route is in place and people have become familiar with it, the majority of pedestrians and cyclists will continue to find the footway/cycleway convenient and pleasant to use.
3.11. Issue: “We also note that the Promoter has not put the issue of segregation of the cycle/walkway from the tram tracks – and tram speed - before HMRI yet for guidance” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 23).
3.12. This assertion is incorrect and without foundation. The technical advisors for this scheme have a close professional working relationship with HMRI and all of these issues have been discussed from time to time with HMRI as they have arisen. I understand that the Inspector of Railways involved in these discussions has stated
that there is no reason to consider any speed other than 80 km/h for the Roseburn corridor, except at any specific locations where constraints such as visibility or structures would dictate a lower local restriction.
3.13. My colleague Jim Harries will present further evidence of the role of HMRI in the development of the tram scheme.
3.14. Issue: “If stops were to be reduced, this suggests speed could increase further” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 24).
3.15. There is no possibility of speeds increasing in the unlikely event of one or more stops being removed. The maximum speed of 70 to 80 km/h (under discussion, but certainly not 60 mph) will be reached between stops on the Roseburn corridor. This is governed by the capability of the trams and the alignment, so any hypothetical reduction in the number of stops would not result in an increase above this maximum. An increase would only occur in the vicinity of a former stop location, where trams would pass at ‘cruising’ speed instead of during acceleration or braking.
3.16. The figure below shows the estimated speed profile for the section of route from Crewe Toll to Roseburn. It demonstrates that trams will reach their assumed maximum speed of 70 km/h (43.5 mph) between each pair of stops. Omission of any of the stops would not increase the maximum and the only effect would be to extend this speed across the ‘dips’ in the profile.
Speed Profile - Crewe Toll to Roseburn
80
70
60
50
40
Speed (km/h) 30
20
10
0 CREWE TELFORD CRAIGLEITH RAVELSTON ROSEBURN TOLL ROAD DYKES
Assumed Speed Limit Estimated Speed Profile
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
DICK DAPRE
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. This Rebuttal statement is presented in response to the Witness Statement of Kristina Woolnough, representing Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A). Ms Woolnough’s statement deals with loss of the amenity represented by the vegetation and wildlife along the footpath/cycleway.
1.2. My rebuttal addresses only the tram speed and safety issues raised by Ms Woolnough over which there is no agreement between Promoter and Objector. I have described these in my Witness Statement for this Group. Other issues of contention will be addressed by my colleagues.
2. AGREED ISSUES
2.1. It is agreed that the Roseburn Railway Corridor serves an important function as a a transport link for non-motorised modes, i.e. walking and cycling, and thus, a recreational facility.
2.2. The proposed scheme will stop up the existing footway/cycleway, which is a road under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and construct the tramway with a new footway/cycleway alongside. The tramway will not be a road under the Act, but the new footway/cycleway will be.
3. DISPUTED ISSUES
3.1. Disputed issues centre on the impacts that the tram scheme will have on the footway/cycleway, its users and local residents. Clearly there will be some impacts, but the Promoter is of the view that these will be limited to the extent that the new facility will enable and encourage people to continue to use the footway/cycleway as a safe transport and recreational resource.
3.2. The current condition of the footway/cycleway appears less than ideal in terms of cleanliness, safety and personal security, because of dog excrement, litter, nettles, poor light caused by overhanging trees etc. Whatever the reason for this, the impact of a tram is likely to be lessened as a result.
3.3. The areas I am addressing are the safety of the tramway, the speed of tram operation and general issues of interaction with users of the footway/cycleway. In
the sections below I deal with specific issues in these areas that have been raised by the Objector and are disputed by the Promoter.
3.4. Issue: “Safety issues are unresolved and risk assessments do not appear to have been done” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 1).
3.5. I have dealt with the operation of the tramway parallel to the footway/cycleway in terms of HMRI guidance, design layouts and precedents in my Witness Statement referred to above. The conclusions are that: • The design and operation of the tram route are in accordance with HMRI guidance and have been discussed with HMRI throughout the project development process. Approval in principle has been obtained. • Operation of a tramway alongside the footway/cycleway is not equivalent to operation alongside a carriageway and there is no reason to apply the same speed limits to trams as would be applied to a road in a similar environment. • There are precedents for this type of operation in the UK and to my knowledge no safety problems have arisen.
3.6. Issue: “the Promoter’s suggestion that the tram drivers will slow down – from speeds of 50mph – when they see a badger crossing to allow badgers to pass safely is laughable” (Objector’s Witness Statement paragraph 65).
3.7. Trams (like other road vehicles and unlike trains) are driven ‘on line of sight’ which means that the driver can always stop the tram safely if he or she sees an obstruction, whether this is a person, an animal or an object on the track. Drivers are specially trained to have excellent ‘route knowledge’ and to adopt risk avoidance strategies. The suggestion that tram drivers will reduce speed in response to any visible obstruction is not ‘laughable’ but consistent with standard defensive driving practice.
3.8. The footway/cycleway and the tramway will be well lit and the removal of vegetation will assist in providing good visibility, even at night.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF PATRICIA ALDERSON STATEMENT
GARY TURNER
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Patricia Alderson of Group 33. Generally speaking the subject of this objector's statement is covered in my witness statement.
1.2 It will cover the points raised associated with:
Drainage
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 Drainage
The introduction of a tram system onto the Roseburn Corridor will include a positive drainage system which will collect and dispose of all surface water associated with the tram system. This will include drainage provision for all associated engineering works such as badger tunnels.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 There are no issues in dispute with regard to drainage of badger tunnels.
4 Conclusion
4.1 The introduction of a tram system onto the Roseburn Corridor will include a positive drainage system which will collect and dispose of all surface water associated with the tram system. This will include drainage provision for all associated engineering works such as badger tunnels.
Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF PATRICIA CRAIK STATEMENT
GARY TURNER
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Patricia Craik of Group 33. Generally speaking the subject of this objector's statement is covered in my witness statement.
1.2 It will cover the points raised associated with:
Security
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no agreed issues
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 The objector is concerned that loss of vegetation along the corridor will lead to increased antisocial activities in the corridor reducing the security of the properties. My colleague Karen Raymond will give evidence with respect to the current proposals for the management of hedges and vegetation. With respect to the potential for increased criminal activity along the corridor it is the promoters belief that safety and security will be improved through the introduction of tram. This in part will be due to the improved accesses and a consistent level of illumination leading to an increased level of general footfall as well as tram users, and in part due to the presence of the tram itself. It has been found elsewhere that the presence of the tram itself, with its driver and passengers, acts as a deterrent to anti social behaviour. A number of German cities [including Karlesruhe and Freiburg] have been keen to maintain their tramways in pedestrianised town centres for precisely this reason. Discussions with the Lothian and Borders Community safety Department have endorsed that the addition of the tram to the corridor will have an improved effect on safety and security rather than a negative impact. 3.2 All tram drivers will have 2-way radio communication with the Edinburgh Tram control centre available to them at all times. They will thus be able to report anti-social behaviour to the Police, via the control centre. This is applicable for both on board the tram as well as along
the corridor. Stops will be covered by monitored, recording CCTV and the system may be extended to other locations if required.
3.3 The Edinburgh Tram operators will have roving staff to patrol the system. Access along the corridor will continue to exist throughout its length with the tram proposals and improved access and illumination will assist patrolling forces. This patrolling will be in addition to the existing patrolling in the Roseburn area, provided by the Lothians and Borders Police. It is the Promoter’s contention that these additional security measures will make the Roseburn Railway Corridor a safe area for genuine users of the corridor and an unattractive area for those wishing to behave in an anti social manner. Planting along the edges of the corridor, wherever practical, will include blackthorn, dog rose and hawthorn acting as deterrent species thus reinstating a natural deterrent to trespass into adjoining gardens as well as providing foraging and habitat for wildlife. The track form itself is proposed to be grass track rather than ballast. This is seen as a two fold benefit, one of contributing to the green amenity and two to mitigate against the potential arsenal of missiles that a ballasted track alignment could provide.
3.4 As part of the general operation of the tram system it is proposed that tram stops will be equipped with CCTV with recording facilities. This will enable operations and security staff to monitor stops and other locations around the system and, if required, to call on Police and/or security staff as appropriate. The tram cars will have recording CCTV, this may include forward facing, external view cameras, thus permitting the Edinburgh Tram operator to record anti-social behaviour on, or about, the tramway, thus acting as a deterrent to such actions.
3.5 It has been the experience on other tramway schemes in the UK that fears of increased anti-social activity around tram stops and walkways have not materialised, nor have the tram tracks been used as a means of access to adjoining gardens. Particular fears were expressed in Croydon during the passage of the Croydon Tramlink Bill through Parliament. A number of large private houses, with extensive garden grounds, backed onto the disused railway that was reactivated to form the line of route from New Addington. New Addington is a socially disadvantaged area with high crime rates. Residents of the houses in the former railway corridor expressed similar fears to those brought forward by residents alongside the Roseburn Railway Corridor. The situation was monitored during the early period of operation of Tramlink and no evidence was found that the tramway was attracting vandals or increasing crime to the former railway alignment.
3.6 Discussions with the Lothian and Borders Police, Community Safety Department, have endorsed the promoters belief that the addition of the tram to the corridor will have a positive effect on safety and security rather than a negative one.
4 Conclusion
4.1 With respect to the potential for increased criminal activity along the corridor it is the promoter’s belief that, through the increased activity in the corridor brought about by the introduction of the tram scheme, the scheme itself will act as a deterrent to any antisocial activity. This belief is based on the greater visibility of corridor users from users of the tram and from anecdotal evidence from other schemes which have been promoted around the UK.
Discussions with the Lothian and Borders Police, Community Safety Department, have endorsed the promoters belief that the addition of the tram to the corridor will have a positive effect on safety and security rather than a negative one.
Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH STATEMENT
GARY TURNER
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Kristina Woolnough of Group 33.
1.2 It will cover the points raised associated with:
Corridor Access Cycleway/walkway width
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no agreed issues.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 Corridor Access
The objector expresses concern that the corridor has poor access for the Ravelston and Craigleith tram stops. The promoter will be retaining all existing formal access points and where these are at tram stops they will be improved to make them DDA compliant. The stop at Ravelston Dykes in particular will be improved by the introduction of an access ramp which would be in addition to the existing access provision which links Ravelston Dykes with Craigleith View. An additional link to the corridor is proposed from the footpath linking Craigleith View with Craigleith Drive. The current proposals at Ravelston Dykes raise the level of the tram alignment by some 2m to mitigate the need for lift access as well as ramp access. This has been reflected in the LHMP proposals for this area.
3.2 The access to the stop at Craigleith will utilise the formal access points from South Groathill Avenue, Maidencraig Cresent and Maidencraig Grove. These access points are generally at grade and will be improved to ensure that they are DDA compliant. The formal access at points at Queensferry Road and South Groathill Avenue (adjacent to Goathill Road South) will also be retained although some realignment
is likely to accommodate the tram works and ensure good pedestrian sight lines.
3.3 In general, the proposed DDA compliant access points to stops along the Roseburn Corridor, and the introduction of additional formal access points, will give improved access for a much wider group of users of the corridor itself than the existing provision.
3.4 My colleague Scott McIntosh will give evidence on access during construction should this be required. With regard to crossing points my colleague Dick Dapre will give further details on this but in principle all crossing points will be formalised and will be provided at all tram stop locations. Where access points to the corridor are remote from tram stop locations and are on the opposite side to the walkway/cycleway then further formal crossing points will be provided.
3.5 The concern over the “invisibility” of tram stops has been expressed particularly when tram routes are on former railway corridors. This is an issue that the promoter is well aware of. This will be addressed through suitable signage that will give visibility to tram stops locations and their access routes to those users not familiar with the area.
3.6 Cycleway/walkway width
The number of user movements recorded by Blackhall Community Association and FRUWCA during May 2005 indicated that some 1000 movements over a 10 hour period were recorded. The survey does not state how many or which sections of the corridor were surveyed although correspondence with FRUWCA indicates that the movements were recorded at a single point at Maidencraig.
3.7 FRUWCA have also informed us that a similar exercise was carried out at Upper Coltbridge and although not utilised by either FRUWCA or Blackhall Community Association the results are understood to be reflective of their own findings. The recent survey numbers are higher than the earlier survey, which given the time of year for both surveys (December 2004 and May 2005) is to be expected and the figures for the May survey can be deemed to be more reflective of corridor use during the warmer months.
3.8 If the May figures of around 1000 movements over 10 hours are taken as reflective of the whole corridor then 100 movements/hr can be expected at any one location. Given an approximate 50/50 split between cyclists and pedestrians this gives 50 movements per hour per group. (Or less than 1 cyclist every minute and less than 1 pedestrian every minute). Even with rounding up to 1 cyclist and 1 pedestrian per minute these figures are not particularly high particularly as they account for movements from both directions.
3.9 To bring the figures into perspective compare the 1200 movements per day on the walkway/cycleway to the tram passenger movements along
the corridor of 15,000 per day at commissioning rising to 23,000 passengers per day in 2026.
3.10 The existing cycleway/walkway provision on the Roseburn corridor, as in most locations in Edinburgh, is a width of 3m. The reprovision proposed is also 3m. The “Cycle Friendly Design Guide” recommends an absolute minimum width of 2.5m for unbounded (i.e. no restriction to the side) for unsegregated urban routes with an additional 0.25m on each side that may be bounded. Even though the movements along the corridor are not high the objectors wish to increase the width of the walkway/cycleway to 4m. The only reasoning given to date is that the “Cycle Friendly Design Guide” also quotes a desirable minimum of 4m. The promoter contests that the movements recorded on the corridor give justification for widths in excess of 3m, particularly when taking into account the additional impact that this would have on the green space the promoter is working hard with the objectors to protect.
4 Conclusion
4.1 In general, access points to tram stops along the Roseburn Corridor, and the introduction of additional formal access points onto the corridor, will give improved access to the corridor itself for a much wider group of users than the existing provision. Signage, improved access and public awareness will give “visibility” to the stop locations.
4.2 Usage of the corridor does not warrant greater provision of the walkway/cycleway width of 3m proposed to replace the existing provision which is also 3m.
Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL OF PATRICIA CRAIK STATEMENT
KAREN RAYMOND
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of Patricia Craik representing Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A) regarding the effect of removal of vegetation on security and privacy (see Section 2). Ms Craik proposes various amendments to the bill which are addressed in Section 3.
2 Effect of the Works on Screening of Neighbouring Properties
2.1 Miss Craik comments on the proposals for treatment of boundaries with neighbouring properties in the Groathill area in terms of the effect on security and privacy and asks that mitigation arrangements be formalised by amendment to the Bill.
2.2 The plans for treatment of all boundaries along the Corridor will be set out in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP). The current draft provides an indication of the planned approach involving maintenance and strengthening of boundary screening provided by existing hedgerows over almost all of the Corridor. The quality of the current hedges is variable with some providing very effective screening of properties and others suffering from lack of management and becoming “leggy” and “gappy”. The tree survey undertaken to inform the LHMP recommended that over-mature, leggy hedges should be managed to encourage denser growth and planted up with young plants to reinforce the boundary and increase their longevity.
2.3 The LHMP adopts this recommendation (see Section C1.2 of the LHMP). It also shows how existing planting within the Corridor will be maintained to enhance the screening provided by boundary hedges as far as possible and new planting will be undertaken to provide further screening inside the boundary. In addition to improved boundary screening the increase in activity along the Corridor during tram operating hours and improved maintenance of lighting should also contribute to improved security.
2.4 There is one location in this area where at present we have identified that maintenance of boundary planting is unlikely to prove possible because of lack of space. This is behind five properties on Groathill Avenue on the eastern side of the Corridor. If this proves to be the case, secure fencing will be provided in
consultation with the relevant owners and occupiers and the local police, and the Promoter will consider with them whether planting within their boundary would be of assistance.
2.5 The final details of planned works (species and height of hedges etc) will be worked out in consultation with City of Edinburgh Council Planning Department (incorporating the Natural Heritage Division) and Culture and Leisure Department, SNH, and local residents and groups. All planting will be scheduled to be implemented at the earliest possible date to maximise the benefit offered during construction. Temporary fencing can be provided if required. The contractor will be required to employ suitably qualified professionals to undertake the works and to monitor and ensure their effective establishment for a period after completion of construction.
2.6 Miss Craik asks what guarantees there will be that the measures set out in the LHMP will be implemented. In oral evidence to the Committee on May 27th 2005 I commented on possible ways in which delivery of the LHMP might be guaranteed in response to concern from SNH on this issue. Since that time SNH has indicated that they are now content with the undertakings given by the Promoter on the plan (see letters from SNH of July 8th at Attachment A) and I believe this should provide the Committee and the witness with the assurance needed that it will be properly developed and implemented. Detailed proposals for further consultation with statutory authorities and neighbours during finalisation of the plan, and for its implementation and supervision, will be set out in later versions of the plan, once these have been agreed with the relevant parties. In addition, the promoter is also considering other mechanisms for ensuring implementation of the LHMP. On this basis the promoter considers that incorporation of the LHMP into the Bill is not required.
2.7 I do recognise, however, that this may leave individual residents with some uncertainty as to implementation of the proposals for their boundaries and I have therefore suggested to the Promoter that individual undertakings be given in writing to these parties as agreement is reached on boundary treatments on each section of the Corridor.
3 Proposed Bill Amendments
3.1 Ms Craik proposes six amendments to the Bill which I deal with in turn:
(i) To require the hawthorn hedge in the Groathill area to be maintained at minimum height of 3 metres.
3.2 The hedge is comprised of various species and its height varies along the route often as the result of actions by individual owners/occupiers. I believe that the details of this will therefore be more appropriately agreed with individual neighbours along the Corridor as they may have varying wishes in this respect. This is therefore best dealt with by consultation and agreement and can be set out in the LHMP and in undertakings to individual properties as outlined above.
(ii) To require the promoter to maintain the hawthorn hedge
3.3 See comment at (i). The long term maintenance of the hedge will as noted above revert to the Council as promoter.
(iii) To require 2 metres of mature vegetation on the corridor side of the hedge.
3.4 As with other aspects of the landscape and habitat management of the corridor the best approach will vary along the Corridor. The current LHMP, which will be developed and implemented in accordance with the undertakings given, seeks to maximise the amount of vegetation inside the boundary using existing vegetation as far as possible and replacing or enhancing this with new planting where possible. The new planting will take time to mature and it is therefore not practicable to commit to 2 metres of mature vegetation throughout the Corridor (it is relevant to note that the existing vegetation is already of varying maturity), but over time the new planting will improve the screening of the Corridor for neighbours.
(iv) Provision of sufficient replacement vegetation, in consultation with affected parties and SNH, on Day 1 of construction
3.5 The LHMP clearly demonstrates the commitment to provide substantial replacement vegetation for that lost and to improve that which is retained by new planting and better management. It is not practicable to undertake this on Day 1 and would in all probability be counterproductive, as an active construction site is not conducive to successful establishment of new planting, but as much as possible will be done as soon as possible, to maximise the benefit it provides to neighbours during the construction period.
(v) Supervision, enforcement and monitoring of replacement planting by an independent party appointed by the Committee
3.6 It is my understanding that this Committee will not continue beyond passage of the Bill (if Assent is granted) and cannot therefore undertake this role (unless the independent party was appointed prior to Royal Assent). The Promoter will however, require the Contractor to appoint suitably qualified professionals to supervise planting works and this will be monitored and enforced by the Promoter under the terms of the construction contract. The Promoter will also continue to be advised by environmental professionals. Such professionals will be bound by their relevant qualifications (most likely Chartered Membership of the Landscape Institute) to provide independent, unbiased advice to the Contractor and the Promoter. Further oversight of the works will no doubt also be provided by SNH and the planning department.
(vi) The area for walkers and cyclists and the tramway to remain at or below the level of the current walkway.
3.7 As indicated in the current engineering drawings this will be the case along the majority of the Corridor, however, there are some sections where the solum of
the old railway where it runs in cutting will be raised slightly to provide a wider base. I am unsure as to the reason for this concern but if it is to ensure that raising the height of activity on the corridor relative to neighbouring property does not exacerbate any disturbance arising, I am confident that the changes are small enough (a maximum of up to 2 metres at the base of deep cuttings) not to cause any problems.
Karen Raymond Principal Partner, ERM
12 August 2005
Attachment A
Iain Rennick Area Manager Forth & Borders
Jane Sutherland Private Bills Unit Our ref: CNS/DC/ED/TRAM The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP 8 July 2005
Dear Ms Sutherland,
EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE ONE) BILL
I am writing to update you on Scottish Natural Heritage’s (SNH’s) position in relation to our objections to the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill.
As you are aware from previous correspondence, we have been working with the Promoter to resolve our remaining objections. I am pleased to say that we have now reached agreement on two of these – our objection in relation to badger mitigation and our objection in relation to landscape & habitat issues within the Roseburn Corridor. We now wish to remove both these objections. However, please note that our objection in relation to badger mitigation is being removed on the understanding that Parliament will not seek to disapply the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 at a later stage in the process.
We have one remaining objection which has not yet been resolved – relating to the protection of the geological interest of the Firth of Forth SSSI at Wardie Shore. I am attaching for information a letter I am sending today to the Promoter which provides further background on the current discussions on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Iain Rennick Area Manager, Forth & Borders
Iain Rennick Area Manager Forth & Borders
Kevin Murray Project Manager – Tram Line One Our ref: CNS/DC/ED/TRAM
8 July 2005
Dear Kevin,
EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE ONE) BILL
Thank you for your further letters of 30 June and 6 July in which you address once again our remaining objections to the Bill. Like you, we are anxious to find a way in which our objections can be removed. We are grateful for the thought you have put into these issues and for the constructive suggestions you have put forward. I will respond to each of these in turn.
Badger Mitigation
Thank you for your further assurance that you will not promote any future amendment to the Bill to disapply the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. We will, as you suggest, advise the Bills Unit that we are prepared to withdraw this part of our objection subject to the condition that Parliament will not then disapply the 1992 Act at a later stage in the process. We look forward to further consultation on the Badger Mitigation Plan as it is developed.
Wardie Shore SSSI
As you would expect, we have been giving this issue further thought in light of our earlier correspondence.
We accept much of your analysis. You fall within the definition of statutory undertaker, and therefore ‘public body’, under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The public body consent procedures set out in Sections 13 & 14 of the Act will therefore apply, rather than the private owner/occupier procedures of Sections16 and 17. Under Section 13 you will have to apply for a consent from SNH before proceeding with works which may potentially affect the SSSI. Section 14(1) sets out circumstances where a consent is not required, but these do not appear to apply in this case.
However, Sections 14(2)-(5) of the Act then go on to set out the circumstances whereby a public body can proceed with a damaging operation in the face of an SNH refusal of consent. Where a public body intends to do this, SNH would either
have to attempt to obtain an interdict under Section 45(2), or a Nature Conservation Order under Sections 23, to prevent the work going ahead. You will appreciate that this is a situation which we would wish to avoid, not least because the provisions in the Act are as yet untested in the courts. Even if we did decide to pursue either of these routes, there is, of course, no guarantee that applications for either would be successful.
It may be possible to devise a mechanism which would guarantee that works would not proceed in circumstances where SNH consent under the 2004 Act had been refused. If so, we would be able to withdraw our objection. One way in which this might be achieved would be for the Scottish Executive to agree to impose this as a condition of their funding for the project. I understand that the Executive are prepared to consider this.
If such a mechanism is not possible, our view would remain that the most appropriate way to protect the SSSI at Wardie Shore is an amendment to the Bill which identifies an exclusion zone within which works and access would be prohibited.
Landscape & Habitat Management Plan
We are grateful for your clarification on how this might be resolved, and we accept the reasons why you would not wish to pursue an amendment on this issue.
You propose that we enter into a side agreement with you to secure our input into the development and implementation of the Landscape & Habitat Management Plan. We have been reluctant to enter into such side agreements for Private Bills. This is because we are not a regulatory authority, the mechanism by which any mitigation measures might be enforced in the event of a dispute is unclear and they can require a significant input of staff time which we can’t afford.
However, we do wish to find a way through on this issue, not least because the key habitat issues will be addressed by the approach to badger mitigation referred to above. We are, therefore, content to rest on the commitments which you have made to consult us on the Landscape & Habitat Management Plan as it is developed. I will write to the Bills Unit to advise them that we are prepared to withdraw our objection on this point.
I hope that you find this response helpful.
Iain Rennick Area Manager, Forth & Borders
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
KAREN RAYMOND
1 Background
1.1 This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of Kristina Woolnough representing Group 33 (Roseburn Corridor Area A) regarding loss of amenity, vegetation and wildlife. Ms Woolnough’s statement addresses various issues. My rebuttal addresses her comments on adequacy of the assessment of alternative routes from an environmental perspective, the scope of the EIA for the preferred route, the policy context and current management of the route, and the enforceability of the LHMP. My colleague Andrew Coates’ rebuttal statement addresses her other topics of impact on vegetation, bats, insects, birds and badgers. Aileen Grant also addresses her comments relating to the policy context.
2 Adequacy of Assessment of Alternative Routes
2.1 Ms Woolnough comments on various aspects on the options appraisal work. I deal here with those comments that relate to the environmental inputs to route selection. Other witnesses for the promoter will address her comments on accessibility and integration.
2.2 The principal criticism is that inadequate weight was given to the importance of the Roseburn Corridor as a pedestrian and cycling route and a wildlife corridor. It is suggested that, as no surveys were undertaken at this stage, the team were unaware or insufficiently aware of its importance. I can assure the Committee and the witness that the absence of surveys at that stage did not mean we were unaware of its significance. I and other members of our team were residents of the immediate area and users of the path and we were therefore fully aware of its role as a footpath and cycleway and as a wildlife resource, and this was properly taken into account in the options appraisal.
2.3 I should note that it would not be normal practice in EIA to undertake surveys at an options appraisal stage unless there were significant unknowns regarding the characteristics of alternatives. The Roseburn Corridor is well identified as a local amenity and the results of habitat surveys undertaken by the Council were available to the team. The preference for other alternatives over the Roseburn Corridor on nature conservation and amenity grounds was therefore clear and further survey work was not considered to be necessary.
3 Scope of the EIA
3.1 Ms Woolnough also raises comments made by the Scottish Civic Trust in their response to our EIA scoping consultation. In their response they suggested that issues of integration and accessibility should be examined as part of the EIA and a “multi-transport linkage assessment” should be undertaken. Ms Woolnough asks whether this was done and whether pedestrian access was methodically analysed.
3.2 I would agree that these are proper matters for consideration in development of this type of project. They are however, more usually considered as part of the transport assessment work rather than the EIA and this was the case here. Colleagues in the team from Steer Davies Gleave were responsible for this aspect of the work which is reported in documents other than the Environmental Statement. In particular consideration was given to integration and accessibility with and from the local catchment area for pedestrians accessing stops and with bus services. My colleague Leslie Buckman comments further on this in his rebuttal.
4 Loss of Amenity – Vegetation: Policy Context
4.1 Ms Woolnough describes the Roseburn Corridor as an important “green artery” for people and wildlife and I concur with this. She suggests, however, that the mention of “possible transportation purposes” in the 1997 Central Edinburgh Local Plan can be interpreted to mean its reservation for walking and cycling rather than for a tram scheme. This reservation for transportation purposes is shown on the proposals map. The policy to which this refers, Policy T4, makes clear that the route is specifically safeguarded for “the possible construction of a light rapid transit system”. The accompanying text indicates that the former railway line between Roseburn and Ferry Road is identified for “a link between” the east-west and north-south routes which are more specifically identified on the proposals map. (Written Statement Paragraph 9.29). The reasons for the different marking on the proposal map for the east-west/north-south routes and the link are explained by Aileen grant in her rebuttal. This was a specific amendment from an earlier draft which mentioned safeguarding “for a future road or for transportation purposes”.
4.2 Policy T2 in the North West Edinburgh Local Plan safeguards further disused railway land from Queensferry Road to Davidson’s Mains, Granton and Newhaven for “possible future highways or light rail proposals". The Plan also states that “the District Council accepts that their safeguarding [for possible highway purposes – and with reference to a possible Edinburgh Metro] is prudent; meanwhile they can be used as walkways and cycleways”.
4.3 The 2001 draft West Edinburgh Local Plan which will now be progressed through preparation of a new Edinburgh City Local Plan also shows the Corridor as safeguarded for LRT (Policy TRA4).
4.4 I respectfully suggest that this suggests a clear intent to reserve the corridor for something more than just cycling and walking.
5 Loss of Amenity – Vegetation: Current Management
5.1 Ms Woolnough notes that the Edinburgh Urban Nature Conservation Strategy (UNCS), identified development as a serious threat to wildlife sites on the disused railway network and that the 2000-2004 Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (EBAP) described the importance of the Roseburn Corridor as an artery for wildlife (para 9).
5.2 It is correct that the UNCS (published in 1992) and the 2000-2004 EBAP made no reference to LRT plans for the Corridor, but it is important to note that this prospective use was recognised in Lothian Regional Council’s North Edinburgh Railway Path Network Wildlife Management Plan as far back as 1989 and is now recognised in the current version of the EBAP (2004-9). The EBAP proposes specific measures to minimise the impact of Tram Line One and these have been taken into account in designing the scheme to date.
5.3 At paragraphs 18-19 Ms Woolnough refers to comments made by our arboricultural consultant, SAC Arboriculture Services, following his recent tree survey work. In particular she notes his recommendations for more active management and removal of rubble. I can advise that the reports have been passed to the Council for their attention. His recommendations have been taken into account in drawing up the management proposals set out in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan.
5.4 Ms Woolnough also suggests (paragraph 22) that the effect of poor management on the quality of the Corridor and the ability of the tram to deliver improvements in this, was a factor influencing our choice of the route. It is the case that the tram proposals do offer an opportunity to deliver such improvements but I can advise that this did not feature in the environmental appraisal of the route options.
6 Impact on Vegetation – Enforceability of the LHMP
6.1 At paragraph 25 Ms Woolnough questions whether the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan will be implemented and therefore what guarantees there are about how much vegetation will be lost. In oral evidence to the Committee on May 27th 2005 I commented on possible ways in which delivery of the LHMP might be guaranteed in response to concern from SNH on this issue. Since that time SNH has indicated that they are now content with the undertakings given by the Promoter on the plan (see letters from SNH of July 8th at Attachment A) and I believe this should provide the Committee and the witness with the assurance needed that it will be properly developed and implemented. Detailed proposals for further consultation with statutory authorities and neighbours during finalisation of the plan, and for its implementation and supervision, will be set out in later
versions of the plan, once these have been agreed with the relevant parties. In addition, the promoter is also considering other mechanisms for ensuring implementation of the LHMP. On this basis the promoter considers that incorporation of the LHMP into the Bill is not required.
Karen Raymond Principal Partner, ERM
Attachment A
Iain Rennick Area Manager Forth & Borders
Jane Sutherland Private Bills Unit Our ref: CNS/DC/ED/TRAM The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP 8 July 2005
Dear Ms Sutherland,
EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE ONE) BILL
I am writing to update you on Scottish Natural Heritage’s (SNH’s) position in relation to our objections to the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill.
As you are aware from previous correspondence, we have been working with the Promoter to resolve our remaining objections. I am pleased to say that we have now reached agreement on two of these – our objection in relation to badger mitigation and our objection in relation to landscape & habitat issues within the Roseburn Corridor. We now wish to remove both these objections. However, please note that our objection in relation to badger mitigation is being removed on the understanding that Parliament will not seek to disapply the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 at a later stage in the process.
We have one remaining objection which has not yet been resolved – relating to the protection of the geological interest of the Firth of Forth SSSI at Wardie Shore. I am attaching for information a letter I am sending today to the Promoter which provides further background on the current discussions on this issue.
Yours sincerely, Iain Rennick Area Manager, Forth & Borders
Iain Rennick Area Manager Forth & Borders
Kevin Murray Project Manager – Tram Line One Our ref: CNS/DC/ED/TRAM
8 July 2005
Dear Kevin,
EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE ONE) BILL
Thank you for your further letters of 30 June and 6 July in which you address once again our remaining objections to the Bill. Like you, we are anxious to find a way in which our objections can be removed. We are grateful for the thought you have put into these issues and for the constructive suggestions you have put forward. I will respond to each of these in turn.
Badger Mitigation
Thank you for your further assurance that you will not promote any future amendment to the Bill to disapply the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. We will, as you suggest, advise the Bills Unit that we are prepared to withdraw this part of our objection subject to the condition that Parliament will not then disapply the 1992 Act at a later stage in the process. We look forward to further consultation on the Badger Mitigation Plan as it is developed.
Wardie Shore SSSI
As you would expect, we have been giving this issue further thought in light of our earlier correspondence.
We accept much of your analysis. You fall within the definition of statutory undertaker, and therefore ‘public body’, under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The public body consent procedures set out in Sections 13 & 14 of the Act will therefore apply, rather than the private owner/occupier procedures of Sections16 and 17. Under Section 13 you will have to apply for a consent from SNH before proceeding with works which may potentially affect the SSSI. Section 14(1) sets out circumstances where a consent is not required, but these do not appear to apply in this case.
However, Sections 14(2)-(5) of the Act then go on to set out the circumstances whereby a public body can proceed with a damaging operation in the face of an SNH refusal of consent. Where a public body intends to do this, SNH would either have to attempt to obtain an interdict under Section 45(2), or a Nature
Conservation Order under Sections 23, to prevent the work going ahead. You will appreciate that this is a situation which we would wish to avoid, not least because the provisions in the Act are as yet untested in the courts. Even if we did decide to pursue either of these routes, there is, of course, no guarantee that applications for either would be successful.
It may be possible to devise a mechanism which would guarantee that works would not proceed in circumstances where SNH consent under the 2004 Act had been refused. If so, we would be able to withdraw our objection. One way in which this might be achieved would be for the Scottish Executive to agree to impose this as a condition of their funding for the project. I understand that the Executive are prepared to consider this.
If such a mechanism is not possible, our view would remain that the most appropriate way to protect the SSSI at Wardie Shore is an amendment to the Bill which identifies an exclusion zone within which works and access would be prohibited.
Landscape & Habitat Management Plan
We are grateful for your clarification on how this might be resolved, and we accept the reasons why you would not wish to pursue an amendment on this issue.
You propose that we enter into a side agreement with you to secure our input into the development and implementation of the Landscape & Habitat Management Plan. We have been reluctant to enter into such side agreements for Private Bills. This is because we are not a regulatory authority, the mechanism by which any mitigation measures might be enforced in the event of a dispute is unclear and they can require a significant input of staff time which we can’t afford.
However, we do wish to find a way through on this issue, not least because the key habitat issues will be addressed by the approach to badger mitigation referred to above. We are, therefore, content to rest on the commitments which you have made to consult us on the Landscape & Habitat Management Plan as it is developed. I will write to the Bills Unit to advise them that we are prepared to withdraw our objection on this point.
I hope that you find this response helpful.
Iain Rennick Area Manager, Forth & Borders
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL TO ALISON BOURNE WITNESS STATEMENT
LES BUCKMAN
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of Alison Bourne, representing Group 33 (Roseburn A). Ms Bourne’s statements raise a range of issues about the sifting process (including criteria and weighting), accessibility to the Western General Hospital, patronage forecasting and general route development. Other issues of contention will be addressed by my colleagues.
1.2. I have described the general route development process in my Witness Statement for Group 33 of 4th July 2005 and set out the process of deciding stop locations in an associated statement.
2. ISSUES OF CONCERN
The Sifting Process (paragraphs 171-243)
Principles (paragraphs 175, 177, 182)
2.1. Given the myriad of potential route links that could be used to form the Line 1 loop, a sifting process was adopted in order to weed out unsuitable or impractical links and enable a manageable number of sensible route options to be assembled and taken forward to the formal STAG appraisal process. Sifting was employed to provide a structured and transparent method for the development of the loop options to be taken forward for appraisal.
2.2. Option sifting is a pre-appraisal process and STAG states that “there are a number of ways of achieving the sifting process although this is far from an exact science”.
2.3. Most importantly, this process did not preclude the alternative options at Telford Road and Crewe Road to be appraised in subsequent phases of the appraisal process.
Level of Effort Required (paragraph 172)
2.4. Although current guidance recommends that the level of effort dedicated to the appraisal process should be commensurate with the magnitude of the project, there is no guidance on the level of detail for the sifting process, and both the consultants and the Scottish Executive consider the sifting process applied to be appropriate.
Criteria (paragraph 175, 186, 187, 190-192, 199)
2.5. The sifting criteria were determined by the consultant team. The criteria adopted (technical implementability, transport, economy and the environment) were essentially a condensed set of criteria taking cognisance of the planning objectives and STAG criteria. The consultants aimed at a small number of criteria to facilitate the sifting of the large number of initial link options. Implementability is an essential consideration at such early stages in the planning process and in this case it was used as part of the sifting stage to help identify evidently unsuitable links. (In fact, including implementability at this stage is, if anything, more stringent than is usually the case, whereby link options are discarded on these grounds alone before proceeding to appraisal stage.)
2.6. Contrary to the objectors witness statement, the sifting process is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG (reproduced below). The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Once full options have been developed (the four loop options set out in the WP1 report), STAG criteria are required in the Part 1 and Part 2 appraisal processes.
Route link development and sifting stage for Line 1
2.7. Conceptually, the detailed STAG criteria have been developed for the appraisal of complete schemes and not for individual elements or links. Links can only be properly judged against these criteria if part of a route option. The STAG criteria
would have been far too specific for this pre-appraisal stage, although elements of the STAG criteria are taken into account within the transport, economy and environment criteria.
Weighting (paragraph 184, 185, 187)
2.8. STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sift options and reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration; there is no general guidance for the actual weights used. At such an early stage in the planning process, technical implementability was considered a crucial consideration in terms of weeding out infeasible or impractical links and as such was given a higher weighting. In many respects, the process adopted formalised the rejection of links deemed technically challenging, rather than starting from the basis of what was reasonably feasible.
2.9. An exercise has been carried out to test the extent to which weighting was decisive in including individual links in the route option selection. In this test, all weightings were removed, leaving only the scores. The results showed that both Crewe Road and the Roseburn corridor remained as selected links, hence demonstrating that even if the weightings were not applied, this would not have changed the initial route selection.
Open Mindedness in Route Development II (paragraph 174)
2.10. Mr. Bourne implies that the work undertaken assumed a fixed route, but this is not the case, as demonstrated in the sifting and appraisal processes, which did consider alternative links and then alternative routes.
The Use of STAG Criteria (paragraph 178)
2.11. As described above, both route options at Telford Road and Crewe Road (which would serve the WGH) have been fully appraised using STAG.
2.12. The five STAG criteria have been appropriately and in considerable level of detail applied after the option sifting, at both Part 1 and Part 2 of the appraisal process, when a reasonable number of alternative route options have been defined.
The Western General Hospital
Walk distance to Hospital (paragraph 7)
2.13. The revised stop location at Telford Road will provide a walk access to the existing entrance to WGH of some 325m and the Promoter is investigating the feasibility of providing a pedestrian access point opposite Telford Gardens which would reduce this to under 200m. We accept that the main public buildings are orientated towards the Crewe Road North entrance (although we feel that the 400m distance quoted is somewhat excessive), but we would point out that those same buildings
are some 200m or more from that entrance as well. Overall, the additional walk distance given the Proposed stop compared to one on Crewe Road north could become 300m or less, a distance covered in around 4 minutes.
Patronage from the Hospital (paragraphs 17, 143, 198)
2.14. Model tests were undertaken on the Roseburn and Telford Road options and reported in the Craigleith Options summary report (referenced under AJB-WGH- 035). This demonstrated that there is forecast to be a small reduction in Line patronage with the Telford Road option compared to the Roseburn corridor. Whilst this would have a marginal impact on revenue, the principal impact of the Telford Road option would be the additional capital and operating costs to the degree that the scheme would become materially less beneficial overall.
The WGH within the Sifting Process (paragraph 181)
2.15. The conception of Line One originated from the need to serve the major land use developments planned in Granton and Leith and to link them with the City Centre. Whilst this broad objective still remains, the justification for Line 1 includes meeting as far as practicable the transport objectives set out in the Local Transport Strategy and encapsulated with the scheme planning objectives.
2.16. Contrary to what is suggested by Mrs Bourne, the sifting process did include an option running along Crewe Road (therefore serving the front access to the WGH), as well as the Telford Road option (serving the back entrance of the WGH), which were appraised using STAG.
Drylaw/WGH (paragraphs 38 and 39)
2.17. This highlights the inherent compromises that need to be made in developing a transport system such as Line 1. There will always be many potential demand generators that it would be desirable to serve, but it has to be recognised that this is often not possible without making the while line unviable through an overlong, windy and slow route.
Consequences of not serving WGH (paragraphs 300 et al.)
2.18. One can argue about the desirability of Line 1 directly serving WGH, but the objection paints it as if not serving it will double all the problems there - most of this is assertion and opinion.
Demand Modelling
Patronage Forecasts (paragraphs 114/124 and 145/9)
2.19. The statement correctly states the reported forecast patronage for the Railway Corridor and Telford Road options and the difference therein of 190,000. This
difference will be comprised of a lower level of through trips from the run time increase and a change in the level of local demand. In terms of the Craigleith Road option report, the forecasts were based on a review of model data, rather than a full model run. On the issue of when the last computer modelling was undertaken for the STAG report of November 2003, this was in fact carried out in that month.
2.20. Further development of these options following their review in November 2003 has resulted in updated run time estimates and stop locations. On this basis, new modelling has been undertaken to provide a current estimate of patronage for these options. The following sets out the findings of the modelling and the impact on the case for Line 1. My colleagues can provide information on the run time modelling as appropriate.
Telford Road option
2.21. The Telford Road option is estimated to add some 3 minutes to the run time between Craigleith and West Granton Access. A new stop is provided at the back entrance to the Western General Hospital on Telford Road.
2.22. The table sets out the patronage impact of the Telford Road option in comparison with the Proposed route. Overall, the patronage is lower than the proposed route in 2011 by some 0.34m, with a slightly higher reduction of 0.38m in 2026.
TABLE 1 PATRONAGE FORECASTS FOR LINE 1 (MILLIONS)
2011 2026 M Change m Change Proposed Route 9.44 - 13.69 - Telford Road 9.09 -0.34m/-4% 13.30 -0.38m/-3%
2.23. We have analysed the model data to understand in more detail where the change in patronage is arising. In principle, the change will be a combination of a change in the demand at the alternative stop locations and a change in the level of patronage passing through this section (which will be adversely affected by the increase in the run time of 3 minutes). The results of this analysis are set out below.
2.24. There is a marginal reduction in demand from the stop on the Telford Road option over the Proposed route. Furthermore, the increased run time leads to a reduction in patronage of around 0.32-0.33m trips. Overall, some 0.34m to 0.38m trips are lost with the Telford Road option. In general, given the relatively marginal change in the stop position, we do not envisage a material change in the demand at the stop serving the WGH; this is borne out by the modelling analysis. However, the additional run time does have an adverse impact on the level of through patronage.
TABLE 2 PATRONAGE FORECASTS FOR LINE 1 (MILLIONS)
2011 2026 Change Change Boardings: Proposed Route 0.23 0.37 Telford Road 0.21 -0.02 0.32 -0.05 Change in through trips -0.32 -0.33 Total change -0.34 -0.38
Craigleith Road option
2.25. Overall, this option is estimated to add approximately 7 minutes to the run time between the stops at West Granton Access and Ravelston Dykes. New stops are assumed at Craigleith Road and on Crewe Road South, outside the Western General Hospital. The stops at Craigleith Retail Park and Crewe Road are locally relocated to integrate with the revised routing at each end of this section.
2.26. The table sets out the patronage impact of the option in comparison with the Proposed route. Overall, the patronage is lower than the proposed route in both 2011 and 2026, reducing by around 0.4m trips per year.
TABLE 3 PATRONAGE FORECASTS FOR LINE 1 (MILLIONS)
2011 2026 Change Change Proposed Route 9.44 - 13.69 Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road 9.01 -0.42 / -4% 13.27 -0.41/-3%
2.27. We have analysed the model data to understand in more detail where the change in patronage is arising. In principle, the change will be a combination of a change in the demand at the stops along the revised section of route (ie between Craigleith and Crewe Toll stops exclusive) and a change in the level of patronage passing through this section (which will be adversely affected by the increase in the run time of 7 minutes). The results of this analysis are set out below.
2.28. There is a marginal increase in demand from the stops along the Craigleith Road option over the proposed route. However, this is more than offset by the reduction in through trips, leading to the overall reduction of around 0.4m million trips per annum.
TABLE 4 PATRONAGE FORECASTS FOR LINE 1 (MILLIONS)
2011 2026 Change Change Boardings: Proposed Route 0.23 0.37 Craigleith Road 0.36 +0.13 0.56 +0.19 Change in through trips -0.55 -0.60 Total change -0.42 -0.41
Modelling Work (paragraph 164)
2.29. The statement that no work was done after September is presumably based on the date of the last SDG File Note listed in the Appendix of 12/09/2003. Modelling work on the route for Line 1 as presented in STAG was, in fact, carried out right through to the submission of the report in November 2003. As previously noted, the forecasts for demand for the Craigleith Road option was based on a review of model data, rather than a full model run.
2.30. On the issue of journey time and patronage, we set out below that there is a trade off to be made between run times and accessibility to demand generators. Model results set out in the STAG report show that extended journey times by themselves will reduce the patronage for Line 1. On that basis, it is evident that, by increasing the route length and journey time to access a demand generator, that some of the through trips will be lost; the issue then becomes one of balancing the loss of through trips to the additional trips gained from serving the demand generator(s). In addition, the wider case for the route options will then need to include the additional capital and operating costs that this additional route length will entail. All of these aspects were presented in the Craigleith Road options summary report.
Change in Modelled Demand (paragraph 193)
2.31. The WP1 work was based on the modelling framework employed in the Andersen report. For the later work contained in the STAG report and later option testing, the latest modelling framework available (as set out in the STAG appendices) was employed. However, the relative performance of the options at WP1 stage is considered robust.
Demand in Muirhouse (paragraph 247)
2.32. The basis of the analysis was a review of the travel demand from these areas. As noted in the WP1 report, the Pennywell Road route had marginally higher demand
than the Granton Access Road route, but would take 3-4 minutes longer. This extended journey time would reduce the level of through trips and hence the impact on overall demand was considered neutral at best. Given the additional capital and operating costs, this option was ruled out.
Daily Ridership (paragraph 291)
2.33. The forecasts for Line 1 indicate around 1700 passengers per route km daily rising to 2400, comparable to Croydon.
Catchment Area (paragraph 35, 196)
2.34. The population density along the Roseburn corridor is comparable to that along Crewe Road South (see Figure 3.1 of STAG report).
Minimising Journey Time (paragraphs 18, 37, 72, 76, 142, 143, 228, 331)
2.35. Speed and patronage are not mutually exclusive. Any route should serve the places that people want to come from and go to, but this has to be at a speed which is acceptable and competitive with the alternatives. There is thus often a tension between serving demand generators and ensuring that journey times to passengers are not extended to the degree that they seek alternatives. Where those alternatives are relatively competitive with the tram, small changes in tram journey time will divert some passengers away to those alternatives and model testing has demonstrated that even 1-2 additional minutes can have significant impacts on demand levels. On that basis, the route development process will reflect this tension, seeking routes that serve demand generators, such as the WGH, but not to the detriment of other passengers. In this context, the Roseburn corridor does enable relatively fast run times to be achieved and hence capture a significant share of the demand between the City Centre and North Edinburgh.
2.36. An associated issue is the need to capture time saving benefits; such benefits form the basis for the justification of tram, as set out in the appraisal. Journey times that are comparable to the alternatives, notably bus, will not gain the patronage required, for the reasons set out previously, nor will those that do travel by tram gain any material benefit. The case for the tram is therefore substantially weakened.
Preference for Tram (paragraph 144)
2.37. Mrs. Bourne is correct that we do argue that there is an innate preference for tram over bus, and that this is included in the modelling and benefits. However, this does not negate the need to ensure that journey times are competitive with the alternatives as previously noted above.
Stop Locations
At Roseburn and Haymarket (paragraph 27)
2.38. The stops along the Roseburn corridor directly serve the housing catchment area along this corridor, as illustrated in Figure 3.1 of STAG. The route through Haymarket also serves the residential areas around Dalry Road and Roseburn and enables interchange with bus and rail services at this increasingly important transport hub.
At Craigleith Retail Park (paragraphs 41 and 236)
2.39. We dispute that Line 1 does not serve this retail park. The stop is within 250m of most of the stores, which equates to a 3 minute walk, hardly onerous.
Accessibility
Access to Deprived Areas (paragraphs 34, 208, 273)
2.40. We accept that the Proposed Route does not serve the Muirhouse area, which does suffer from the highest levels of deprivation in northern Edinburgh (as shown in Figure 3.5 of STAG). However, the route and stops at Telford Road, Crewe Toll and Pilton will provide access to Drylaw and Pilton.
Poor Security and Accessibility of Roseburn (paragraph 151)
2.41. As described in detail above, a range of objectives and sub-objectives were taken into account in the appraisal process, and the options considered performed differently against each one. The route selection choice was that performing best overall, despite the fact that along Roseburn there would be reduced accessibility and security.
Catchment area (paragraph 211)
2.42. Guidance issued by the Institute of Highways and Transportation (Planning for Public Transport in Developments IHT 1999) suggests assuming walk distance catchments of up to 800m for tram and such distances are borne out by empirical evidence for the Midland Metro (Birmingham) tram line. The observed walk-in catchment is illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the percentage of walk-in demand by distance band. Whilst the (up to) 400m band dominates, it in fact only accounts for around 50% of the walk-in demand, with the 400m-800m accounting for a further 20% or so. A notable feature is the 20% of demand walking in excess of 1.6km (around a mile or more).
Figure 2: Walk distances to Midland Metro 100%
80%
60%
40%
20% % walk in demand%
0% 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600+
Distance (m) By distance band Cummulative
Haymarket
Served by Line 1 (paragraph 36, 197)
2.43. Haymarket and the West End is an increasingly important part of the City Centre and Haymarket is a key hub in the public transport network. On this basis, it is desirable that it is served by Line 1. Haymarket was identified prior to the route development and sifting stage as a key point to serve to maximise integration. Section 3.1 of the WP1 report is quite clear on the advantages in this regard of serving the rail stations in Edinburgh.
No Reference to Haymarket in Remit (paragraph 183)
2.44. That is right, as described above, the remit was to connect north Edinburgh with the city centre, achieving as many of the wider objectives as possible. Access to Haymarket has been included in the appraisal process and therefore its merits contributed to the decision on route options.
Accident Risk (paragraph 153)
2.45. The accident risk relates to the potential for tram-vehicle conflict and given the greater length of the Craigleith Road option, this will increase the risk proportionately.
Transdev Review of Route (paragraph 260)
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
LES BUCKMAN
1. BACKGROUND 1.1. This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statements of Kristina Woolnough, representing Group 33 (Roseburn A). Ms Woolnough’s statements raise issues over the sifting process, stop locations and accessibility and alternative routes. Other issues of contention will be addressed by my colleagues. 1.2. I have described the general route development process in my Witness Statement for Group 33 of 4th July 2005 and set out the process of deciding stop locations in an associated statement.
2. ISSUES OF CONCERN
Route development (footpath/cycleway statement paragraphs 2, 4-6 and 19 and vegetation and wildlife statement paragraphs 2, 4-6 and 51)
Principles
2.1. Given the myriad of potential route links that could be used to form the Line 1 loop, a sifting process was adopted in order to weed out unsuitable or impractical links and enable a manageable number of sensible route options to be assembled and taken forward to the formal STAG appraisal process. Sifting was employed to provide a structured and transparent method for the development of the loop options to be taken forward for appraisal.
2.2. Option sifting is a pre-appraisal process and STAG states that “there are a number of ways of achieving the sifting process although this is far from an exact science”.
2.3. Most importantly, this process did not preclude the alternative options at Telford Road and Crewe Road being appraised in subsequent phases of the appraisal process.
Criteria
2.4. The sifting criteria were determined by the consultant team. The criteria adopted (technical implementability, transport, economy and the environment) were essentially a condensed set of criteria taking cognisance of the planning objectives
and STAG criteria. The consultants aimed at a small number of criteria to facilitate the sifting of the large number of initial link options. Implementability is an essential consideration at such early stages in the planning process and in this case it was used as part of the sifting stage to help identify evidently unsuitable links. (In fact, including implementability at this stage is, if anything, more stringent than is usually the case, whereby link options are discarded on these grounds alone before proceeding to appraisal stage.)
2.5. The sifting process is not required to use any specific criteria, not even the appraisal criteria; this is illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary of STAG (reproduced below). The Option Generation, Sifting and Development phase (in this context, the process to generate full Line 1 loop options from route links) is part of the pre-appraisal process and as such is not formally required to use the standard STAG criteria. Once full options have been developed (the four loop options set out in the WP1 report), STAG criteria are required in the Part 1 and Part 2 appraisal processes.
Route link development and sifting stage for Line 1
2.6. Conceptually, the detailed STAG criteria have been developed for the appraisal of complete schemes and not for individual elements or links. Links can only be properly judged against these criteria if part of a route option. The STAG criteria
would have been far too specific for this pre-appraisal stage, although elements of the STAG criteria are taken into account within the transport, economy and environment criteria.
Weighting
2.7. STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sift options and reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration; there is no general guidance for the actual weights used. At such an early stage in the planning process, technical implementability was considered a crucial consideration in terms of weeding out infeasible or impractical links and as such was given a higher weighting. In many respects, the process adopted formalised the rejection of links deemed technically challenging, rather than starting from the basis of what was reasonably feasible.
2.8. An exercise has been carried out to test the extent to which weighting was decisive in including individual links in the route option selection. In this test, all weightings were removed, leaving only the scores. The results showed that both Crewe Road and the Roseburn corridor remained as selected links, hence demonstrating that even if the weightings were not applied, this would not have changed the initial route selection.
Multi-transport linkage assessment (footpath/cycleway statement paragraph 6 and vegetation and wildlife statement paragraph 6)
2.9. Ms Woolnough notes that a consultation response from the Scottish Civic Trust to the EIA scooping report advocated a multi-transport linkage assessment and then asks whether this, or a methodical analysis of pedestrian access, was ever undertaken.
2.10. Throughout the development of Line 1, the location of tram stops, which are the access points to the system, was based on the consideration of technical issues (such as physical and engineering constraints and interaction with the highway network for on-street stops), demand potential, accessibility and social inclusion (to ensure stop locations have high levels of accessibility to the surrounding catchment area, including satisfactory physical access to the station) and network integration, to integrate the new service with existing public transport stops and services, providing wider connectivity across the public transport network, such as at Haymarket to integrate with rail and bus services through this hub.
Importance of Haymarket (footpath/cycleway statement paragraphs 9/12 and vegetation and wildlife statement paragraphs 9/12)
2.11. In these paragraphs, Ms Woolnough asserts that Haymarket was only identified ‘..late in the process to justify the Roseburn Corridor..’. In fact, Haymarket was identified prior to the route development and sifting stage as a key point to serve to
maximise integration. Section 3.1 of the WP11 report is quite clear on the advantages in this regard of serving the rail stations in Edinburgh and the NERTS2 study also identified Haymarket as a key interchange point to be served.
2.12. In response to the suggestion of using Palmerston Place, our view is that a stop in this location would be a very poor substitute for serving Haymarket directly. Interchange with rail services would necessitate a walk in excess of 300m across what is a very busy gyratory system. The Proposed stop is barely 50m from the entrance to Haymarket station and involves no road crossings. Furthermore, a Palmerston Place stop would dilute the benefit of the Shandwick Place stop given their proximity. Integration with buses would also suffer comparatively. Access to the stop for those in wheelchairs, or those who are frail, would be no better to any user than the Proposed stop since all stops will have the same facilities and be compliant with DDA requirements.
Objectors route better meets the STAG criteria (footpath/cycleway statement paragraph 13 and vegetation and wildlife statement paragraph 13)
2.13. Without undertaking a full appraisal, it cannot be asserted that the Objectors proposed route meets the STAG criteria better than the Proposed Route with a Haymarket stop.
Access to Craigleith and Ravelston Dykes tram stops (footpath/cycleway statement, paragraphs 20)
2.14. Ms Woolnough asserts that these stops have poor access, are situated out of public view and lead to poor integration with other public transport.
2.15. In terms of access, both stops will have ramp and stair access to street level as appropriate. Given its location, the Ravelston Dykes stop will be accessed from the road overbridge. The Craigleith stop will likely have several access points in order to maximise accessibility to the surrounding area.
2.16. Given its position in a deep cutting, we will accept that the stop at Ravelston Dykes is not very visible. However, the proposed stop at Craigleith is currently located around 100m to the north of Queensferry Road, directly adjacent to the retail park. This stop is located on a small embankment and affords good visibility to the surrounding area.
1 Edinburgh Tram Line 1: Work Package 1 Report, Mott MacDonald et al, December 2002
2 Feasibility Study for a North Edinburgh Rapid Transit Solution, Andersen et al, July 2001
2.17. In overall terms, we contest the assertion that a lack of visibility will have a negative impact on the success of the scheme. The key issue is the visibility of the stop locations and all of these have appropriate signage and branding in order to aid visibility of the system. An analogy in this regard is the London Underground; most of the system is essentially invisible (either underground or in surface alignments away from public view) and the focus is therefore on visibility of the stations, for which there has been developed a very strong image and branding.
2.18. In terms of integration, the stops have, in part, been located where they can enable integration with the bus network in this area. The stop at Ravelston Dykes will enable interchange with Lothian Buses route 13, whilst the Craigleith stop will enable interchange with Lothian Buses routes 24, 38 and 41.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
MARK BAIN
Contents 1. Background 2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment) 3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment) 4. Conclusion
1. Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Alison Bourne.
1.2 This rebuttal statement covers the issues raised by the objector which are associated with:
(i) Route Selection - Alignment.
1.3 In relation to each of these issues, the relevant paragraphs of the objectors witness statement are shown in brackets at the end of each response.
1.4 My response to the other points raised by Mrs Alison Bourne in her witness statement is contained within the “Promoter’s comments on the witness statement of Mrs Alison J Bourne, Group 33 Lead Objector”.
2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment)
2.1 There are no issues agreed.
3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment)
3.1 Before responding to the individual issues in this rebuttal, I believe it important to note that although more direct than any of the proposed tram stops on the promoted route, the objector proposed stop on Crewe Road South would still require a walk of between 200m to 300m to access the main buildings on the Western General Hospital (WGH) site. This is only to clarify that the objector proposed stop provides ‘more direct’ access rather than ‘direct’ access to the WGH and still requires a walk albeit a shorter one (Para. N/A).
3.2 The objector is advocating an alternative alignment which uses Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road to reunite with the promoted route opposite the filling station at Craigleith Retail Park. The following paragraphs provide a response for this alternative route which specifically relates to the alignment
design issues. Other witnesses for the promoter, in their statements and rebuttals, cover the specific issues that relate to them in respect of this alternative alignment. These paragraphs assume that the tramway is not segregated from other traffic along Crewe Road South and the objectors’ alternative option to run segregated to the east of this road is considered later in this rebuttal (Paras. 8, 14, 19 & 20).
3.3 The objector also raises issues with an alternative alignment which would use Crewe Road South and Orchard Brae presumably to access Queensferry Road. The paragraphs which follow those associated with Para. 3.2 of this rebuttal provide a response for this section of alternative route which specifically relates to the alignment design issues. Other witnesses for the promoter, in their statements and rebuttals, cover the specific issues that relate to them in respect of this alternative alignment. As noted in Para. 3.2 of this rebuttal these paragraphs assume that the tramway is not segregated from other traffic along Crewe Road South (Paras. 8, 19, 33, 94 & 100)
Alternative Route - (Crewe Road South, Craigleith Road & Railway Corridor)
3.4 Crewe Toll Junction – It is my understanding that City of Edinburgh Council in March 2004 had consultants investigate the feasibility of converting the Crewe Toll roundabout to a traffic signalled junction. This assessment did not consider the tram passing through the junction. The proposal was discounted as a workable solution could not be developed for traffic. If any alternative tram alignment required to pass through this junction it would be necessary to signalise the junction which adds another order of complexity to developing a solution, which is likely to prove impossible without significant land take and associated property demolition. Other options may be to cut the corner off by acquiring the petrol filling station site and part of the fire station site, or by acquiring land on the east side of Crewe Road South (Deutsche Bank I believe) and land on the north or south of Ferry Road (BAe or Lothian & Borders Fire Service and BAe plus others potentially I believe) to provide an elevated structure to carry the tram over the Crewe Toll roundabout. Both these options are expected to attract significant objection also, but will also require business extinguishment (petrol filling station), compensation, land acquisition, property demolition, and significant traffic disruption before consideration is given to the capital costs.
3.5 Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road Junction – The tram alignment requires to turn through an approximately 120° 25m radius horizontal curve. Several very basic alignments have indicated that the internal curve would require
demolition of part of the boundary wall and land take from the landscaped gardens to the properties at 1 Fettes Court. This will also impact on the mature trees immediately inside the boundary wall. It is possible to further develop this alignment by slewing the tracks in Craigleith Road to the south to minimise the impact on 1 Fettes Court but resulting in the tram swept path slewing over nearly the entire width of both roads. In doing so reverse curvature would be introduced on the tramway at this location resulting in a less comfortable manoeuvre to negotiate this junction and avoid any demolition or land take. The extent of the swept path across Craigleith Road will require stop lines to be further set back, with few traffic phases able to run independent of the tram phase, leading to long inter-green times and consequent delays and queuing at this strategic junction. The vertical alignment and gradients are not envisaged to present a problem at this location. The management of traffic is likely to be more of a problem however and reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Stuart Turnbull for further detail.
3.6 Craigleith Road/South Groathill Avenue/Queensferry Road Junction – The tram alignment requires to turn through a succession of reverse curves with radii of 35m, 60m and 50m before arriving at the proposed Craigleith stop (which is marginally closer to the retail units but is on the right side a South Groathill Avenue to access these units). Once the tram alignment has left Craigleith Road it passes through a wooded area which would need to be acquired and contains a significant number of mature trees, a proportion of which would need to be removed. The vertical alignment and gradients are not envisaged to present a problem when in Craigleith Road but there appears to be a level difference through the wooded area that will need to be resolved to cross South Groathill Avenue at the appropriate level. The management of traffic is likely to be more of a problem however and reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Stuart Turnbull for further detail.
3.7 South Groathill Avenue Junction – After leaving the proposed Craigleith stop the tram alignment requires to turn through an approximately 170° 25m radius horizontal curve. Following on from the previous junction the proposed stop and a section of the alignment passes through a wooded area which would need to be acquired and contains a significant number of mature trees, a proportion of which would need to be removed. The vertical alignment and gradients are not envisaged to present a problem but benefits may accrue if South Groathill Avenue levels are increased by approximately 1m at the tram crossing point and main access junction to the Craigleith Retail Park from South Groathill Avenue. The management of traffic at this junction is likely to see access to the petrol filling station formalised as a one way system as shown below. This change to their access arrangements and more importantly the delays incurred by their patrons negotiating the new traffic signalled junction is expected to attract objection (which may result in other retailers following suit) which may in turn also lead to compensation claims. One further concern that should not be overlooked is the fact that the residents of 7-11 South Groathill Avenue are now impacted on their west, north and east elevations by these proposals.
3.8 Before summarising it is important to note a few other pertinent points that relate to this option when compared to the appropriate section of the promoted route.
• the alternative alignment is in excess of 1500m longer;
• the alternative alignment has four horizontal curves of less than 40m when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment has ten minor traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment has four major traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment affects 240 parking bays of which 126 would be abolished when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment passes 168 properties within 10m of their façade when compared to 11 on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment passes 219 properties within 30m of their façade when compared to 67 on the promoted route; and
• the alternative alignment passes 340 properties within 50m of their façade when compared to 115 on the promoted route.
3.9 In summary, I have no doubt that a technically feasible alignment can be developed based on this alternative alignment. However when compared to the section of the promoted route that this alternative would replace, the alternative alignment based solely on alignment design criteria is considered significantly inferior. In relation to the appropriate section of the promoted route the minimum horizontal curve radius is 50m at one location but with two separate curves to negotiate the Ferry Road junction, with a maximum gradient of 5% only used at one location, to grade down from the former rail solum level to Ferry Road carriageway levels. It is conceded that the maximum gradient of the alternative alignment is slightly less than the promoted route as it is unlikely to exceed the 4.5% around the entrance to the Victoria Hospital on Craigleith Road. The exception to this rule would be if an elevated structure with approach gradients of 5% or greater were employed to carry the tram over the Crewe Toll roundabout as noted in Para. 3.4 of this rebuttal.
Alternative Route - (Crewe Road South, Orchard Brae & Queensferry Road)
3.10 Crewe Toll Junction – Reference should be made to Para. 3.4 of this rebuttal as the issues are identical in respect of this alternative route.
3.11 Crewe Road South/Orchard Brae Junction – There are no major geometrical problems associated with this tram alignment passing through this junction. The management of traffic is likely to be more of a problem however and reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Stuart Turnbull for further detail.
3.12 Orchard Brae/Queensferry Road Junction – The co-existent horizontal (25m curve) and vertical alignment (6.0% gradient approximately) at this junction is complex, but no more complex than the geometry at the junction of Princes Street and South St David Street. The 25m radius horizontal curve will mean that the NE corner of the junction is clipped back slightly resulting in private land take but demolition would be limited to the property boundary wall.
3.13 In summary, I have no doubt that a technically feasible alignment can be developed based on this alternative alignment. However when compared to the section of the promoted route that this alternative would replace, the alternative alignment based solely on alignment design criteria is considered inferior due to the geometry at Crewe Toll and the Orchard Brae/Queensferry Road junction.
Other Issues
3.14 Craigleith Road was considered briefly prior to option sifting. It was not however considered as a potential means of detour from the former rail corridor to the WGH. Rather it was considered as a means of linking the former railway to the city centre. At that stage, it was not considered further because it offered, by inspection, no benefit over the parallel link via Queensferry Road. It was the Queensferry Road link therefore that was included in the link sifting assessment. A large detour from the former rail corridor to the WGH and back was not considered until suggested by the objector. Instead, a shorter option was considered via Telford Road (Paras. 13, 93, 107, 118, 120, 176, 182 & 321).
3.15 It is my understanding that the predominant reason that an alignment option segregated to the east side of Crewe Road South was not considered was the environmental impact on the land that would be affected. Reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Karen Raymond for further detail in respect of the environmental impact. It is also likely that this alignment option would attract significant objection from the private landowners to both the property demolition (if only to boundary walls) and land acquisition which may result in compensation claims (Para. 16).
3.16 With reference to the WP1 report and while discussing alternative alignments the following points should also be noted that have become apparent recently as a result of some additional consideration of previously discounted links (Paras. 20 & 101)
• route link 2–5 which runs from Palmerston Place down Douglas Gardens to Belford Road from an assessment of spot levels, there is an average gradient of 8.9% between two points just north of the Douglas Gardens and Douglas Crescent junction. This assumes that there is a straight grade between the two spot levels. If that is not the case and there is a vertical curve anywhere between the two then there will be a point where the gradient exceeds the average of 8.9%. Consequently, this route link can be discounted as it would be in excess of the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0%;
• route link 4-7 which runs from Randolph Cliff to Queensferry Road and Orchard Brae via Bells Brae and Dean Path, from an assessment of spot levels, there is a gradient of greater than 20% on Bells Brae and greater than 10% on Dean Path. Consequently, this route link can be discounted as it would be in excess of the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0%;
• route link 5–8 which runs from Belford Road to Queensferry Road via Queensferry Terrace from an assessment of spot levels, there is an average gradient of approximately 7% between two points just north of the Belford Road and Belford Place junction. At this junction the road geometry dictates that this gradient would be co-existent with a horizontal curve of the order of 40m radius. Although the gradient is below the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0% and the combination of horizontal and vertical is on the cusp of being technically feasible, this route link would be considered highly undesirable; and
• route link 6–15 which runs from Queensferry Road to Crewe Toll via Oxford Terrace, Comely Bank Terrace, East Fettes Avenue and Ferry road, from an assessment of spot levels, both Oxford Terrace and Comely Bank Terrace have an average gradient of approximately 7.5% or greater. At the junction of both roads the road geometry dictates that this gradient would be co-existent with a horizontal curve of the order of 25m radius. Although the gradient is below the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0%, the combination of horizontal and vertical is likely to be considered not technically feasible and consequently discounted following more detailed investigation.
3.17 Following initial assessment Option 8 was considered not technically feasible as is confirmed in Para. 3.16 of this rebuttal, so why consider any other criterion? It was not necessary to consider the ‘lack of connection with Haymarket’ once it was considered to be technically unfeasible (Para. 101).
3.18 It is accepted that the width from the back of footpath to the back of footpath on Craigleith Road is closer to the figure of 21.35m quoted by the objector rather than the 12.5m noted in MM Doc. Ref. 203011/0058. Following a recent review of the overall carriageway width it was found to be in the range of 21.5m to 22.0m. We have also investigated whether the 12.5m is relative to the width of the road at the nibs which formalise the car parking bays at regular intervals, but this width was found to be in the range of 8.0m and 9.0m. As the dimension of 12.5m does not relate to any identifiable physical width, we consider that this is a genuine error, which can only be assumed to be due to a typographical error with the numerals (1 & 2) transposed, and that the 12.5m dimension should have read 21.5m (Para. 126, 169 & 322).
3.19 Wherever practical, it is the promoters aim to maximise the extent (chainage) of segregation from other road users when trams operate within a road carriageway and consequently we would also propose segregated tram operations in Craigleith Road. The repercussions of this decision need to be reported however. We confirm that segregated trams would require the removal of existing, on-street parking (50% minimum loss) and the amenity planting, which is also conceded by the objector in their Para. 127. Parking restrictions would also have to be implemented to ensure an ‘urban clearway’ so that traffic lanes remain unimpeded and cars do not enter the tramway other than to cross the tramway if permitted to do so after detailed design. It is my understanding that the only land take that was anticipated was that to the boundary wall and private gardens to 1 Fettes Court, and have conceded that it may be possible to avoid this if the tramway alignment is slewed to the southern kerb of Craigleith Road. In terms of land take consideration needs to be given to any intermediate stops between Craigleith Retail Park and WGH which will require additional width at such locations assuming the trams remain segregated (Para. 126, 127 & 136).
3.20 We broadly concur with the cross-sectional dimensions proposed by the objector but would advise that the parking bay should be a minimum of 2.5m wide. However depending on the OLE support pole arrangement adopted it may be possible to slightly reduce the 8.0m allowance for the tramway if vehicles are prohibited from this section other than to cross the tramway. It is
also the case that our measurements suggested a range of 21.5m to 22.0m rather than 21.35m. It should also be noted that a 2.0m wide is verging on the minimum width of 1.8m. Reference should be made to the comments made in Para. 3.19 of this rebuttal in respect of land take (Para. 127 & 166).
3.21 As noted in Para. 3.19 of this rebuttal it is the promoters aim, wherever practical, to maximise the extent (chainage) of segregation from other road users when trams operate within a road carriageway. The promoter and their technical advisers have assessed all route corridors and alignments on the basis of more than simply the physical width of a road carriageway. Therefore, having selected a particular route alignment which is within a road carriageway the choice of shared or segregated operations depends on the road width with the following basic configurations open to the promoter. Although the promoters’ objective is to achieve segregated operations, at certain sections there is insufficient width where other factors govern the route selection (Para. 128, 132 & 135).
• existing – 2no. traffic lanes (7.0m); proposed – shared operations with all parking abolished;
• existing – 3no. traffic lanes (10.5m); proposed – shared or part shared operations, one dedicated tram or traffic lane with all parking abolished;
• existing – 3no. traffic lanes (10.5m); proposed – shared operations with parking retained along one kerb;
• existing – 4no. traffic lanes (14.0m); proposed – segregated operations, two dedicated traffic lanes with all parking abolished;
• existing – 4no. traffic lanes (14.0m); proposed – shared or part shared operations, one dedicated tram or traffic lane with parking retained along one kerb;
• existing – 4no. traffic lanes (14.0m); proposed – shared operations with parking retained along both kerbs;
• existing – 5no. traffic lanes (17.5m); proposed – segregated operations, two dedicated traffic lanes with parking retained along one kerb;
• existing – 5no. traffic lanes (17.5m); proposed – shared or part shared operations, one dedicated tram or traffic lane with parking retained along both kerbs; and
• existing – 6no. traffic lanes (21.0m); proposed – segregated operations, two dedicated traffic lanes with parking retained along both kerbs.
3.22 Option C1 was ‘put forward’ by the promoters’ technical advisers as this represents the most direct connection with Criagleith Road. As it transpired it was beset with technical difficulties making it unfeasible, but given the extra route length of the Craigleith Road alternative alignment, had this assessment not been assessed and documented we may have been subject to criticism for not considering it (Para. 133).
3.23 I believe this to be an issue of semantics, as my understanding was that ‘city’ was considered to encompass ‘Haymarket’ (Para. 183).
3.24 It is my understanding that ‘unviable’ would relate to a route link that was found to be technically unfeasible. If a route link was found to be unviable and not documented in the assessment as being such, how would you know that it had been considered at all? Without documented evidence of the assessment undertaken to establish that a route link was unviable, we may be subject to criticism for not considering it all, as the objector in their witness statement has done so on numerous occasions in relation to Craigleith Road (Para. 212).
4. Conclusion
4.1 In summary, I have no doubt that a technically feasible alignment can be developed based on each of two alternative alignments proposed by the objector. However when compared to the section of the promoted route that these alternatives would replace, the alternative alignments based solely on alignment design criteria are considered significantly inferior and inferior in relation to the Craigleith Road and Orchard Brae alternative alignments respectively.
4.2 Craigleith Road was considered briefly prior to option sifting. It was not however considered as a potential means of detour from the former rail corridor to the WGH. Rather it was considered as a means of linking the former railway to the city centre. At that stage, it was not considered further because it offered, by inspection, no benefit over the parallel link via Queensferry Road. It was the Queensferry Road link therefore that was included in the link sifting assessment. A large detour from the former rail corridor to the WGH and back was not considered until suggested by the objector. Instead, a shorter option was considered via Telford Road.
4.3 It is my understanding that the predominant reason that an alignment option segregated to the east side of Crewe Road South was not considered was the environmental impact on the land that would be affected. Reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Karen Raymond for further detail in respect of the environmental impact. It is also likely that this alignment option would attract significant objection from the private landowners to both the property demolition (if only to boundary walls) and land acquisition which may result in compensation claims.
4.4 From some recent additional consideration of previously discounted links which were assessed in the WP1 report, I can confirm that route links 2-5, 4-7 & 6-15 are not technically feasible while route link 5-8 is considered highly undesirable.
4.5 Following initial assessment Option 8 was considered not technically feasible as is confirmed in Para. 3.16 of this rebuttal, so why consider any other criterion? It was not necessary to consider the ‘lack of connection with Haymarket’ once it was considered to be technically unfeasible.
4.6 It is accepted that the width from the back of footpath to the back of footpath on Craigleith Road is closer to the figure of 21.35m quoted by the objector rather than the 12.5m noted in MM Doc. Ref. 203011/0058. Following a recent review of the overall carriageway width it was found to be in the range of 21.5m to 22.0m. We have also investigated whether the 12.5m is relative to the width of the road at the nibs which formalise the car parking bays at regular intervals, but this width was found to be in the range of 8.0m and 9.0m. As the dimension of 12.5m does not relate to any identifiable physical width, we consider that this is a genuine error, which can only be assumed to be due to a typographical error with the numerals (1 & 2) transposed, and that the 12.5m dimension should have read 21.5m.
4.7 Wherever practical, it is the promoters aim to maximise the extent (chainage) of segregation from other road users when trams operate within a road carriageway and consequently we would also propose segregated tram operations in Craigleith Road. We confirm that segregated trams would require the removal of existing, on-street parking (50% minimum loss) and the amenity planting, which is also conceded by the objector in their Para. 127. Parking restrictions would also have to be implemented to ensure an ‘urban clearway’ so that traffic lanes remain unimpeded. It is my understanding that the only land take that was anticipated was that to the boundary wall and private gardens to 1 Fettes Court, and have conceded that it may be possible to avoid this if the tramway alignment is slewed to the southern kerb of Craigleith Road. In terms of land take consideration needs to be given to any intermediate stops between Craigleith Retail Park and WGH which will require additional width at such locations assuming the trams remain segregated.
4.8 We broadly concur with the cross-sectional dimensions proposed by the objector but would advise that the parking bay should be a minimum of 2.5m wide. However depending on the OLE support pole arrangement adopted it may be possible to slightly reduce the 8.0m allowance for the tramway if vehicles are prohibited from this section other than to cross the tramway. It is also the case that our measurements suggested a range of 21.5m to 22.0m rather than 21.35m. It should also be noted that a 2.0m wide is verging on the minimum width of 1.8m. .
4.9 It is the promoters aim, wherever practical, to maximise the extent (chainage) of segregation from other road users when trams operate within a road carriageway. Despite this aim there are certain sections where there is insufficient width where other factors govern the route selection.
4.10 Option C1 was ‘put forward’ by the promoters’ technical advisers as this represents the most direct connection with Criagleith Road. As it transpired it was beset with technical difficulties making it unfeasible, but given the extra route length of the Craigleith Road alternative alignment, had this assessment not been assessed and documented we may have been subject to criticism for not considering it.
4.11 It is my understanding that ‘unviable’ would relate to a route link that was found to be technically unfeasible. If a route link was found to be unviable and not documented in the assessment as being such, how would you know that it had been considered at all? Without documented evidence of the
assessment undertaken to establish that a route link was unviable, we may be subject to criticism for not considering it all, as the objector in their witness statement has done so on numerous occasions in relation to Craigleith Road.
Mark M Bain Senior Engineer Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
MARK BAIN
Contents 1. Background 2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment) 3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment) 4. Conclusion
1. Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Alan Penman.
1.2 This rebuttal statement covers the issues raised by the objector which are associated with:
(i) Route Selection - Alignment.
1.3 In relation to each of these issues, the relevant paragraphs of the objectors witness statement are shown in brackets at the end of each response.
2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment)
2.1 For the avoidance of any doubt, a tram route option which ran along the entire length of Crewe Road South (Route Link 7 to 15 and Route Alignment Option 2) was assessed during the initial sifting process and was reported in the Work Package 1 report (Dec. 2002). The ‘technical problems at Crewe Toll Roundabout’ was a contributory factor which would be supported in detail by my colleague Stuart Turnbull, but it was not a governing factor. In addition, ‘steep gradients’ do exist in Orchard Brae (4.5%-6.0% approximately) these are within the capabilities of the specified typical tram vehicle characteristics and should not be considered a governing factor. Reference should be made to the witness statements and rebuttals prepared by my colleagues Andrew Oldfield and Les Buckman for the specific reasons as to why the Crewe Road South option was discounted (Para. 10).
3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment)
3.1 There are no issues relating to alignment design in dispute.
4. Conclusion
4.1 A route alignment option along Crewe Road South was assessed during the initial sifting process and was reported in the Work Package 1 report. Although technical challenges associated with steep gradients and Crewe Toll roundabout were contributory factors, neither were governing factors in relation to the decision to discount this option.
Mark M Bain Senior Engineer Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
MARK BAIN
Contents
1. Background 2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment) 3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment) 4. Conclusion
1. Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Dr Dermot Gorman.
1.2 This rebuttal statement covers the issues raised by the objector which are associated with:
(i) Route Selection - Alignment.
1.3 In relation to each of these issues, the relevant paragraphs of the objectors witness statement are shown in brackets at the end of each response.
2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment)
2.1 The promoter welcomes the objectors’ support in relation to the development of a tram network (Para. 2).
2.2 For the avoidance of any doubt, a tram route option which ran along the entire length of Crewe Road South (Route Link 7 to 15 and Route Alignment Option 2) was assessed during the initial sifting process and was reported in the Work Package 1 report (Dec. 2002). Although the technical challenges associated with ‘restricted road space and hills’ are examples of a multitude of issues considered they were not governing factors. In relation to ‘hills’, steep gradients do exist in Orchard Brae (4.5%-6.0% approximately) but these are within the capabilities of the specified typical tram vehicle characteristics and should not be considered a governing factor. Reference should be made to the witness statements and rebuttals prepared by my colleagues Andrew Oldfield and Les Buckman for the specific reasons as to why the Crewe Road South option was discounted (Para. 5).
3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment)
3.1 There are no issues relating to alignment design in dispute.
4. Conclusion
4.1 A route alignment option along Crewe Road South was assessed during the initial sifting process and was reported in the Work Package 1 report. Although technical challenges associated with restricted road space and hills are examples of a multitude of issues considered, neither were governing factors in relation to the decision to discount this option.
Mark M Bain Senior Engineer Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
MARK BAIN
Contents
1. Background 2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment) 3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment) 4. Conclusion
1. Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Kristina Woolnough. Generally speaking the subject of this objector's statement is covered in my principal statement. This rebuttal is intended to respond to matters raised by the objector in their witness statement and not already covered in our witness statement.
1.2 This rebuttal statement covers the issues raised by the objector which are associated with:
(i) Route Selection - Alignment.
1.3 In relation to each of these issues, the relevant paragraphs of the objectors witness statement are shown in brackets at the end of each response.
2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment)
2.1 There are no issues agreed.
3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment)
3.1 The objector is advocating an alternative alignment which uses Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road to reunite with the promoted route opposite the filling station at Craigleith Retail Park, but also refers to a second alternative alignment which uses Crewe Road South, Orchard Brae, Queensferry Road, Dean Bridge, Randolph Cliff, Drumsheugh Gardens, Chester Street, Palmerston Place to reunite with the promoted route in West Maitland Place. Despite advocating the former alignment, the remainder of the witness statement seems to focus on the latter alignment (Para. 4).
3.2 The objector suggests that these alternative routes have ‘not been assessed fully’. In response to this assertion, every road mentioned which make up
these alternative alignments, with the exception of Craigleith Road, Chester Street and Drumsheugh Gardens, were assessed as route links during the initial sifting process which was reported in the Work Package 1 report (MM Rep. No. 203011/0004) (Dec. 2002). In addition, Craigleith Road was the subject of a separate options study which was reported in the Craigleith Options Summary report (MM Rep. No. 203011/0058) (Nov.2003). If the assertion is made to establish why these three roads were not initially considered then the response would be that certain alignments can be discounted by inspection as they are significantly more convoluted than the other routes considered. For instance if direct interchange with Haymarket Station (the third busiest rail station in Scotland) was not a strategic objective of ETL1, would the route via Drumsheugh Gardens, Chester Street, Palmerston Place, West Maitland Place and Shandwick Place ever be considered as an alternative to Queensferry Street which was by comparison assessed in some detail in the WP1 report as ‘Route Alignment Option 2’. It appears telling that the latter alternative alignment advocated by the objector has been constructed to make an attempt to interchange indirectly with the strategically important Haymarket Station. Nevertheless, the following paragraphs will provide a response for each alternative route which specifically relates to the alignment design issues. Other witnesses for the promoter, in their statements and rebuttals, will cover the specific issues that relate to them in respect of these alternative routes (Para. 4).
Alternative Route - (Crewe Road South, Craigleith Road & Railway Corridor)
3.3 Crewe Toll Junction – It is my understanding that City of Edinburgh Council in March 2004 had consultants investigate the feasibility of converting the Crewe Toll roundabout to a traffic signalled junction. This assessment did not consider the tram passing through the junction. The proposal was discounted as a workable solution could not be developed for traffic. If any alternative tram alignment required to pass through this junction it would be necessary to signalise the junction which adds another order of complexity to developing a solution, which is likely to prove impossible without significant land take and associated property demolition. Other options may be to cut the corner off by acquiring the petrol filling station site and part of the fire station site, or by acquiring land on the east side of Crewe Road South (Deutsche Bank I believe) and land on the north or south of Ferry Road (BAe or Lothian & Borders Fire Service and BAe plus others potentially I believe) to provide an elevated structure to carry the tram over the Crewe Toll roundabout. Both these options are expected to attract significant objection also, but will also require business extinguishment (petrol filling station), compensation, land acquisition, property demolition, and significant traffic disruption before consideration is given to the capital costs.
3.4 Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road Junction – The tram alignment requires to turn through an approximately 120° 25m radius horizontal curve. Several very basic alignments have indicated that the internal curve would require demolition of part of the boundary wall and land take from the landscaped gardens to the properties at 1 Fettes Court. This will also impact on the mature trees immediately inside the boundary wall. It is possible to further develop this alignment by slewing the tracks in Craigleith Road to the south to minimise the impact on 1 Fettes Court but resulting in the tram swept path slewing over nearly the entire width of both roads. In doing so reverse curvature would be introduced on the tramway at this location resulting in a less comfortable manoeuvre to negotiate this junction and avoid any demolition or land take. The extent of the swept path across Craigleith Road will require stop lines to be further set back, with few traffic phases able to run independent of the tram phase, leading to long inter-green times and consequent delays and queuing at this strategic junction. The vertical alignment and gradients are not envisaged to present a problem at this location. The management of traffic is likely to be more of a problem however and reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Stuart Turnbull for further detail.
3.5 Craigleith Road/South Groathill Avenue/Queensferry Road Junction – The tram alignment requires to turn through a succession of reverse curves with radii of 35m, 60m and 50m before arriving at the proposed Craigleith stop. Once the tram alignment has left Craigleith Road it passes through a wooded area which would need to be acquired and contains a significant number of mature trees, a proportion of which would need to be removed. The vertical alignment and gradients are not envisaged to present a problem when in Craigleith Road but there appears to be a level difference through the wooded area that will need to be resolved to cross South Groathill Avenue at the appropriate level. The management of traffic is likely to be more of a problem
however and reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Stuart Turnbull for further detail.
3.6 South Groathill Avenue Junction – After leaving the proposed Craigleith stop the tram alignment requires to turn through an approximately 170° 25m radius horizontal curve. Following on from the previous junction the proposed stop and a section of the alignment passes through a wooded area which would need to be acquired and contains a significant number of mature trees, a proportion of which would need to be removed. The vertical alignment and gradients are not envisaged to present a problem but benefits may accrue if South Groathill Avenue levels are increased by approximately 1m at the crossing point and main access junction to the Craigleith Retail Park. The management of traffic at this junction is likely to see access to the petrol filling station formalised as a one way system as shown below. This change to their access arrangements and more importantly the delays incurred by their patrons negotiating the new traffic signalled junction is expected to attract objection (which may result in other retailers following suit) which may in turn also lead to compensation claims. One further concern that should not be overlooked is the fact that the residents of 7-11 South Groathill Avenue are now impacted on their west, north and east elevations by these proposals.
3.7 Before summarising it is important to note a few other pertinent points that relate to this option when compared to the appropriate section of the promoted route.
• the alternative alignment is in excess of 1500m longer;
• the alternative alignment has four horizontal curves of less than 40m when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment has ten minor traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment has four major traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment affects 240 parking bays of which 126 would be abolished when compared to none on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment passes 168 properties within 10m of their façade when compared to 11 on the promoted route;
• the alternative alignment passes 219 properties within 30m of their façade when compared to 67 on the promoted route; and
• the alternative alignment passes 340 properties within 50m of their façade when compared to 115 on the promoted route.
3.8 In summary, I have no doubt that a technically feasible alignment can be developed based on this alternative alignment. However when compared to the section of the promoted route that this alternative would replace, the alternative alignment based solely on alignment design criteria is considered significantly inferior. In relation to the appropriate section of the promoted route the minimum horizontal curve radius is 50m at one location but with two separate curves to negotiate the Ferry Road junction, with a maximum gradient of 5% only used at one location, to grade down from the former rail solum level to Ferry Road carriageway levels. It is conceded that the maximum gradient of the alternative alignment is slightly less than the promoted route as it is unlikely to exceed the 4.5% around the entrance to the Victoria Hospital on Craigleith Road. The exception to this rule would be if an elevated structure with approach gradients of 5% or greater were employed to carry the tram over the Crewe Toll roundabout as noted in Para. 3.3 of this rebuttal.
Alternative Route - (Crewe Road South, Orchard Brae, Queensferry Road, Dean Bridge, Randolph Cliff, Drumsheugh Gardens, Chester Street, Palmerston Place & West Maitland Place)
3.9 Crewe Toll Junction – Reference should be made to Para. 3.3 of this rebuttal as the issues are identical in respect of this alternative route.
3.10 Crewe Road South/Orchard Brae Junction – There are no major geometrical problems associated with this tram alignment passing through this junction. The management of traffic is likely to be more of a problem however and reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Stuart Turnbull for further detail.
3.11 Orchard Brae/Queensferry Road Junction – The co-existent horizontal (25m curve) and vertical alignment (6.0% gradient approximately) at this junction is complex, but no more complex than the geometry at the junction of Princes Street and South St David Street. The 25m radius horizontal curve will mean that the NE corner of the junction is clipped back slightly resulting in private land take but demolition would be limited to the property boundary wall.
3.12 Queensferry Road – There are no major geometrical problems associated with the tram alignment passing along this section of Queensferry Road.
3.13 The Dean Bridge – With a road width of approximately 7m there are no major geometrical problems associated with the tram alignment passing across the
Dean Bridge until immediately of the south end of the bridge where the alignment requires to negotiate co-existent horizontal and extremely tight vertical curvature discussed below. The Dean Bridge is a Grade A listed structure and is believed to be one of only two of its type in the UK. It is on the edge of the Dean and New Town Conservation Areas over which it provides unobstructed views. It was completed in 1832 to Thomas Telford’s design and is a voided arch structure which may prove a complication to construction of a tramway over it, but we cannot confirm this at this stage.
From the section shown above it appears that there is sufficient depth to construct a track slab although it is unknown whether excavation of the fill material would have consequences on the stability of the arch. The presence of services suggests that it would not, as it is likely that they were located at a much later date. However, due to the smaller side arches which support the footways, there would seem to be insufficient space to relocate public utility apparatus from the carriageway into the footway. The fixing of OLE would likely prove to be a significant challenge due to the hollow nature of the structure and its masonry construction mean that it may be difficult to create a moment connection at the base of the support poles, which are incidentally larger and more heavily loaded than the existing lamp standards. The result may be that they would need to be affixed through the footways to the external face of the spandrel walls of the main arch and irrespective of their location may then be visible on the structures elevation. This is one method of affixing the OLE support poles to the structure, and is unlikely to be the only method, but it should be noted that there is not an exhaustive list of alternative fixing methods that could be employed. We do not have a typical cross section over the piers (i.e. at the deepest section), as the one shown is at mid span (i.e. the shallowest section), but it may be possible to site OLE support pole foundations in the footway over the pier locations if fill material exists, or if voided which is more likely they could possibly be strapped to the internal face of the spandrel wall if easily accessible.
What is interesting is that despite the bridge being completed in 1832 this particular route was never used as a tram route with Dundas Street and Howe Street used to respectively access Canonmills (Service 23) and Stockbridge and Comely Bank (Service 24) as is shown on the Edinburgh Corporation Transport Department ‘Tram and Bus Routes’ map from 1924. What is also seen interestingly is the emergence of bus services passing across the Dean Bridge (Services 5 & 11). Obviously buses were not in existence in circa 1888 when the cable pulled service in Dundas Street began operating. Patronage is probably the answer to why no tram over the Dean Bridge as the low lying communities adjacent to the Water Leith such as Canonmills and Stockbridge were more developed.
3.14 The Dean Bridge to Randolph Cliff – On site observations indicate that there is a rapid change in gradient between the bridge and Randolph Cliff which is currently accommodated with an extremely tight vertical sag curve which is unlikely to be negotiable by a tram. In order to ease the curve to a radius which would be acceptable it is likely that the roadway and footway levels would need to be adjusted which is likely to have a consequential impact upon other listed buildings (and their thresholds) including the terrace of properties to the north of Randolph Cliff and Kirkbrae House.
On the southern side of Randolph Cliff there is already a significant level difference between the roadway and footway levels which is compensated by a series of four steps. In addition, there is a decorative island in the centre of the road between the opposing traffic lanes, which is used to remove a further level difference.
3.15 Randolph Cliff/Drumsheugh Gardens Junction – The tram alignment requires to turn through an approximately 120° 25m radius horizontal curve. Several very basic alignments have indicated that the internal curve would impact upon the properties at 1 & 2 Lynedoch Place which are Grade B listed. It is
possible to further develop this alignment by slewing the tracks in Randolph Cliff to the NE and those in Drumsheugh Place to the SE to minimise the impact on 1 & 2 Lynedoch Place but resulting in the tram swept path slewing over nearly the entire width of both roads. The extent of the swept path across both roads will require stop lines to be set back, with few traffic phases if any, able to run independent of the tram phase, leading to long inter-green times and consequent delays and queuing at this strategic junction (Queen Street, Randolph Crescent, Dean Bridge, Queensferry Road and onto the Forth Road Bridge).
3.16 Chester Street to Palmerston Place – This is a right angled junction with approximately 3m footways to Palmerston Place and approximately 4m and 2m footways to the north and south of Chester Street. The tram alignment requires to turn through a 25m radius horizontal curve, which will require land take from within the grounds of the Cathedral Church of St Mary which is currently a landscaping strip around the periphery of a playground area. This will impact on any coping wall and associated railings, but it is not known if there is any impact on the trees in this landscape strip. Although there is scope to slightly slew the tram alignment, this slewing will not prevent this land take, but merely reduce the affected area marginally. The vertical alignment and gradients are not an issue at this location.
3.17 Palmerston Place to West Maitland Street – This is a right angled junction with approximately 3m footways to Palmerston Place and West Maitland Street. This basic alignment has indicated that the tram alignment requires to turn through a 25m radius horizontal curve, which would impact upon the property at 1 Palmerston Place. To provide a footway around the NE corner of this junction the property will require at least the demolition of the stepped access to the main entrance and a substitute access provided as well as the basement part infilled or bridged. This will also impact on the coping wall and
associated railings. It is possible to further develop this alignment by slewing the tracks in Palmerston Place to the SW and more importantly those in West Maitland Street to the SE to minimise the impact on 1 Palmerston Place but resulting in the tram swept path slewing over a greater width of both roads. In doing so reverse curvature would be introduced on the tramway at this location resulting in a less comfortable manoeuvre to negotiate this junction and avoid any demolition. It is also expected that greater traffic impacts will ensue as a result of slewing the tramway across a wider area of the road. The vertical alignment and gradients are not an issue at this location.
3.18 In summary, I have no doubt that a technically feasible alignment can be developed based on this alternative alignment. However when compared to the section of the promoted route that this alternative would replace, the alternative alignment based solely on alignment design criteria is considered significantly inferior. In relation to the appropriate section of the promoted route the minimum horizontal curve radius is 35m at three locations around the Haymarket Station and Haymarket Yards area, with a maximum gradient of 5% only used at one location, to grade down from the former rail solum level to Ferry Road carriageway levels.
Other Issues
3.19 With reference to the WP1 report and while discussing alternative alignments the following points should also be noted that have become apparent recently as a result of some additional consideration of previously discounted links.
• route link 2–5 which runs from Palmerston Place down Douglas Gardens to Belford Road from an assessment of spot levels, there is an average gradient of 8.9% between two points just north of the Douglas Gardens and Douglas Crescent junction. This assumes that there is a straight grade between the two spot levels. If that is not the case and there is a vertical curve anywhere between the two then there will be a point where the gradient exceeds the average of 8.9%. Consequently, this route link can be discounted as it would be in excess of the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0%;
• route link 4-7 which runs from Randolph Cliff to Queensferry Road and Orchard Brae via Bells Brae and Dean Path, from an assessment of spot levels, there is a gradient of greater than 20% on Bells Brae and greater than 10% on Dean Path. Consequently, this route link can be discounted as it would be in excess of the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0%;
• route link 5–8 which runs from Belford Road to Queensferry Road via Queensferry Terrace from an assessment of spot levels, there is an average gradient of approximately 7% between two points just north of the Belford Road and Belford Place junction. At this junction the road geometry dictates that this gradient would be co-existent with a horizontal curve of the order of 40m radius. Although the gradient is below the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0% and the combination of horizontal and vertical is on the cusp of being technically feasible, this route link would be considered highly undesirable; and
• route link 6–15 which runs from Queensferry Road to Crewe Toll via Oxford Terrrace, Comely Bank Terrace, East Fettes Avenue and Ferry road, from an assessment of spot levels, both Oxford Terrrace and Comely Bank Terrace have an average gradient of approximately 7.5% or greater. At the junction of both roads the road geometry dictates that this gradient would be co-existent with a horizontal curve of the order of 25m radius. Although the gradient is below the maximum allowable gradient of 8.0%, the combination of horizontal and vertical is likely to be considered not technically feasible and consequently discounted following more detailed investigation.
3.20 According to Thomas Telford’s cross section the Dean Bridge should be approximately 11.25m (39 feet) when measured between the internal faces of the parapet, which is wider than any of the widths (underbridges) or spans (overbridges) on the Roseburn Corridor as the objector contends. It is also the case that spatially with a road width of approximately 7m there are no major geometrical problems associated with the tram alignment while on the Dean Bridge. It is however inappropriate to conclude that if it works spatially that is all that needs to be considered and that it should be adopted. I would advise that reference is once again made to Para. 3.13 of this rebuttal for details of the other issues that need to be considered in respect of the Dean Bridge (Para. 7).
3.21 Precedents of tram stops in the UK receiving HMRI approval on gradients around 5% are there, but are not numerous and should not be what we aspire to. That said and given the precedent, only the southern section of Orchard Brae near its junction with Queensferry Road where it is approximately 6.0% may be considered inappropriate for locating a stop. The most appropriate location for a tram stop on Orchard Brae would be in its northern section near its junction with Crewe Road South where it is approximately 2.0%. In an ideal world and as per the RSPG documents stops should where practical be located on gradients of 0.2% (1 in 500). If stops are situated on gradients in excess of 5% and you wish to ensure access at both ends it is obviously necessary to return the low end ramp (normally folded back on its self i.e. 180°) so that the ramp gradient is no more than 5% (1 in 20) to comply with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. If this is necessary then the width of the stop doubles at that particular location, which would require a minimum footpath width of 8m say, to allow a 2m wide footpath to pass behind the tram stop and folded ramp (Para. 8).
3.22 I disagree that the promoter has had any difficulty aligning the Haymarket tram stop with Haymarket Station given that the eastern ends of the tram platforms are with a 30m walk distance of the station ticket office, which due to ticket barriers can not be bypassed. I also disagree with the fact that Palmerston Place ‘is only a short distance from Haymarket Station’. At best with the tram stop platforms an integral part of the West Maitland Street/ Palmerston Place junction (unlikely) the walk distance is some 250m, which is not to dissimilar to the additional walk distance that is deemed unacceptable in relation to the nearest tram stop to the Western General Hospital. In addition, Grosvenor Street has to be crossed before crossing one of the busiest junctions in Edinburgh at Haymarket Terrace (Paras. 9 & 12).
3.23 I disagree that a Palmerston Place stop would be ‘more accessible for those in wheelchairs, or those who are frail and who might be driven to the tram stop’, as vehicular access is available at Haymarket Yards which would be within 20m of the western ends of the tram stop platforms. I cannot think where in Palmerston Place and West Maitland Street it would more convenient to drop any potential tram patron without potentially impeding either the tram or other traffic (Para. 12).
4. Conclusion
4.1 In summary, I have no doubt that a technically feasible alignment can be developed based on each of two alternative alignments proposed by the objector. However when compared to the section of the promoted route that these alternatives would replace, the alternative alignments based solely on alignment design criteria are considered significantly inferior.
4.2 From some recent additional consideration of previously discounted links which were assessed in the WP1 report, I can confirm that route links 2-5, 4-7 & 6-15 are not technically feasible while route link 5-8 is considered highly undesirable.
4.3 The objector should make reference to Para. 3.13 of this rebuttal for details of the other issues that need to be considered in respect of the Dean Bridge.
4.4 Precedents of tram stops in the UK receiving HMRI approval on gradients around 5% are there, but are not numerous and should not be what we aspire to. That said and given the precedent, only the southern section of Orchard Brae near its junction with Queensferry Road where it is approximately 6.0% may be considered inappropriate for locating a stop. The most appropriate location for a tram stop on Orchard Brae would be in its northern section near its junction with Crewe Road South where it is approximately 2.0%.
4.5 I disagree that the promoter has had any difficulty aligning the Haymarket tram stop with Haymarket Station given that the eastern ends of the tram platforms are with a 30m walk distance of the station ticket office, which due to ticket barriers can not be bypassed. I also disagree with the fact that Palmerston Place ‘is only a short distance from Haymarket Station’. At best with the tram stop platforms an integral part of the West Maitland Street/ Palmerston Place junction (unlikely) the walk distance is some 250m, which is not to dissimilar to the additional walk distance that is deemed unacceptable
in relation to the nearest tram stop to the Western General Hospital. In addition, Grosvenor Street has to be crossed before crossing one of the busiest junctions in Edinburgh at Haymarket Terrace.
4.6 I disagree that a Palmerston Place stop would be ‘more accessible for those in wheelchairs, or those who are frail and who might be driven to the tram stop’, as vehicular access is available at Haymarket Yards which would be within 20m of the western ends of the tram stop platforms. I cannot think where in Palmerston Place and West Maitland Street it would more convenient to drop any potential tram patron without potentially impeding either the tram or other traffic.
Mark M Bain Senior Engineer Mott MacDonald
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
MARK BAIN
Contents
1. Background 2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment) 3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment) 4. Conclusion
1. Background
1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statement submitted by Vince Casey.
1.2 This rebuttal statement covers the issues raised by the objector which are associated with: (i) Route Selection - Alignment.
1.3 In relation to each of these issues, the relevant paragraphs of the objectors witness statement are shown in brackets at the end of each response.
2. Agreed Issues (Route Selection - Alignment)
2.1 The information contained within the objectors’ witness statement is taken as read as to be entirely factually correct in respect of the current and historic layout of the Western General Hospital. An important point to note however from the objectors’ witness statement is that the precedent of vehicular and pedestrian access from Telford Road and the adjacent local road network has been established. Furthermore, the statement rightly strenuously details the criticality of access from Crewe Road South which in turn highlights that the access from Telford Road may be underutilised currently (Paras. 1 to 7).
3. Issues in Dispute (Route Selection - Alignment)
3.1 There are no issues relating to alignment design in dispute.
4. Conclusion
4.1 The precedent of vehicular and pedestrian access from Telford Road and the adjacent local road network has been established, which may be considered underutilised currently.
Mark M Bain
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
STEVE MITCHELL
1 Background
1.1 The Group 33 Objectors Summary lists noise and vibration concerns. In My Witness Statement I have responded to these and the noise and vibration concerns raised by the individual objectors within Group 33.
1.2 Mr Hewitt’s Witness Statement expands on various noise and vibration concerns. None of the comments made in Mr Hewitt’s Witness Statement change the comments or conclusions in my Witness Statement. Where Mr Hewitt’s comments are not addressed in my Witness Statement, they are discussed below.
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in relation to my area of expertise.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 In section 3 of his Witness Statement Mr Hewitt states:
3.2 ‘Whilst on the visit to Lyon, TIE went to great lengths to show that noise levels were very low. Whilst this was true in major streets where great effort had been put in, including digging down over 2 metres to install noise and vibration deadening, they did not in any part of the system have a “cutting” where noise would effectively be increased as there is nowhere for it to escape as would be the case in Groathill Ave. It is therefore essential that particularly due to the proposed running hours that full noise mitigation are necessary and MUST be compulsory within the Bill’.
3.3 In general the running of the tram within a cutting will have the effect of providing acoustic screening to noise sensitive receptors beyond the top of the cutting. The ground type within the Roseburn Corridor is acoustically ‘soft’ meaning that it tends to absorb noise rather than reflect it strongly. Similarly, noise
mitigation measures (for example noise barriers) will have absorptive surfaces facing the tramway.
3.4 The acoustic screening effects along the corridor have been modelled in order to arrive at the noise mitigation measures committed to in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP). The noise mitigation measures in this area are summarised on paragraph 7.9 of my Witness Statement, and include a noise barrier for Groathill Avenue.
3.5 The Promoter has produced the Noise & Vibration Policy included as Appendix 2 of my Witness Statement which commits the Promoter to designing the tramway to meet the noise targets set therein. These noise targets are the same as the noise assessment criteria used to assess significant impacts in the Environmental Statement (ES), as accepted by the committee’s peer reviewers. The requirements of the Noise and Vibration Policy will form part of the contracts to design and operate the tramway.
3.6 Mr Hewitt’s objection makes reference to vibration and states:
3.7 ‘I have constantly raised this point [vibration] at consultative meetings and was recently told by Tie’s consultants that vibration never damaged anything. They recently produced an “opinion” to support this, which is nothing more than an article from a trade publication that asserts that people feel the vibrations more than the buildings’.
3.8 The article to which Mr Hewitt refers, as attached to his Witness Statement, is titled ‘Effects of Road Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings’. This was written by Ian Hume DiG DiplConsAA, CEng, MIStructE, the Chief Engineer (Conservation Engineering Branch) at English Heritage. The article was written for the layperson and was supplied to Mr Hewitt, to help address his concerns.
3.9 The article summarises research conducted by the Building Research Establishment and the (then) Transport and Roads Research Laboratory (now renamed the Transport Research Laboratory – TRL). These are two organisations with long standing reputations for authoritative knowledge on noise and vibration affects on buildings and from transportation.
3.10 On page 2 of his objection letter Mr Hewitt states:
3.11 ‘It is acknowledged by the promoters that there will be a level of vibration from the proposed tram system, no work appears to have been done to find out what effect on both buildings and humans the combined effect of traffic and tram vibration would
have. It is therefore essential that anti vibration level and exactly how the promoters will enforce these are included in the bill.’
3.12 The Environmental Statement discusses operational vibration on pages 219 and 220 with specific reference to measurements taken on the Manchester Metrolink. The Manchester survey was conducted by three consultants and included measurements of over 150 tram movements.
3.13 The results of these measurements have been used to predict vibration levels at distances between 1 and 20 metres from the track. The text in the ES (page 220) is as follows.
3.14 ‘These levels [presented in Table 13.11 of the ES] are below the criteria for the structural integrity of buildings and no impacts on buildings located adjacent to the scheme are therefore expected to occur. Ground vibration may be perceptible at receptors within approximately 20 m of the alignment (depending on final design details). There are properties within this distance along the Roseburn corridor. The estimated VDV levels are not expected to exceed the 0.4 m/s1.75 criterion for daytime annoyance beyond approximately 4 m from the tracks. Hence, whilst vibration may be perceptible it is not expected to give rise to adverse comment and significant impacts are not expected to occur.’
3.15 Mr Hewitt raises the possibility of ‘cumulative’ effects on people and/or buildings due to vibration from road and rail traffic. Given that the effects of the tram are predicted to be insignificant and the road and rail traffic will be well separated and will be incident on opposite ends of any particular building, I do not expect significant cumulative effects.
3.16 The Noise & Vibration Policy commits the Promoter to ensuring that the trackform design meets the vibration criteria discussed within the ES.
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
SCOTT MACINTOSH
1. Background
1.1 This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of Tina Woolnough and in particular to the issue of access during construction.
2. Closure of the Corridor during construction
2.1 The objector claims that “…the Bill does not appear to extinguish Rights of Way, but that the Corridor may be stopped up during construction. Details of time-tabling for this, details of traffic-free alternative pedestrian/cycle routes, details of any required realignment of accesses, access points and realignment of the cycle/walkway – whether for construction or operation - should be made available in order that any local difficulties can be addressed.”
3. Rebuttal
3.1 All these issues will be developed as the detailed alignment for the Edinburgh Tram is developed. It would be unreasonable to expect the level of detail requested by the objector to be available at present. However I would point to the evidence presented in my previous Witness Statements as to the effect of the CoCP in establishing minimum standards of accessibility etc. during construction.
• The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.
• Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’ • Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.
• All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)]
3.2 At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]
• The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].
3.3 These requirement should prove adequate reassurance to the objector on the points raised.
Scott McIntosh Mott MacDonald Expert Witness
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL
STUART TURNBULL
1 Background
1.1 In this Rebuttal Statement I comment on the traffic and congestion issues raised in the Witness Statement of Alison J Bourne.
1.2 My response to the other points raised by Mrs Alison Bourne in her witness statement is contained within the “Promoter’s comments on the witness statement of Mrs Alison J Bourne, Group 33 Lead Objector.”
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in relation to my area of expertise.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 In paragraph 130, Mrs Bourne states:-
“Section 1.2.3 states that Craigleith Road has high levels of traffic making the operation of shared running difficult.”
3.2 Wherever practical, it is the promoters aim to maximise the extent (chainage) of segregation from other road users when trams operate within a road carriageway. Therefore in relation to Craigleith Road it was considered that the optimum layout would be to incorporate segregated tram operations which are possible within the available land. Reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Mr Bain for further details of this.
3.3 Notwithstanding, the levels of traffic demand and the layout of the junction of Craigleith Road/Queensferry Road and Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South are such that that there remain a number of technical difficulties associated in accommodating a tram, particularly compared to the option of running on the segregated former railway corridor. My colleague Mr Bain in his Witness Statement and rebuttal has covered the alignment
related issues. In the paragraphs below I comment further on the traffic related issues:
3.5 Craigleith Road/Queensferry Road junction. This traffic signal controlled junction, which also provides access to the Craigleith Retail Park, a petrol filling station and hotel, offers the following difficulties with respect to the introduction of tram:
• Reduction in stopline capacity on Craigleith Road approach to the junction, as a result of the introduction of a tram; • Reconfiguration of the traffic signal staging to accommodate the tram. This would result in the requirement to provide additional stages to accommodate all vehicle movements within the junction at the expense of junction capacity; • The existing access to the retail park located on South Groathill Avenue, would require the introduction of traffic signal control, linked to the Craigleith Road / Queensferry Road junction. Such an arrangement may result in a queue developing on South Groathill Avenue, blocking back onto the Queensferry Road junction. The management of this queue would require to take precedence over tram priority at this location, in order to reduce impact on the A90 through movements.
3.6 Figure 1 below illustrates the existing junction arrangement with the introduction of the tram alignment.
Figure 1 –Queensferry Road / Craigleith Road with Option C Tram Alignment
3.7 Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South Junction. This existing roundabout junction would be reconfigured to a traffic signal controlled junction to accommodate the tram. However, the following difficulties arise:
• The introduction of traffic signal control, to accommodate the tram, would result in vehicle queuing developing on all approaches to the junction; • If the junction was subject to shared running on both the Crewe Road South and Craigleith approaches, the developed queues would have to be released through the junction in advance of the trams arrival, in order to provide tram priority; • It would not be possible to run both Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South within in the same signal stage, therefore if two trams approached the junction in close succession, one tram would be subject to delay; • Furthermore, the release of the queue on the tram approaches to the junction would have an adverse impact on the remaining arms of the junction; and • It may be necessary to stop up Orchard Road to develop a traffic signal controlled layout. Therefore traffic currently utilising Orchard Brae would require to divert to Orchard Brae and Craigleith Road.
3.8 Taking cognisance of the above issues, segregation of the tram on one approach, in this instance Craigleith Road, where there is sufficient width to provide segregated running, would be required. A traffic signal controlled junction arrangement would provide suitable tram priority with reduced impact on other road users. It would still be necessary to stop up Orchard Road.
3.9 An illustration of the typical junction arrangement that would be required to accommodate tram is shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 – Indicative Junction Layout Crewe Road South / Orchard Brae
3.10 In paragraph 167, Mrs Bourne states:-
“Point 2 states that providing segregated running along Crewe Road South would require new signal controlled junctions, which would introduce significant delay to the trams. (However, it was my understanding that all signalled controlled junctions through which the tram will run will give maximum priority to trams, in order to reduce any delay. This comment, therefore, seems unnecessary.)”
3.11 While it is the case that full priority for the tram is the preferred option, wherever practicable, it is accepted that this will not be possible throughout the length of the route. In this particular locality the assessments undertaken to date suggest that the impact on other road users of providing full priority for the tram at Crewe Toll and Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road would be significant. Therefore in these locations I believe that it may be necessary to afford less then full priority to the tram.
3.12 In paragraph 263, Mrs Bourne states:-
“On page 6, Transdev interestingly state that provision of junction priority for trams is never an insoluble technical problem. It is not even a difficult problem if one is prepared to be sufficiently ruthless about other traffic, but that is maybe deemed politically unacceptable. (This confirms that the Promoter could provide a technical solution for running trams along Crewe Road South/Craigleith Road, if the political will was there.)”
3.13 As outlined in paragraph 4.3 of my witness statement, in traffic terms a solution may be possible to introduce the tram into Crewe Road South and Craigleith Road. However I believe that
each additional junction would likely introduce a delay to either the tram, or to potentially other road users or both. Whilst I agree with the view of Transdev on this matter, it must be recognised that the roads authority must take cognisance of the needs of all road users throughout the city when developing future traffic management solutions. I therefore believe that it would be inappropriate to assume that full priority could be afforded to the tram throughout the route.
4 Conclusion
4.1 Therefore, based on the evidence presented in my witness statement and the points outlined above, it is considered that in comparison to all options the route shown in blue in Figure 4.1 of the witness statement, using the former railway corridor, is clearly the optimum route in traffic terms. The clear advantages are:
• the alternative alignment has ten minor traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route; • the alternative alignment has four major traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route
Stuart Turnbull
GROUP 33 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA A
LEAD OBJECTORS 28 – ALISON BOURNE 132 – IAN HEWITT 210 – CHAG
PROMOTER REBUTTAL TO ALISON BOURNE STATEMENT
STUART TURNBULL
1 Background
1.1 In this Rebuttal Statement I comment on the traffic and congestion issues raised in A Bourne’s Group 33 Witness Statement.
2 Agreed Issues
2.1 There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in relation to my area of expertise.
3 Issues in Dispute
3.1 In the paragraphs below I cover firstly the three main options considered by the promoter in this locality and comment further on the traffic related issues. I then cover the additional route options proposed by the various objectors, again commenting on the traffic related issues.
Promoters Route selection
3.2 I have provided comment on the traffic impacts of the various routes considered by the promoter after the work package one report within Section 4 of my witness statement. I would further comment as follows in relation to Route Option B (Telford Road) and Options C1 and C2 (Craigleith Road / Crewe Road South).
Route Option B (Telford Road)
3.3 I would refer to paragraph 4.7 my witness statement, which states:
“The Telford Road option would avoid the congested junction at Crewe Toll and, in general, result in less interaction with general traffic. However there would still be the need to modify four junctions along the route and, as described above, it is unlikely that the tram would achieve full priority through these junctions. Although detailed modelling of these junctions has not been undertaken at this stage I would estimate that on average the additional delays caused to the tram vehicle as it travels through these junctions would be approximately 30 seconds. It should be noted that these delays were not taken into account on the patronage assessments for the Telford Road option. If these delays
1 were taken into account the predicted run times would increase and the patronage levels may decrease. The route along the Railway Corridor would suffer no such delays.”
Route Options C1 and C2 (Craigleith Road / Crewe Road South)
3.4 The Craigleith route would involve a significant element of on-street running and interaction with a number of busy junctions en-route, in particular:
• Craigleith Road/Queensferry Road junction; • Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South junction; and • Crewe Toll junction.
3.5 Wherever practicable, it is the promoter’s aim to maximise the extent (chainage) of segregation from other road users when trams operate within a road carriageway. Therefore in relation to Craigleith Road it was considered that the optimum layout would be to incorporate segregated tram operations which are possible within the available land. Reference should be made to the rebuttal of my colleague Mr Bain for further details of this.
3.6 Notwithstanding, the levels of traffic demand and the layout of the junction of Craigleith Road/Queensferry Road, Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South and Crewe Toll are such that that there remain a number of technical difficulties associated in accommodating a tram, particularly compared to the option of running on the segregated former railway corridor. My colleague Mr Bain in his Witness Statement and Rebuttal has covered the alignment related issues. In the paragraphs below I comment further on the traffic related issues:
3.7 Craigleith Road/Queensferry Road junction. This traffic signal controlled junction, which also provides access to the Craigleith Retail Park, a petrol filling station and hotel, offers the following difficulties with respect to the introduction of tram:
• Reduction in stopline capacity on Craigleith Road approach to the junction, as a result of the introduction of a tram; • Reconfiguration of the traffic signal staging to accommodate the tram. This would result in the requirement to provide additional stages to accommodate all vehicle movements within the junction at the expense of junction capacity; • The existing access to the retail park, located on South Groathill Avenue, would require the introduction of traffic signal control, linked to the Craigleith Road / Queensferry Road junction. Such an arrangement may result in a queue developing on South Groathill Avenue, blocking back onto the Queensferry Road junction. The management of this queue would require to take precedence over tram priority at this location, in order to reduce impact on the A90 through movements.
2
3.8 Figure 1 below illustrates the existing junction arrangement with the introduction of the tram alignment.
3
Figure 1 –Queensferry Road / Craigleith Road with Option C Tram Alignment
3.9 Craigleith Road/Crewe Road South junction. An outline design and assessment of the Craigleith Road / Crewe Road South junction has demonstrated that the following issues would arise: • Closure of Orchard Road to form a four-arm traffic signal controlled junction. The retention of Orchard Road within the reconfigured junction would introduce operational difficulties, and introduce delay to the main approaches. • Reduction in junction capacity as a result of introduction of single traffic lane approaches on Crewe Road South and Craigleith Avenue, required in order to accommodate Tram. • Traffic on Orchard Brae, Craigleith Road and Comely Bank Road and pedestrians would require to be stopped to allow Tram to progress through the junction in either direction; • Queuing predicted on all arms to the junction
3.10 An illustration of the typical junction arrangement that would be required to accommodate tram is shown in Figure 2 below.
4
Figure 2 – Indicative Junction Layout Crewe Road South / Orchard Brae
3.11 Crewe Toll junction. A study commissioned by The City of Edinburgh Council to investigate the introduction of traffic signal control at Crewe Toll, identified a number of difficulties in delivering such an improvement,
3.12 In terms of junction capacity, the assessment illustrated that queues and delays would be experienced on Crewe Road South with an average queue of 40 vehicles during the 2011 weekday evening peak period.
3.13 This queuing traffic would require to be allowed to progress through the signals in advance of the trams approach to Crewe Toll to ensure tram priority was maintained. Such an arrangement would have an adverse impact on the capacity of the remaining approaches to the junction, namely Telford Road and Ferry Road.
3.14 An illustration of the typical junction arrangement that would be required to accommodate tram is shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 – Indicative Junction Layout Crewe Toll
5 3.15 As outlined in paragraph 4.3 of my witness statement, in traffic terms a solution may be possible to introduce tram into the Crewe Toll and Craigleith Avenue corridors, though at the expense of other road users.
3.16 In summary therefore I believe that on traffic grounds the promoted route has clear advantages over the Telford Road and Craigleith options in that:
• the alternative alignment has ten minor traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route; • the alternative alignment has four major traffic junctions to negotiate when compared to none on the promoted route.
Objectors Route Options
3.17 A number of alternative routes have been promoted by the objectors including:-
• Crewe Road South, Orchard Brae, Queensferry Road, Drumsheugh Gardens, Chester Street and Palmerston Place; and • Crewe Road South, Orchard Brae, Queensferry Road, Queensferry Terrace, Belford Road, Douglas Gardens, Palmerston Place.
3.18 The above routes were considered as part of work package 1 and my colleague Mr Andrew Oldfield, has covered the route selection process within his witness statement.
3.19 In terms of traffic integration, I would refer to paragraph 3.3. of my witness statement “…..In traffic terms the routing of the tram along on- street sections is clearly less desirable than the option of segregated running”.
3.20 The areas of particular concern in traffic interface terms are:
• Impact on parking resulting from running on Belford Road; • Impact on traffic and levels of congestion resulting from running along Queensferry Road, as opposed to the promoted route through the former rail corridor; • Need for turning manoeuvres for tram at a number of junctions, impacting on operation of the junction at the following locations: o Orchard Brae/Queensferry Road; o Queensferry Road/Drumsheugh Gardens; o Chester Street/Palmerston Place; o Palmerston Place/West Maitland Street; o Queensferry Road/Belford Road; and o Douglas Gardens/Belford Road. • Introduction of traffic signal control at a number of existing priority controlled junctions introducing delay to other road users.
6