ABD evidence

THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH DRIVERS

IN SCOTLAND

Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill

Evidence by The Association of British Drivers

1. Summary

a. . . . . . The Association of British Drivers thanks the Scottish Parliament for the opportunity to contribute evidence to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee.

b. . . . . We particularly welcome the improvement of rail transport to and from Edinburgh Airport as this will not add to existing road traffic and may even reduce it.

c. . . . . . However, we question the extent to which it is likely to change the pattern of traffic to and from the airport and, consequently, the cost/benefit of this scheme.

d. . . . . In particular, we believe that, from almost all parts of the city, the airport can be reached faster, cheaper and more conveniently by car than by train and this is likely to discourage those with access to either a car or taxi from transferring their custom to the train.

e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We also believe that the most significant group of travellers to use the rail link is likely to be independently-travelling leisure passengers travelling between the airport and a Scottish town or city other than Edinburgh. However, we believe that such travellers from beyond Edinburgh will appreciate the availability of this improved airport access. Our reasons for this view are detailed below.

f. . . . . . . We therefore believe that the rail link will have only a relatively minor benefit to Scotland's economy.

2. We recommend that the rail link project should neither encourage nor require a reduction in facilities at the airport for cars and taxis.

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the invitation to submit evidence to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, we note that cars are not mentioned in the reference to creating a transport "hub" although bicycles are included. We trust that this is an oversight as cars currently provide transport to the airport for major user groups, whereas we are not aware at all of any air passengers using a bicycle to travel to or from the airport.

b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because it provides a direct journey between home and the airport at precisely the optimum time to connect with the flight and regardless of the time of day, the car or taxi is the fastest and most flexible, convenient and widely available method of transport to and from the airport. Improvements to facilities will continue to be required both for parking and delivery to / collection from the airport of passengers as airport traffic grows. The need to make a separate journey to the centre of Edinburgh to catch a train will make the rail link uncompetitive for most local airport users.

c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At present, the new short term multi-storey car park and long stay facilities, both on- and off-site, meet the needs of car-delivered passengers but we would recommend that these should not be curtailed or otherwise restricted as part of the effort to "convert" passengers to public transport. Such a move would restrict choice and make journey times less efficient. It would also unnecessarily restrict Edinburgh's attraction as a business base.

d. . . . . . . . . . . Even after introduction of the rail link, we anticipate that many passengers will still not have adequate access to public transport to the airport, particularly for early morning / evening departures and arrivals.

e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We note the anticipated growth in use of Edinburgh Airport in Tie's Press Release "Key sectors report strong support for EARL, 22nd February, 2006" (Taken from their website, that) "At present, Edinburgh airport caters for some eight million passengers a year, with numbers set to increase dramatically over the next decade."
We are therefore concerned that further development of the existing car access to the airport and parking should not be neglected on the false assumption that car journeys to the airport will not grow proportionally as a result of the development of the rail link.

3. Cost/benefit issues

a. . . . . . . . . . . . An estimate of £500 million has been mooted as the cost of the project but we note from the Promoter's Memorandum that some works have not yet been identified and we assume that, as yet, the cost of the project has not been established in any detail.

b. . . . . . . . . . . . . Furthermore, there must be considerable potential for substantial increase in project costs including construction cost inflation due to the very high demand imposed locally by the tram project and nationally by the London Olympic project over the same period.

c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Even were this identified cost of £500 million achievable, we question whether this project comprises good value for money and recommend that a genuinely independent review of the cost / benefit of the project should be instructed, bearing in mind the adverse results of a similar enquiry into the Glasgow Airport rail link, which found that it would lose money despite being a simpler scheme.

4. Demand Issues

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . We question the claim in Tie's Press Release "EARL Bill introduced to Scottish Parliament, 17th of March, 2006" (Taken from their website, that) "EARL will enable over 40% of airport users to leave their cars behind and access the airport via public transport, which will mean approximately 4.4 million passengers using EARL annually by 2026."
We would be interested to see how this conclusion was reached. We believe it to be based on an oversimplification which ignores the "weighting" of passenger movements by type of passenger.

b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Airport passenger numbers comprise principally business travellers (and particularly those who fly regularly for business purposes), who generally require both early and late flights so that they can productively use most of the working day either at their destination or before departure.
Mid morning and afternoon flight tickets are available cheaply because demand then is light. Ironically, it is while airline demand is light that public transport of all types is most readily available.
By flying outside the normal working day, business travellers make the most productive use of their time but public transport is then less likely to be available to meet that demand.

c. Conversely, at these times, roads are not busy so journey times are good.

d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Even business journeys in the course of the working day require as short as possible a journey time from office to airport (or vice versa) to minimise unproductive time while travelling so the additional journey time required between office and Waverley station would disadvantage EARL compared with taxi or private car journey direct to the airport.

e. . . . . . . . . . . . . We believe that organised tour groups visiting Edinburgh or leaving it by Edinburgh Airport will generally not use the train link because tourist groups can be more easily managed by using a charter coach direct between hotel and airport.

f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because we believe that most business users, organised tour groups and Edinburgh residents are unlikely to change to train use, we conclude that a reduction of 40% of airport users would be extremely optimistic.

g. . . . . . . The economic benefit to Scotland of EARL is therefore likely to be relatively low as the rail link will have little impact on either business or organised tourism use of the airport.

h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We suspect that Tie's enthusiasm for the project has exceeded realistic expectations and we recommend that the Rail Link Bill Committee should commission a genuinely independent and more detailed analysis of existing airport user numbers, by
i. whether journey is business or leisure,
ii. if leisure, whether independent or group-led,
iii. time of day,
iv. current method of transport to and from the airport and
v. Where journey starts and ends. (Note - this should be the passenger's journey start and end, not the railway station from which he or she would travel).

5. Local demand

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The airport is heavily used by "local" travellers and of these, those living in west Edinburgh are relatively close and conveniently placed for travel by car, taxi or airport bus as an alternative to train. For most others resident in Edinburgh, their journey convenience and timing would not be improved by the availability of this rail project which would be direct only to or from the city centre.
Similarly, by using the City Bypass, those living in the broad hinterland from the south-west of Edinburgh through to the south-east of the city can travel conveniently by taxi or car but would have no benefit from the rail link between the airport and the city centre unless they first made an additional journey into the city centre to catch the train. Both Waverley and Haymarket have very limited parking facilities, even short term.
As an illustration, our local co-ordinator worked in the London area for about half of his working year and commuted regularly by air. He lives in West Linton, 25 minutes from the airport by car. Like most other "commuters" 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. He returned on an evening flight when the same situation applied.

b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inbound or outbound, we believe that local demand for the railway between the airport and Edinburgh City Centre would be minimal, as it would serve only final destinations close to Haymarket or Waverley Stations, which themselves are in a part of the city with restricted road facilities. For many Edinburgh residents, the airport bus and, eventually, tram would serve a greater number of destinations close to the railway line into Edinburgh.

c. . . . . . . . . . . . For inbound travellers from the airport, we do not believe that the train would offer sufficient reduction in journey time to many destinations within Edinburgh to justify taking the train then transferring to a bus or taxi to complete the journey to the actual destination.

6. Inter-city demand

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We believe that EARL will also have a relatively low benefit to business travellers travelling to the airport from outside Edinburgh on the grounds of the anti-social journey times mentioned above, low demand for (and therefore poor availability of) inter-city trains at these times and the additional time required to travel to their local station to catch the train.

b. . . . . . . . . . . . . For instance, due to the M90 motorway and its quality of life, Perth is increasingly becoming an air-commuter dormitory and, although rail services from Perth are available, train times are unlikely to synchronise with regular business users' requirements.

c. . . . . . . . . . . . . The comments raised above for local travellers in organised tour groups also apply to those starting their tour from outside Edinburgh - the organisers will manage them more easily on a chartered coach.

d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We therefore believe that the largest group of travellers likely to use the train is independently travelling leisure passengers either flying in to the airport or outbound but from other parts of Scotland. We believe that these will most benefit from EARL as local taxis could take them to their local railway station or collect them from it.

e. However, its frequency of use would be restricted to occasional holidays and weekend breaks.

7. Route of Proposed Lines

We are unable to see the benefit of the new line to the east of the airport at Gogar where it would join the existing Fife/Edinburgh line which then joins the existing Glasgow/Edinburgh line as shown on the plan (Taken from their website) This appears to duplicate the line to the east of the airport at Gogarbank where it would join the existing Glasgow/ Edinburgh line direct.
The former therefore appears to increase the project cost unnecessarily.

8. Concerns about tunnel running under runway.

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We understand Edinburgh Airport to have only one runway able to carry heavy commercial traffic. Although Heathrow Airport and others have tunnels below a main runway, we understand there to be particular risks in tunnelling below the runway at a single runway airport like Edinburgh.

b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We note from (their website, now delete - a plan) which shows a diagram of the proposed additional rail lines, that the tunnel would run under the main runway, the main hardstanding area and a length of the original runway, which is used mainly by light aircraft and which runs from just north of the terminal buildings east to the corner of the airfield at the Gogar junction. We are conscious of the risks of damage to both tunnel and aircraft landing during the construction of the tunnel and wonder whether the availability of insurance cover has yet been investigated as we are concerned that, if available, it may be onerous.

c. . . . . . . . . Alternatively, we think it unlikely that the airport could cancel flying during the extended period of sensitive construction.

Back To Bruce's Campaigns Page	SCOTTISH HOME PAGE
Back to EARL Preamble

a. . . . . .	The Association of British Drivers thanks the Scottish Parliament for the opportunity to contribute evidence to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee.
b. . . . .	We particularly welcome the improvement of rail transport to and from Edinburgh Airport as this will not add to existing road traffic and may even reduce it.
c. . . . . .	However, we question the extent to which it is likely to change the pattern of traffic to and from the airport and, consequently, the cost/benefit of this scheme.
d. . . . .	In particular, we believe that, from almost all parts of the city, the airport can be reached faster, cheaper and more conveniently by car than by train and this is likely to discourage those with access to either a car or taxi from transferring their custom to the train.
e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We also believe that the most significant group of travellers to use the rail link is likely to be independently-travelling leisure passengers travelling between the airport and a Scottish town or city other than Edinburgh. However, we believe that such travellers from beyond Edinburgh will appreciate the availability of this improved airport access. Our reasons for this view are detailed below.
f. . . . . . .	We therefore believe that the rail link will have only a relatively minor benefit to Scotland's economy.

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	In the invitation to submit evidence to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, we note that cars are not mentioned in the reference to creating a transport "hub" although bicycles are included. We trust that this is an oversight as cars currently provide transport to the airport for major user groups, whereas we are not aware at all of any air passengers using a bicycle to travel to or from the airport.
b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Because it provides a direct journey between home and the airport at precisely the optimum time to connect with the flight and regardless of the time of day, the car or taxi is the fastest and most flexible, convenient and widely available method of transport to and from the airport. Improvements to facilities will continue to be required both for parking and delivery to / collection from the airport of passengers as airport traffic grows. The need to make a separate journey to the centre of Edinburgh to catch a train will make the rail link uncompetitive for most local airport users.
c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	At present, the new short term multi-storey car park and long stay facilities, both on- and off-site, meet the needs of car-delivered passengers but we would recommend that these should not be curtailed or otherwise restricted as part of the effort to "convert" passengers to public transport. Such a move would restrict choice and make journey times less efficient. It would also unnecessarily restrict Edinburgh's attraction as a business base.
d. . . . . . . . . . .	Even after introduction of the rail link, we anticipate that many passengers will still not have adequate access to public transport to the airport, particularly for early morning / evening departures and arrivals.
e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We note the anticipated growth in use of Edinburgh Airport in Tie's Press Release "Key sectors report strong support for EARL, 22nd February, 2006" (Taken from their website, that) "At present, Edinburgh airport caters for some eight million passengers a year, with numbers set to increase dramatically over the next decade." We are therefore concerned that further development of the existing car access to the airport and parking should not be neglected on the false assumption that car journeys to the airport will not grow proportionally as a result of the development of the rail link.

a. . . . . . . . . . . .	An estimate of £500 million has been mooted as the cost of the project but we note from the Promoter's Memorandum that some works have not yet been identified and we assume that, as yet, the cost of the project has not been established in any detail.
b. . . . . . . . . . . . .	Furthermore, there must be considerable potential for substantial increase in project costs including construction cost inflation due to the very high demand imposed locally by the tram project and nationally by the London Olympic project over the same period.
c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Even were this identified cost of £500 million achievable, we question whether this project comprises good value for money and recommend that a genuinely independent review of the cost / benefit of the project should be instructed, bearing in mind the adverse results of a similar enquiry into the Glasgow Airport rail link, which found that it would lose money despite being a simpler scheme.

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .	We question the claim in Tie's Press Release "EARL Bill introduced to Scottish Parliament, 17th of March, 2006" (Taken from their website, that) "EARL will enable over 40% of airport users to leave their cars behind and access the airport via public transport, which will mean approximately 4.4 million passengers using EARL annually by 2026." We would be interested to see how this conclusion was reached. We believe it to be based on an oversimplification which ignores the "weighting" of passenger movements by type of passenger.
b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Airport passenger numbers comprise principally business travellers (and particularly those who fly regularly for business purposes), who generally require both early and late flights so that they can productively use most of the working day either at their destination or before departure. Mid morning and afternoon flight tickets are available cheaply because demand then is light. Ironically, it is while airline demand is light that public transport of all types is most readily available. By flying outside the normal working day, business travellers make the most productive use of their time but public transport is then less likely to be available to meet that demand.
c.	Conversely, at these times, roads are not busy so journey times are good.
d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Even business journeys in the course of the working day require as short as possible a journey time from office to airport (or vice versa) to minimise unproductive time while travelling so the additional journey time required between office and Waverley station would disadvantage EARL compared with taxi or private car journey direct to the airport.
e. . . . . . . . . . . . .	We believe that organised tour groups visiting Edinburgh or leaving it by Edinburgh Airport will generally not use the train link because tourist groups can be more easily managed by using a charter coach direct between hotel and airport.
f. . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Because we believe that most business users, organised tour groups and Edinburgh residents are unlikely to change to train use, we conclude that a reduction of 40% of airport users would be extremely optimistic.
g. . . . . . .	The economic benefit to Scotland of EARL is therefore likely to be relatively low as the rail link will have little impact on either business or organised tourism use of the airport.
h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We suspect that Tie's enthusiasm for the project has exceeded realistic expectations and we recommend that the Rail Link Bill Committee should commission a genuinely independent and more detailed analysis of existing airport user numbers, by i. whether journey is business or leisure, ii. if leisure, whether independent or group-led, iii. time of day, iv. current method of transport to and from the airport and v. Where journey starts and ends. (Note - this should be the passenger's journey start and end, not the railway station from which he or she would travel).

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	The airport is heavily used by "local" travellers and of these, those living in west Edinburgh are relatively close and conveniently placed for travel by car, taxi or airport bus as an alternative to train. For most others resident in Edinburgh, their journey convenience and timing would not be improved by the availability of this rail project which would be direct only to or from the city centre. Similarly, by using the City Bypass, those living in the broad hinterland from the south-west of Edinburgh through to the south-east of the city can travel conveniently by taxi or car but would have no benefit from the rail link between the airport and the city centre unless they first made an additional journey into the city centre to catch the train. Both Waverley and Haymarket have very limited parking facilities, even short term. As an illustration, our local co-ordinator worked in the London area for about half of his working year and commuted regularly by air. He lives in West Linton, 25 minutes from the airport by car. Like most other "commuters" 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. He returned on an evening flight when the same situation applied.
b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Inbound or outbound, we believe that local demand for the railway between the airport and Edinburgh City Centre would be minimal, as it would serve only final destinations close to Haymarket or Waverley Stations, which themselves are in a part of the city with restricted road facilities. For many Edinburgh residents, the airport bus and, eventually, tram would serve a greater number of destinations close to the railway line into Edinburgh.
c. . . . . . . . . . . .	For inbound travellers from the airport, we do not believe that the train would offer sufficient reduction in journey time to many destinations within Edinburgh to justify taking the train then transferring to a bus or taxi to complete the journey to the actual destination.

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We believe that EARL will also have a relatively low benefit to business travellers travelling to the airport from outside Edinburgh on the grounds of the anti-social journey times mentioned above, low demand for (and therefore poor availability of) inter-city trains at these times and the additional time required to travel to their local station to catch the train.
b. . . . . . . . . . . . .	For instance, due to the M90 motorway and its quality of life, Perth is increasingly becoming an air-commuter dormitory and, although rail services from Perth are available, train times are unlikely to synchronise with regular business users' requirements.
c. . . . . . . . . . . . .	The comments raised above for local travellers in organised tour groups also apply to those starting their tour from outside Edinburgh - the organisers will manage them more easily on a chartered coach.
d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We therefore believe that the largest group of travellers likely to use the train is independently travelling leisure passengers either flying in to the airport or outbound but from other parts of Scotland. We believe that these will most benefit from EARL as local taxis could take them to their local railway station or collect them from it.
e.	However, its frequency of use would be restricted to occasional holidays and weekend breaks.

a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We understand Edinburgh Airport to have only one runway able to carry heavy commercial traffic. Although Heathrow Airport and others have tunnels below a main runway, we understand there to be particular risks in tunnelling below the runway at a single runway airport like Edinburgh.
b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	We note from (their website, now delete - a plan) which shows a diagram of the proposed additional rail lines, that the tunnel would run under the main runway, the main hardstanding area and a length of the original runway, which is used mainly by light aircraft and which runs from just north of the terminal buildings east to the corner of the airfield at the Gogar junction. We are conscious of the risks of damage to both tunnel and aircraft landing during the construction of the tunnel and wonder whether the availability of insurance cover has yet been investigated as we are concerned that, if available, it may be onerous.
c. . . . . . . . .	Alternatively, we think it unlikely that the airport could cancel flying during the extended period of sensitive construction.