THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH DRIVERS
IN SCOTLAND
Tuesday 13th June 2006 - The Scottish Parliament - Edinburgh
The Convener: I welcome to the meeting our next witnesses. Peter Spinney is chairperson of the Association of British Drivers in Scotland and Bruce Young is the Lothian co-ordinator of the association.
Bruce Young (Association of British Drivers): Thank you very much.
The Convener: Who wants to ask the first question?
Christine Grahame: I do. How many UK members does the Association of British Drivers have? I did not see a figure in the papers.
Bruce Young: I could not tell you. I have access to that information, but I do not have the software that would let me access it.
Christine Grahame: You represent Lothian members, Mr Young. How many members does the organisation have in Lothian?
Bruce Young: I cannot tell you that either because I cannot access the information.
Christine Grahame: It would be useful to have that information at some point for the sake of completeness.
Bruce Young: Right.
Peter Spinney (Association of British Drivers): The last time I checked, there were 73 members of the organisation in Scotland. The figure for Britain is much larger than that.
Christine Grahame: Thank you very much.
How do you see cars fitting into the transport hub that it has been said Edinburgh airport will become with the establishment of EARL?
Bruce Young: I said to Peter Spinney earlier that I initially thought that different ways of getting to the airport were being discussed rather than a transport hub, but I am warming to that theme. I think that it is very likely that people will look on the station at Edinburgh airport as an alternative to Waverley. People who live in the west of Edinburgh-in Barnton, for example-might find it far more convenient to take their car to the airport, park it there and catch a train than to go on a bus with all their luggage into the centre of the city, where there is no car parking at all. Car parking facilities are an important part of the airport's facilities, and there is every possibility that more cars will park there as a result of the railway station and the growth of the airport as a whole.
Christine Grahame: So instead of the Edinburgh airport rail link taking cars off the roads-as we think it would-there could be more cars on the roads because people will want to go to the airport's car park and then get a train.
Bruce Young: There could be more cars within the area of the airport, but I do not think that people will start to use trains to go to places to which they do not already go. It will simply be more convenient for them to get to trains.
Christine Grahame: My next question follows on from that. Surely parking at Edinburgh airport will be more restricted with the developments that are envisaged. What will the impact of that be on drivers in your organisation? Surely they will be unable to park.
Bruce Young: Life will be made more difficult for them. Such an approach to planning the project would be very short-sighted. There should be more car parking facilities at the airport as it develops.
Christine Grahame: That flies in the face of our trying to get people to take trains, trams and buses.
Bruce Young: Not necessarily. I offered to meet Peter Spinney at Hermiston Gait, on the outskirts of Edinburgh, this morning. He was coming down from Stirling and I thought that he could park there and we could go into the centre of the city together. However, he told me that it would be far more convenient to come into Edinburgh by train from where he lives. That took me aback because I live in the little thumb of the Scottish Borders, at West Linton.
Christine Grahame: So you are a West Linton man.
Bruce Young: Yes, I am.
Christine Grahame: I had a question for you later, which I will ask now. A man from West Linton reminds me of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
In your submission, you give the example of someone from West Linton, who we now know is you, who lives
"25 minutes from the airport by car ... he took the 6.00am flight to Heathrow or Stanstead so no public transport, however good, could realistically have improved his journey times at that time of day."
Is your point that the proposed rail link will have limited benefits for people such as you?
Bruce Young: I appreciate that we are moving in the general direction of trying to move people out of cars and on to public transport, I hope by improving public transport rather than making cars more difficult to use. However, the reality is that over the past 30 years, people have been able to live where they do because they have had access to a car. In my case, it was because we had access to two cars. Once I got a company car, my wife was able to use her car to go to Glasgow where she works two days a week. We both build up quite large mileages getting between work and home. Unless someone decides to reopen West Linton station and connect it directly to the airport-
Christine Grahame: You never know-that might be my next project.
Bruce Young: Using the car makes for a shorter journey and, of course, it leaves exactly when I want it to.
Christine Grahame: That is just you; we are also talking about other drivers.
Bruce Young: Yes, but the point is that during the past 30 years, people who work in the Edinburgh area have been able to live almost anywhere they like. When I moved to West Linton in 1981, the going rate for a commutable distance was 20 miles. I understand that people now routinely commute to Edinburgh from Galashiels, which is 35 miles away. Many houses are being built down there to be sold specifically to Edinburgh commuters but, sadly, Galashiels does not have the infrastructure to support that size of population.
Christine Grahame: You say in your submission: "The airport is heavily used by 'local' travellers". How do you know? What is that based on?
Bruce Young: I took that as a truth, frankly, because it is the local airport. If you have grounds for believing that relatively few people who use Edinburgh airport live within the Edinburgh commuter belt, I would be interested to know what they are.
Christine Grahame: I am not saying that relatively few people use the airport; I am asking whether it is heavily used. I am testing your statement to find out on what it is based. You are talking mainly about people who live within a short commuting distance of Edinburgh driving to the airport in their cars. We are looking for people from all over Scotland to take trains to the airport. That is entirely different from what you are talking about.
Bruce Young: I do not think so. I think that I said in our written evidence that Edinburgh airport is, as you say, used heavily by local travellers-
Christine Grahame: No, you said that.
Bruce Young: The main benefit of the proposed rail link will be to people who live outside the Edinburgh area because it will make it more convenient for them to reach the airport without coming into the centre of Edinburgh first.
Christine Grahame: Let us say that EARL goes ahead. What changes would address the concerns about local demand, not just from West Linton or Gala man, but from-I am not being sexist here-west Edinburgh man and woman? What changes are necessary to get them out of their cars?
Bruce Young: It is unlikely that there would be a heavy shift in demand for public transport as a result of EARL opening. Before I moved to West Linton, I lived in Barnton. Even from Barnton, it was far more convenient to take a car, taxi or get a lift to the airport than to go to the centre of town or the zoo, where the airport bus picks people up. The distance from Barnton to the airport is not much greater than the distance from Barnton to the zoo.
I have given two examples from personal experience of situations in which it would be difficult for public transport to meet everyone's needs-leaving aside any prejudices that people might have.
The Convener: Christine Grahame made the point that the line will link the airport not just with the greater Edinburgh area but with everywhere else in Scotland. How do you respond to the criticism that your written evidence takes a too parochial view of the bill and fails to see the wider significance of the rail link for other parts of Scotland outwith the Edinburgh area?
Bruce Young: That criticism is unfair. In both my written and oral evidence, I have said that the airport rail link will benefit mainly people from outwith the Edinburgh area.
In fairness, we can all only really speak from our personal experience and give our own take on what we see of the greater picture. For instance, when I first got married, I lived in Yoker-as my wife worked in Glasgow-until our first flat was ready in Edinburgh. I had to take the blue train to the station in George Square-
Mr Gordon: Do you mean Queen Street station?
Bruce Young: Yes, that is it. I used to have to take the train to Queen Street station, from where I took the train through to Edinburgh. I then had a 15 to 20 minute walk from Haymarket station to my office.
The Convener: Your written evidence states:
"the rail link will have only a relatively minor benefit to Scotland's economy."
First, what is that based on? Secondly, can you give examples from the construction of rail links to other airports that would bear that out?
Bruce Young: Sorry, what was the first part of the question?
The Convener: Why will the rail link be of relatively minor benefit to the economy of Scotland?
Bruce Young: I find myself questioning the proposition that far more people will use the airport as a result of the rail link because it will allow them to travel to or away from Edinburgh-
The Convener: I am sorry to interrupt, but some of the witnesses from whom we took evidence last week suggested that other European airports with rail links are developing more quickly and that the local and national economies benefit from such links. As you take a different view, I want to tease out the reason for that.
Bruce Young: Let me make two points. First, the fact that other capital cities have found that an airport rail link has been beneficial does not necessarily mean that such rail links are important for economic growth. It is arguable that Edinburgh would have the same level of economic growth regardless of whether it has a rail link. Those other capital cities might be in the same position.
Secondly, the preliminary paragraph of our written evidence states that we welcome the proposed rail link but we question the cost/benefit of the scheme. The cost is a major issue. If the link could be produced for £5 million, no one would say anything other than, "That is a great idea. Let us have it. Why didn't we have it 20 years ago?" The devil is in the detail. As an accountant, I tend to say that everything boils down to money.
Peter Spinney: Let me make just a small point. To answer the question, the economic benefit depends to a large extent on the details of the rail link. For example, the Stansted airport rail link is infamous and people stay away from the airport on that account, whereas the rail link to London Heathrow is very good. If you asked me to draw a parallel, I would say that I am not impressed with the scheme. I do not think that the rail link will attract a lot of people, and it will cost an awful lot of money.
The Convener: In answer to a question from Christine Grahame, you indicated that you think that car parking needs to be expanded at the airport, although you then said that that would be to provide a better transport hub. How much extra car parking do you think the airport requires?
Bruce Young: It is not my job to say. I would be deeply concerned if I did not warn you that I believe that there will continue to be a growing requirement for car parking at the airport. It would be a mistaken policy to say, "Now that we've got the airport rail link, we don't really need the car parking that we've got." I believe the opposite to be the case. I believe that, as the airport develops, we will continue to require a proportional increase in car parking facilities. I really do not believe that people who have the flexibility of living anywhere within a broad radius of their place of work because they have a car will ever be able to do without it. Some of them-principally those who live in the city centre, probably those in the broader area of the suburbs and possibly, if public transport is good enough, those along the radial routes-might be able to do without a car. As the radial routes spread out, away from the city, so does the area in which people can currently live conveniently because of cars. Those areas do not have large enough populations to justify their own first-class public transport services, so I really do not see the car ever being phased out, whatever form it may take.
Christine Grahame: You make an interesting point that I had not thought about. All the development at the Waverley railway station and the shrinking car parking in town mean that people will need more car parking if they want to travel up to Perth or Inverness by catching the train at the hub at the airport, contrary to what one might think. I had not thought of it that way.
Bruce Young: That is true. In fact, it is possible that modal transfer from the car would be principally along those lines. People who would drive to Perth or Aberdeen might find it more convenient to travel by train if they were able to drop the car off at the airport and take the train from there.
Christine Grahame: Depending on parking charges, I would have thought.
Bruce Young: Yes, obviously.
Mr McGrigor: That was just my point. How great do you consider the relevance of the charges for car parking to be?
Bruce Young: The more expensive car parking is, the less socially inclusive-to use a buzzword-it will be. If you price people out of using car parking facilities, you make those facilities less available to more people, which I am sure is not something that the Scottish Parliament would wish to do.
Mr Gordon: I want to touch on some broader policy issues. Does your association accept that the current situation with the railway industry in this country is such that rail travellers pay the true economic cost of their rail travel?
Bruce Young: I do not think that my association has a view on that.
Peter Spinney: There are massive subsidies.
Mr Gordon: Mr Spinney was shaking his head as you declined to comment, Mr Young, so I will ask him about this, if I may.
Peter Spinney: You certainly may. The railway gets massive subsidies. Drivers get none at all.
Mr Gordon: I was going to come on to drivers. Do you take the view that drivers pay the true economic cost of their road use, including the cost of congestion, pollution and accidents?
Peter Spinney: I would not go quite that far, but bearing in mind how little is being done to the roads I think that £40 billion ought to go quite a long way, and that is what we pay.
Mr Gordon: Do you accept that it is not easy to compare the true cost of rail use with the true cost of road use?
Peter Spinney: It is almost impossible to make such a comparison because of the rail fare system. I would defy you to do so, given the numerous factors involved, which can vary greatly.
Mr Gordon: Do you accept that, by buying a ticket, the rail user pays for the cost of accidents, maintenance and infrastructure investment on the rail network, which avoids the development of congestion?
Peter Spinney: No, sir, I do not. I will explain why. To travel to the Parliament today, I bought a return ticket from the far side of Glasgow for £7.50. I could not begin to get near that with a car.
Mr Gordon: Your trip today was too cheap.
Peter Spinney: Certainly-that is my point. It is very difficult to compare the cost of rail travel with the cost of road travel.
Bruce Young: If the railways required no subsidy whatever and were able to clear their feet and invest for the future on the ticket take, they would begin to make the sort of contribution that road users make and on which they do not get a full return.
There is a body of professional engineers in the UK who advocate tarmacing the railway network to provide lorry-specific routes. A lane of trucks-which are all speed limited anyway-could be run in either direction. Those engineers maintain that that would be a far better use of the mileage of train track than is being achieved by running trains on it.
Mr Gordon: Our consensus on the railways is that we would not have started from here.
The Convener: I am not sure that we want to go much further down that line. We have moved off the subject of the Edinburgh airport rail link. As members have no further questions about the specifics of the project, do either of the witnesses have anything to say to us that they feel has not been covered in questioning?
Bruce Young: Yes. Our invitation to give evidence told us that we would be talking mainly about congestion, the railway infrastructure and the proposed new link, but when I framed our written evidence, I expressed concern about cost/benefit and possible cost inflation.
There are three aspects of cost inflation that require to be addressed. The first is that the present estimates are by no means exhaustive. TIE Ltd has said that a number of works have not yet been identified. There will be a requirement for compulsory purchase and I do not know whether the amount of money that has been set aside for that-if any has been-will be anything like the final figure.
Secondly, although the promoter has made provision for an increase in cost from £496.9 million in quarter 4 of 2004 to an indexed forecast of £609.9 million, I do not know whether the inflation rate that has been applied is adequate to meet construction cost inflation between now and when the work is done. Such inflation has got nothing to do with the retail prices index and relates largely to the amount of competitive construction work that is being undertaken in the UK. The London Olympics venture will be a massive drain on resources nationally and if the Edinburgh tram network goes ahead, there will be local competition.
The third point is about optimism bias, or what an accountant would call contingencies. Professor Bent Flyvbjerg wrote a very interesting book, published by Cambridge University Press, which was reviewed in The Times some time ago. It said that public works are consistently and endemically underpriced at the outset to get approval. We certainly know from the tramline experience that that was TIE's policy for the tram network. I have produced copies of The Times review, which is very readable and entertaining. It is important that members are aware of the potential for cost optimism.
I have also noted that TIE made provision for optimism bias but it looks to me from the increase from £497 million to £610 million that it did not take into account the full amount recommended by the Department for Transport guidelines for rail infrastructure, which is to provide an 80 per cent confidence that the project will be within cost. It requires a 57 per cent optimism bias, which TIE has not yet built into the figures.
The Convener: You are making very valid points, but we will take evidence on the cost of the project in a fortnight's time, and those are the very issues that we will want to raise with the promoter. I am sure that we will get evidence from the other witnesses that we have called for that particular day. However, it is useful for you to have pointed that out to us and we will be returning to the issue in great detail in a fortnight.
Bruce Young: That is good. It is quite important. I have done copies of the article for each member of the committee. It also makes the point that, over the years, projects that have massively overrun have turned out to be quite a good thing, but Professor Flyvbjerg believes strongly that, in reviewing projects, a tight grip must be maintained on cost. I am pleased to hear that you are going to do that.
The Convener: We can think of a particular project very close to us here where that would apply.
I thank you both very much indeed for coming to give us evidence this afternoon. It has been useful.
Back To Bruce's Campaigns Page SCOTTISH HOME PAGE Back to EARL Preamble