Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Lead Objectors: 2 – John Adams 3 – Mr and Mrs Peill 29 – Peter Gorrie 46 – Graham Rodger 61

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH

17: Loss of Amenity – Access to walkway

Current Conditions

1. The Roseburn Corridor is a much-used traffic-free amenity, which supports and encourages walking and cycling, the most sustainable forms of travel, and the national transport priorities in NPPG17. According to our surveys of Dec 2004 and May 2005, (Documents RC34/usersurvey01 and RC34/usersurvey02) the Corridor is used by local residents and by people from across the city and beyond (from Fife and West Lothian) to walk and cycle for recreational purposes and for access to local facilities (shops, Ainslie Park Recreation Centre, schools, work-places at Crewe Toll, including the Western General Hospital, the Post Office on Queensferry Rd etc). Over 1000 people movements a day were logged in May 2005, on two separate days. The Corridor is also heavily used by commuting cyclists and pedestrians, who are choosing to walk or cycle to work instead of using any other mode of travel. In NPPG17, walking and cycling are prioritised over public transport, and we believe that the current usage of the Roseburn Corridor adheres to NPPG17.

2. The Roseburn Corridor is accessible from a number of points, both formal and informal, but access is both safe and easy for pedestrians, wheelchair- users, frail/elderly users, young children and families, cyclists etc. Because of the Corridor’s high amenity value, and its traffic-free nature, it is used by large numbers of vulnerable people who have restricted opportunities to access green spaces elsewhere in Edinburgh. These include residents and carers from older people’s residential homes and sheltered housing, children and adults with additional support needs, nursery and school children, as well as by organisations such as the Scouting Association and the Girl Guiding Association. The green verges currently enable pedestrians/cyclists to avoid one another when the 3m asphalt strip proves too narrow.

Policy Context

3. The Roseburn Corridor is a designated Urban Wildlife Site in the extant 1997 Edinburgh Central Local Plan. Whilst the Corridor is also “retained for possible transportation purposes” in the same local plan, we believe that “transportation purposes” reflect its current role as a cycle and walkway, linking several communities together and forming part of the National Cycle Network. Where a light railway/tram proposal appears on the same local plan (along Leith Walk and Princes St), a different colour symbol is used to represent light railway.

Tram Impact

4. Whilst the Promoter is offering to re-instate the cycleway (although the walkway is not specifically mentioned), 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.

5. Our 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. We believe that any proposal on the Corridor which discourages and has a negative impact on walking and cycling is contrary to NPPG17 and would have a direct and negative impact on opportunities for sustainable travel in our community and further afield.

6. We are concerned that the Promoter did not include Accessibility and Integration, two of the STAG criteria which should be used in transport projects, in its early sifting of alignment options and in its proposed siting of tram stops. A consultation response from The Scottish Civic Trust to the scoping report for the EIA clearly stated that: “It is an important issue for clarification as to whether it is best for a tram to operate on or off street. This relates to issues of integration and accessibility….Running on Haymarket Terrace would increase the public accessibility of the line as would the Telford Rd line”. The response goes on to say: “As part of the EIA, we would also advocate a multi-transport linkage assessment. This would determine the most suitable links to other transport nodes, and would need to be particularly strong on pedestrian routes to and from stops. In effect, the Trust would advise that a tram system that runs speedily off-street, but is poorly integrated and [not] useful to pedestrians (which are the main users) would be destined to be a huge failure” (Document RC34/alternative01). Was a multi-transport linkage assessment ever done? Was any methodical analysis of pedestrian access undertaken?

7. The Craigleith and Ravelston tram stops have very poor access, are situated out of public view, and have no associated park and ride sites. The lift for wheelchair users which featured at the Ravelston Dykes stop now seems to have disappeared. Whilst the Promoter claims the stops will be DDA-compatible, we don’t know what this might entail. We challenge and question the choice of the Roseburn Corridor as the preferred route for Tram Line One because of poor access, the severe impact on existing users of the Corridor and poor integration with other public transport. The National Audit Office flagged up the difficulties of using disused railway corridors, with their “invisibility”, poor links with bus services and access restrictions.

8. We note 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. We particularly require that access is continually maintained during construction across the Maidencraig section of the alignment (to the Craigleith Retail Park) and that the alley-ways beside the Roseburn Corridor on Craigleith View (one leading to Craigleith Drive and one leading to Ravelston Dykes) remain in constant use. These latter alleyways are the accesses to bus services on Queensferry Rd and Ravelston Dykes.

9. We also require that access to the Water of Leith from the Coltbridge Viaduct in both directions of the proposed alignment is continually maintained, as this is a crucial link across the city for cyclists and pedestrians.

10. 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. We are concerned that if segregation is required by HMRI, because of the proposed speed of the trams, that access will be further restricted, as crossing points will be limited. If the Roseburn Corridor is to be used, contrary to our wishes, we would support a speed limit of 20mph, not segregation, to allow the multi-modal usage of the Corridor to continue and to allow better access and movement along, onto and off the Corridor.

11. We also seek clarification on whether the indicated tram stops will actually be built – is the Promoter at liberty to reduce the numbers of tram stops at will? TIE, in a letter dated 21 Oct 2003 (Document RC34/access01, page3) noted that “the maximum speed of which the vehicles are capable is 60mph but such speeds will never be attained in an urban context, if only because of the frequency of stops”. If stops were to be reduced, this suggests speed could increase further and access would be even more restricted.

12. No mitigation has been identified for the issue of community severance, which will certainly occur, both at access points and along the Corridor, and because of amenity loss.

13. We have found no reference in the Promoter’s supporting documents to the Council’s own Access Strategy, “Capitalising on Access” or reference to mitigations to improve access. Community severance and the importance of access were highlighted as important issues in early consultation responses both from the Council’s City Development department (Document RC34/access02, page 2) and from Scottish Natural Heritage (Document RC34/access03, page 2). We believe that the footway/cycleway should be widened to at least 4m, to accommodate the large volumes of people who use the Corridor, to compensate for the removal of the verge and to ensure wheelchair users can continue to be accommodated in the width of the Corridor.

Our Proposals/Amendments to Bill:

1. To amend the Bill to re-route the Tram so that it avoids the Roseburn Corridor and, failing that: 2. To require the Promoter to apply all of the STAG criteria including Assessibility to the initial route sifting options outlined in Work Package One; 3. To justify the current alignment choices, with equal weighting for all STAG criteria and to compare alignment sifting methodology with other examples (eg Tram Lines Two and Three); 4. To assess the likely impact on usage of the Corridor of the tram, especially for vulnerable people whilst the Bill is still in its Consideration stage; 5. To provide detail of how the tram, the walkway and the access points will be DDA-compliant (including assessing the cycle/walkway width) whilst the Bill is still in its Consideration Stage; 6. To set out alternative green space access and provision for those people who will no longer be able to enjoy the existing high amenity value of the Corridor; 7. To provide detail of all accesses, linear access and the actual alignment of the cycle/walkway whilst the Bill is still in its Consideration stage; 8. To have a speed restriction of 20mph to retain the Corridor’s current access conditions, freedom of movement and multi-modality; 9. To clarify whether the Ravelston Dykes stop will ever actually be built, as its poor patronage, demands for faster journey times etc make it look unlikely.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

SUE POLSON

Loss of Amenity (17) Disabled Access

I am a disabled householder who uses a wheelchair when necessary and holds a Blue Badge parking permit. My garden borders the Roseburn Corridor just North of the Ravelston Bridge down ramp. In essence the Tram will pass adjacent to my hedge every 6 minutes, day in, day out.

I have enquired a number of times about disabled access to Tram Line One but am always told by tie that official guidelines on disabled access will be followed. I have also been told by tie that I am very fortunate to live so close to the Tram line, so it is difficult to take the above statement seriously.

My concern is that in order to reach the proposed station (South of Ravelston Bridge), my husband will have to push my wheelchair along Blinkbonny Road to Orchard Road South, up the hill to Ravelston Dykes, back along the Dykes to Ravelston Bridge, crossing Ravelston Dykes on the way, to arrive at the nearest access point to the station. As the station is by this time deep in the cutting and there are no exact plans available showing how a disabled person will descend into the cutting, I do not know if a lift will be available for me. If my husband is still alive after pushing me for some time, without a lift it would be impossible to use one of the down ramps from the Bridge because they are too steep on the way down and completely impossible on the way up! If the tram stayed “on road” instead of disappearing from view, I could have access to it without killing my carer.

Although I am concerned about wheelchair access, I am also aware of the problems faced by the visually and hearing impaired and well as the ambulant disabled. By disappearing into an old railway cutting, problems for these categories of disabled people are magnified to such an extent that it is unlikely they will choose to use the line. Remaining “on road” means easier and much more frequent access without having to overcome the problems of the geography of reaching the stations.

Amendments Proposed

To amend the Bill to reroute the Tram, remaining “on road” so that it is accessible to all those who will be paying for it.

Failing that, that the promoter be required to provide disabled access to conform to the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and any subsequent amendments and other disabled access legislation to all stations from existing access points.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

MRS ALISON J BOURNE

27 - ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT – WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL (Witness 2)

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. 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.

3 It is the view of the Group 34 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 1 by the Promoter in their consultation leaflet and identified as highly important by the National Audit Office.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 2 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 13. 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 Western General Hospital should not be served.

14 Group 34 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.

15 The Promoter has stated that it would not be possible to segregate the tramline from general traffic. Group 34 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. I am still unclear as to whether a possible route which was segregated on Crewe Road South was never considered by the Promoter.

16. 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 34 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.

17 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.

18 Given the huge expense and upheaval involved in constructing a tram system, it is essential that the route is correct. Group 34 believes that the current proposed alignment should, therefore, be amended to directly serve the WGH .

Introduction

19 My name is Mrs Alison J Bourne and I have prepared this witness statement to support the case being put forward by Group 34 (Roseburn Corridor Area B) that the proposed alignment Edinburgh Tram Line One (TL1) should be amended, in order to better serve the Western General Hospital (WGH). 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.

20 This statement is based on my personal capacity as a local resident of the general Craigleith area rather than in any professional capacity.

21 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.

22 For two years, I have asked questions, read reports and argued the case for the alignment to be amended.

23 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.

24 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. 5

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.)

25 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.

26 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.

27 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 6

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.

28 It is the view of Group 34 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.

29 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).

30 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.

31 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.

32 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.

33 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.

34 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.

35 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 8 from the omission of an interchange at Haymarket, the first time that this requirement had been mentioned.

36 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.

37 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.” 38 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.

39 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.

40 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.

41 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.

42 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.

43 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%)

44 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.

45 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.”

46 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. 10

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.

47 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:- “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).

48 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.

49 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.

50 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 11

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?

51 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.

52 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.

53 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

54 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 12 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.

55 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.”

56 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:- 13

“We prefer the Telford Road alignment because it runs closer to the Western General Hospital, a major trip generator.”

57 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.”

58 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.

59 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.

60 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.

61 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%.

62 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.

63 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.

64 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 34 are most surprised to learn of his stance without first seeking the views of local residents.

65 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.

66 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. 15

67 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 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.

68 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.”

69 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.

70 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.

71 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.

72 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.

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.)

73 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 17

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. • 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?)

74 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.

75 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 19 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.

76 An 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.

77 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.

78 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 20 required further consideration and instructed that it be referred to the Council’s Environmental Quality Scrutiny Panel (EQSP).

79 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.

80 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.

81 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.

82 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.”

83 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.

84 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 great deal of time and effort in ascertaining exactly what has gone wrong with, amongst other things, the Western General Hospital.

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.

85 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.

86 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.

87 Section 1.3 (p1 of report) states:- 22

“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”. 88 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.

89 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.

90 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.

91 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.

92 Table 5.3.1 (p33 of report) gives a list of the route option links considered for Scenario 1 Granton to Haymarket only).

93 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. 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 could not be considered critical.

94 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?

95 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.

96 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.

97 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.

98 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.

99 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.

100 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 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.

101 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.

102 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?

103 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 25 exist. It continues that, despite these challenges, the alignment would benefit from direct access to some key focal points for patronage.

104 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.

105 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 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.

Treatment of Crewe Road South 106 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.

107 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.

108 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. 26

109 On 10 November 2003, the EQSP continued its meeting of 29 October 2003, which had been adjourned. The minutes (Doc ref AJB-WGH-027) 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!

110 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. 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.

111 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 ordinary member of the 27 public, I find this type of manipulation on the part of the Promoter, a body of public servants, to be quite shocking.

112 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. 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.

113 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.)

114 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. I was again astonished at the level of disinterest from councillors.

115 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.

116 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.

117 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.)

118 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 29 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.)

119 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 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).

120 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.)

121 Section 2.1 (iii) states that Option A is preferred because it is the cheapest. (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?

122 Section 2.2 (i) states that Option A is preferred because it has the best segregation. (Tthe 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..)

123 Section 2.2 (ii) states that Option A is preferred because it has the best run time. (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. It is important to note that no modelling report has been provided to me for consideration).

124 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.

125 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. 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.

126 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.

127 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 31 that even though Option B is longer by 1min 42secs, the promoter does not see any major difference in the patronage levels.)

128 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. A number of new factors, including the redevelopment of the Telford College Campus for housing, needs to be taken into account and patronage figures need to be reassessed for Crewe Rd South.

129 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 Crewe Rd Sth option, 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.

130 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.)

131 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.)

132 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 32

2. Nearly all the objectives have been reported except for one which is quite fundamental: Accessibility. (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.)

133 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..)

134 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 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.

135 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.

136 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).

137 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!

138 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.

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))

139 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):-

140 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.

141 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!)

142 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.)

143 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

35 determined by consultants/Promoters would be acceptable at this stage of the process.

144 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 in the Andersen report.).

145 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”.

146 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”.

147 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.”

148 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.

149 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. 36

150 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 and this continues up Orchard Brae, onto Queensferry Road to the city centre.

151 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.

152 Table 3.1 gives details of criterion weighting. Four criteria are mentioned:-

Technical Implementability 1.5 Economy 1 Transport 1.25 Environment 1.25

153 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.

154 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 37

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.

155 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.

156 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.

157 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.

158 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 38 possible, therefore, that different criteria and then arbitrary weightings may have been applied in order to ensure that the original conclusions were confirmed.

159 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!)

160 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.

161 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.

162 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.)

163 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 39 patronage! I assume that when an option reaches capacity, it would need more vehicles to cope. Hence, if Option 1 is the best, it will need additional vehicles to cope with excess capacity.)

164 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”.)

165 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. (The interchange with Haymarket appears to currently up for negotiation anyway – distances need to be assessed)

166 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? .)

167 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”.

168 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. 40

169 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.

170 Page A-5 – Link 11-14 is the Roseburn Corridor, between Telford Road and Ferry Road – ranked 23rd.

171 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.)

172 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.

173 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 41

“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?)

174 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.

175 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 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..)

176 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..)

177 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.”

178 (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).

179 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.

180 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.

181 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:- 43

“It is expected that few planners will consider it either necessary or desirable to produce a table of weighted planning objectives….”.

182 TIE’s letter also states that their consultants were responsible for the use of the four criteria, as opposed to the national criteria.

183 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.

184 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.

185 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.

186 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 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.

187 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 44 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.

188 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.

190 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.

191 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.

192 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 45 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.

193 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.

194 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.)

195 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 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. 46

196 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.

197 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?

198 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 47 patronage above journey time, in terms of importance, which contradicts the Promoter’s argument on Tram Line 1, in terms of serving the WGH.

199 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?

200 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!

201 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 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.

202 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.

203 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.

204 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?

205 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 49 the route even closer. (Compare this with Tram Line 1, where Committee has accepted a stop some 300m from Craigleith Retail Centre.)

206 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.)

207 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?)

208 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 could do the same.)

209 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?

Miscellaneous (Includes various other items of supporting evidence.)

210 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.

211 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.

212 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?)

213 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.

214 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?)

215 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 51 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.)

216 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”.

217 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 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, 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.

218 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 52 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?

219 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.

220 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. 53

221 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!

222 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?

223 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.

224 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 /Ingliston Park and Ride has obvious advantages for patients/staff/visitors who live in other parts of NHS Lothian’s catchment area.)

225 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.

226 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.

227 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 is 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 55

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”.

228 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.)

229 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.)

230 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 and onwards, if the political will was there.)

231 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!)

232 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.

233 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.

234 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.

235 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.)

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.)

236 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 58 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.

237 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.

238 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.

239 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).

240 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 59

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

241 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.

242 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.

243 The local Councillor for Pilton (SIP) has stated that many of his constituents preferred Option B.

244 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).

245 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).

246 Local MSPs, including my own MSP, Ms M Smith, are supportive of Tram Line 1 serving the WGH directly.

247 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.

248 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.

249 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 61 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.

250 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.

251 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.

252 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.

253 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.

254 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”.)

255 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.)

256 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).

257 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.)

258 p25 3.3 Operations Characteristics 64

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.)

259 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.)

259 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.

260 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.

261 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 65 different ways, using different criteria and weightings, I do not see how one line can be properly compared against the other.

262 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 onwards.

263 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!

264 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.

265 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

Consequences of not serving the Western General Hospital directly (includes Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield.)

266 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.

267 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.

268 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.

269 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.

270 The alternative alignment along Crewe Road South would address the above problems.

271 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.

272 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.

273 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.

274 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. 68

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.

275 Serving the hospital complex has now been identified as very desirable. 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.

276 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.

277 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”.

278 Rotherham Borough Council considered a report (Doc Ref AJB-WGH-080), in July 2004, which makes reference to the extension and supports it.

279 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.

280 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 69 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 34 believes it is important to learn from the Sheffield experience and ensure that the alignment is in the correct place to maximise benefits.

Conclusions

281 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.

282 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 34 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.

283 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 70

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.

284 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.

285 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.

286 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.

287 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 71

Granton and Haymarket. Given that there are no direct alternative public transport services, this argument is not accepted.

288 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.

289 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?

290 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”.

291 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 34 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.

292 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.

293 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.

294 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 73 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.

295 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 34 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.

Alison Bourne (For Group 34)

June 2005

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.)

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.) 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.) 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.)

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 – – Scottish Executive/A Bourne AJB-WGH-077 (Awaiting response)

Extract from Sheffield NHS Hospitals Website AJB-WGH-078 (Paper copy submitted. Can also be accessed on www.sth.nhs.uk )

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.)

80 GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH, CHAIR, BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (WITNESS 1)

27. Alternative Route

Current Conditions

I have set out cumulatively in previous witness statements the tri-partite importance of the Roseburn Corridor in its current state. I do not propose to go over material I have lodged in these other statements but I would like to state that I fully adopt the material in those statements as part of this statement (Group 34, Roseburn Area B, statements on: birds, bats, badgers, vegetation, access, community environmental loss/gain). I support and adopt the statement by Peter Allan (Group 34/45) on the planning status of the Roseburn Corridor. I am therefore assuming that the merits I have highlighted about the Corridor can be carried over to support the argument for looking at alternative alignments. In particular, alternative alignments which are on- road and do not conflict with the extant Central Edinburgh Local Plan and the designation of the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor. In summary, the tri- partite importance of the Roseburn Corridor is: as a designated urban wildlife site and Corridor with connectivity to other wildlife corridors and areas, which is to be protected from the impact of development; as a traffic-free and attractive link for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between Edinburgh’s communities; and as a linear park which provides a highly-valued recreational resource for Edinburgh residents and visitors.

I would like to confirm that Group 34 supports and adopts the Statement of Alison Bourne on behalf of Group 34 on route selection and alternative alignments. Mrs Bourne has set out the argument, on behalf of Group 34, for serving the Crewe Rd South entrance of the Western General Hospital and she has set out in detail the inadequate route sifting procedure, and all subsequent procedures regarding route appraisal and selection. I propose to set out evidence in support of investigating properly, and adopting, an alignment which travels from Crewe Rd South up Orchard Brae, along Queensferry Rd, over the Dean Bridge, along Drumsheugh Gdns and along Palmerston Place to Haymarket.

Impact of Tram

This would be severe and adverse, as I have stated in other witness statements, impacting on wildlife, human amenity and the most sustainable and healthy forms of travel, walking and cycling. Safety issues are unresolved; risk assessments do not appear to have been done.

We are therefore asking that alternative on-road alignments be examined, as we believe the early route sifting process (Work Package One) was flawed, weighted and led towards an outcome that had already been decided.

Consultation responses from a range of specialists, including the RSPB and Scottish Natural Heritage, proposed an on-road alignment as an alternative to using the Roseburn Corridor (see my other witness statements). Fast journey time, key destinations, ride quality and frequency of service have been cited by the Promoter as reasons for using the Roseburn Corridor.

It is our contention that, as has been submitted by our witness on serving the Western General Hospital, Alison Bourne, that this key destination should be served at its front door on Crewe Rd South, from which all departments are accessed. Because of the impact on journey time of people getting onto and off the tram at the Western General – many passengers may be frail or ill and might need more time to get on and off – we have taken advice from public transport experts. We are advised, for the purposes of fast journey times, that the best alignment for a tram route linking key destinations is the most direct one. For this reason, we are advocating an alignment from Crewe Rd South, up Orchard Brae, over the Dean Bridge, round Drumsheugh Gardens, and along Palmerston Place.

In selecting their preferred route option, the Promoter weighted a number of considerations, giving, for example, technical difficulty a higher weighting that the environment. We believe that the merits of the Roseburn Corridor as a heavily-used traffic-free pedestrian/cycling linear park cannot have been properly assessed, as the Promoter had no idea of the levels of usage and the high value users place on the amenity. No surveys of wildlife had been undertaken, so that no measure of the Corridor’s biodiversity could be given nor any measure of its relative importance to a network of wildlife corridors and foraging grounds.

Accessibility and Integration, including Social Inclusion, were not used in initial siftings. A consultation response from The Scottish Civic Trust to the scoping report for the EIA clearly stated that: “It is an important issue for clarification as to whether it is best for a tram to operate on or off street. This relates to issues of integration and accessibility….Running on Haymarket Terrace would increase the public accessibility of the line as would the Telford Rd line”. The response goes on to say: “As part of the EIA, we would also advocate a multi- transport linkage assessment. This would determine the most suitable links to other transport nodes, and would need to be particularly strong on pedestrian routes to and from stops. In effect, the Trust would advise that a tram system that runs speedily off-street, but is poorly integrated and [not] useful to pedestrians (which are the main users) would be destined to be a huge failure” (Document RC34/alternative01). Was a multi-transport linkage assessment ever done? Was any methodical analysis of pedestrian access undertaken?

We wonder too how the Roseburn Corridor, with its nine bridges and tunnels, and extreme spatial constraints, can have been assessed as technically less difficult than shorter on-road alternatives requiring minimal works. The Dean Bridge is in fact significantly wider than any of the Roseburn Corridor structures, and could easily accommodate twin track trams and pedestrian walkways. Even if the bridge required priority traffic lights, it is clearly the Promoter’s intention to reduce bus and car traffic in the city centre, through the Central Edinburgh Traffic Management Plan, so putting the tram over the Dean Bridge would concur with these policies admirably.

We understand – although we are not experts – that trams can manage hills well and that difficulties only arise when stops are sited on hills. We therefore understand that the incline at Orchard Brae is not a difficulty.

We are also confused as to why a former railway corridor can be used at Roseburn, but for the exact opposite reasons, cannot be used at Trinity/Starbank. The National Audit Office report is clear that former railway corridors suffer from poor links with other public transport, poor visibility and poor accessibility.

In the Work Package One document, “Haymarket” was taken to mean the area of Haymarket, not Haymarket Station specifically. We note that the “in principle” stage of the Bill accepted Haymarket as a key destination, but we strongly believe that, because of the Promoter’s difficulties in aligning Haymarket Station more closely with Tram Line One, that Palmerston Place can be deemed to be the Haymarket area and is only a short distance from Haymarket Station. Indeed, early route siftings for Tram Line One did not feature Haymarket at all, and we believe it was “added on” late in the process to justify the Roseburn Corridor preferred route in terms of public transport links.

Bringing the loop of tram Line One closer in to the city centre has a journey time-saving benefit for both city-centre commuters and for those travelling out to the West. Under the current alignment, tram-users who wish to go out to the Gyle/airport etc have to double back on themselves, coming in from the west to Haymarket before going back out to the West again. We have sought clarity on the operation of Tram Line One at the possible junction with Tram Line Two at Roseburn. We understand that the Bill is to build and operate a loop – via Haymarket – but does that mean that, operationally, the tram has to go through Haymarket? If the operator were to run trams that did not go through Haymarket, ie turned off at Roseburn to head to the west on Tram Line Two, would it be operating within the terms of the Bill?

We contend that any time delays incurred by serving the Western General Hospital can easily be saved by taking this more direct, more user-friendly route to the city centre. The tram would be very visible at all times, would meet people’s travelling needs (including linking the North Edinburgh social inclusion areas with the WGH and the city centre) which do not appear to have been assessed. The travelling needs of existing populations would be met more quickly, more directly, with much easier on-road access and much better links with the bus network (particularly on the Queensferry Rd). If the Promoter’s alignment is accepted, it would be quicker for passengers from Granton and Craigleith heading into the city centre to catch a bus on a more direct route.

At Haymarket, we understand that the tram stop is at on-street level, and we believe that Palmerston Place offers a tram stop at the Haymarket interchange which would be just as convenient for heavy rail connections and bus connections and which would avoid the need to demolish the Caledonian Ale House. The Haymarket Terrace junction will require to be substantially reconfigured under current proposals, and our alignment would actually remove some of the congestion in the area by setting the tram stop slightly apart. It would also be more accessible for those in wheelchairs, or those who are frail and who might be driven to the tram stop.

Our proposal is supported by the Central Edinburgh Local Plan and by the Structure Plan. It meets STAG criteria more successfully than the Promoter’s alignment and, most importantly, it meets the travelling needs of the public without compromising an urban wildlife corridor and a cycle/walkway which epitomises national and local transport and planning policy in terms of NPPG17 and the prioritised, most sustainable forms of travel, walking and cycling.

Our Proposals/Amendment

We propose that the alignment be altered to serve the Crewe Rd South entrance of the Western General Hospital, before travelling up Orchard Brae, Dean Bridge, Drumsheugh Gardens, Palmerston Place, Haymarket;

We ask that the Promoter applies the STAG criteria equally and fairly, without weighting, to the Promoter’s alignment and to our proposed alignment. We ask that costings be done, to compare our shorter, more direct, on-road alignment which does not involve restructuring/re-building nine bridges and tunnels, with the Promoters’ alignment. Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement

27 Alternative route - failure to serve the Western General Hospital

Witness – Dr. Mark Bastin, Physicist, Brain Imaging Centre (1997 - present), Western General Hospital

Background The Western General Hospital (WGH) has a bed compliment of 800 acute beds and 34 day beds. It deals with breast and colonic surgery, medicine, oncology, neurosciences and urology. While there are plans to move the acute services to the New Royal Infirmary at Little France, this is unlikely to happen for the next 10 years. Existing oncology and non-acute services will remain at the WGH for the foreseeable future. Thus, the WGH will remain a location which a large number of people (patients, visitors and staff) will require transport to.

Current situation For various reasons, a large number of people currently drive to the WGH. However, the parking, or lack of it, is legendary. Therefore, people either park on the double yellow lines in the site or on surrounding streets hindering the free movement of ambulances and causing annoyance to local residents. The hospital is, of course, well served by the bus network, but this may not be suitable for all, e.g. nurses and doctors on late night/early morning shifts. Below are some pictures taken in May 2005 showing the severe traffic problems at the WGH.

Figure 1: All theses cars are parked on double yellow lines.

1 Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement

27 Alternative route - failure to serve the Western General Hospital

Figure 2: On many occasions cars park on the designated pedestrian crossing.

Figure 3: Ambulances have problems moving freely about the site.

Since the WGH site is private land, Lothian NHS Trust has no statutory rights to remove cars which are parked on yellow lines. All they can do is paste small stickers on car windows to indicate the car is parked improperly. Currently each attendant posts ~ 50 to 60 stickers a day on cars causing a nuisance.

Tram stop serving the Western General Under the current plans, there will be a stop at Groathill Road North. While this may seem close, for elderly or sick people, or families with small children, the car will remain the best option.

2 Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement

27 Alternative route - failure to serve the Western General Hospital

While the tram will not address all the issues regarding car use at the WGH, having a tram passing right in front of, and stopping at the hospital will encourage more people to use it. This will reduce congestion and also increase revenue for the tram itself. Given the significant shortfall in funding for this project, any increase in passenger numbers must be welcomed.

Amendments proposed It is argued that the current stop at Groathill Road North is too far away from the WGH to entice drivers from their cars when visiting relatives and inappropriate for staff working late night/early morning shifts.

• Require that the tram route is amended to pass the front entrance of the Western General Hospital

3 Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement 5 Loss of Amenity –Witness Dr Mark Bastin

Current Conditions Environmental The Roseburn Railway Corridor (hereafter referred to as the Corridor) is currently quiet and Statement (ES) App I peaceful with a rural feel. It provides a safe and convenient way for people of all ages to get from pages 2 - 3 Granton to Haymarket without having to compete with road traffic. In its current form it performs a number of roles for local residents: Development of 1) Cycle Path – The Corridor is part of the National Cycle Network. A significant number of Environmental people therefore use it to cycle to and from the centre of town (Figure 1). This reduces the number Mitigation in the of cars on the roads, and also improves the health of the wider population. Spokes, the Lothian Roseburn Corridor cycle campaign group, have recently highlighted that ‘congestion-busting plans to encourage (DEMRC) page 1 25,000 people in Edinburgh to cycle to work within five years are doomed to failure unless transport chiefs give them greater priority.’ The Corridor is currently helping to meet this plan. Edinburgh Evening News, Sat 28 May 2005

Figure 1: Two gentlemen enjoying the peace of the Roseburn Railway Corridor.

2) Local Parkland – With its wide range of wildlife, indigenous plants and shrubs, the Corridor Edinburgh Evening has all the attributes of parkland (Figures 2 and 3). The provision of parkland for Edinburgh News, Tue 8 Jun residents is clearly important, so much so that Edinburgh City Council have pledged that every 2004 Edinburgh resident will live and work within 300 metres of green space within five years.

Figure 2: Enjoying a walk away from traffic on a fine spring morning

3) Townscape – The trees and shrubs along the Corridor provide a very pleasant backdrop to the Section C4, Figure 1, houses and gardens which are located along it. The principal sound is bird song and children Landscape and playing in the gardens and having fun on the cycle track (Figure 4). The existing wooded nature of Habitat Management the Corridor is indicated in Figure 5. Plan (LHMP)

Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement 5 Loss of Amenity –Witness Dr Mark Bastin

Figure 3: Spring flowers in the Roseburn Railway Corridor

Figure 4: The eastern view onto the Roseburn Railway Corridor in spring from Craigleith Drive.

Figure 1, Section C4, LHMP

Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement 5 Loss of Amenity –Witness Dr Mark Bastin

Impact of Tram The Environmental Statement (ES), Development of Environmental Mitigation in the Roseburn DEMRC Corridor (DEMRC) and Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) makes it very plan that the tram will irreversibly and adversely affect this previous natural resource, through a significant increase in noise pollution, and the wholesale removal of plants, trees, shrubs and animals. As DEMRC page 29 described below, this amounts to a very significant loss of amenity for local residents.

1) Cycle Path – While the cycle path will be retained as a 3 meter wide path next to the tram line, Section C4, Figure 8, trams passing every 4-5 minutes at 40-50 MPH will create significant noise, vibration and slip- LHMP streaming. There is also the potential for children and dogs to stray onto the line. The whole effect will be to make the Corridor a far less enjoyable place to walk and cycle. This will reduce the ES, Appendix d, ref. number of people who will use it, including families with children who will not want to be exposed No 202, page 26 to the dangers presented by the fast moving trams. This is clearly a significant loss of amenity for local residents. It is also in total opposition to the aim of getting more people to cycle around ES 8.4.12 Page 120 Edinburgh.

2) Local Parkland – The tram will require significant alterations to cuttings and embankments on which it will run. This will require wholesale clearance of undergrowth, removal of trees and severe Figure 2, Section C4, disturbance to birds and small mammals. With regard to the area around Craigleith Drive, Figure 2, LHMP Section C4 of the LHMP shows very clearly the net effect of the tram in this area. Replacing lost trees with small shrubs can in no way be seen as mitigating the proposed vegetation clearance. The whole effect will be to remove the wooded feel of the Corridor, and replace it with a sterile, artificial landscape of small shrubs, akin to what is placed outside shopping centres. The residents will therefore loose parkland close to them, again in opposition to Edinburgh Council’s stated aim of providing parkland within 300 m of all residents within 5 years.

Figure 6: A figure showing what is left of the vegetation in the vicinity of Craigleith Drive once the tram is operational.

Edinburgh Tram Line 1 - Objectors - Group 34 (Roseburn Area B) Witness Statement 5 Loss of Amenity –Witness Dr Mark Bastin

Furthermore, it is not clear that even this degree of vegetation will remain after the tram becomes Section A1, page 1, operational. As stated in Section A1, page 1 of the LHMP ‘At this stage in the development of the LHMP tram proposals it is not possible to be precise about the detailed form of environmental mitigation as this will depend on aspects of the final design still to be decided, including details of the tramcar, track design and engineering formation, all of which are interlinked. The LHMP is therefore a ‘living’ document which will evolve as the detailed design develops, guiding planning and implementation over the whole lifetime of the scheme including its long term maintenance.’ So in fact the whole corridor could just be cleared of vegetation and covered with grass!

3) Townscape – The removal of trees along the route will destroy the existing pleasant townscape, and replace it with short hedges, trams passing regularly and overhead power lines. This will be a severe loss of amenity for local residents.

4) Bridges along the Route – At several points along the route the tram will pass under or over bridges that are not sufficiently wide to accommodate both the tramline and the cycle path. For example, the bridge over Craigleith Drive is not sufficiently wide for the 8 m tram and 3 m cycle track. This will require the bridge to be extensively altered, which will mean that it is closed for an extended period while these works take place. A significant number of people drive along Craigleith Drive in both directions to get to work and school in the morning and evening. Closure of this bridge for any period will be a problem for local residents and therefore a loss of amenity.

Figure 7: The current bridge over Craigleith Drive. It will need to be widened to allow both trams and cycles to cross. Also note the electronic warning system for pedestrians passing under this narrow bridge. This was installed at significant expense to council taxpayers, and will need to be dismantled if the bridge is altered.

Amendments Proposed It is now clear that Tramline 1 will have a devastating effect on the natural environment of the Roseburn Railway Corridor. This amounts to a severe loss of amenity for local residents who currently enjoy its peaceful wooded setting for walking and cycling.

• Require that Tramline 1 be re-routed away from the Roseburn Railway Corridor. • Require that the LHMP be legally enforceable if the tram has to be aligned along the Corridor. • Require that the Bill does not proceed unless a final version of the LHMP is available for scrutiny. • Require that an independent body monitors the environmental impact of the tram, and enforces the LHMP. • Require that the woodland nature of the Roseburn Railway Corridor is retained after the tram, e.g. all felled trees are replaced with identical species moved to the edge of the limit of development. • Require local residents be properly compensated for loss of amenity and townscape.