GROUP 43 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA E LEAD OBJECTOR: …

GROUP 43 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA E

LEAD OBJECTOR: WESTER COATES TERRACE ACTION GROUP PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT

GARY TURNER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Bridge Clearances 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald

Edinburgh. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have been in my present post for 2 years. Prior to that I was a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald Newcastle and have a total of 17 years working in the Highway and Transportation field. I have built up an expertise in tram schemes through projects in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Tees Valley as well as Edinburgh.

1.2 The projects I have been instrumental in include highway schemes,

heavy rail schemes and light rail. Within the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 (ETL1) scheme I have taken the role of Stakeholder Manager for the technical support team. I have been actively involved with liaison groups aimed at informing the community and stakeholders on the process and progress of the proposed tram scheme currently before the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses: Bridge Clearances (ii) Provision of structures (iii) Existing clearances (iv) Requirement for tram (v) Widening of underline structures 3. Bridge Clearances Provision of structures

3.1 At present there are 11 structures along the Roseburn Corridor. These

comprise of 5 overline bridges (bridges that the tram will travel over): Ravelston Dykes Bridge St Georges School Access Road Bridge Queensferry Road Bridge Telford Road Bridge Holiday Inn Access Bridge And 4 underline bridges (bridges that the tram will travel under): Roseburn Terrace Railway Bridge Coltbridge Viaduct Craigleith Drive Bridge Groathill Road South Bridge and 2 footbridges: St Georges Road Footbridge Telford Drive/Easter Drylaw Drive Footbridge.

3.2 Subject to the engineering requirements of the scheme, and the condition of the bridges, it is proposed that all of the structures will be retained with the exception of the Telford Drive/Easter Drylaw Drive Footbridge. This footbridge is deemed redundant and will be demolished and an at grade access to the corridor created.

Existing clearances 3.3 The square span (width) of the overline bridge structures is nominally

9m. The clearance requirements for the tram alignment have been discussed with HMRI and generally a walkway/cycleway can be accommodated adjacent to the tram corridor at a width of around 3m. Therefore, the overline structures are able to accommodate the tram and the walkway/cycleway.

3.4 The width of the underline structures is nominally 8m. To accommodate the tram and the walkway/cycleway the bridge deck will be widened. Generally this is proposed to be done asymmetrically, (i.e. to one side). For aesthetic reasons Coltbridge Viaduct will be widened symmetrically, i.e. on both sides. This can be done by widening the

existing bridge deck or by the use of a separate lightweight structure alongside the existing deck. The final proposals will be developed during detailed design.

Requirement for tram 3.5 The clearance requirements for tram alignments are given in the

Railway Safety Principles and Guidance part 2, section G, Guidance on Tramways. Discussions on the interpretation of these guidance notes have been held with the HMRI and the proposals for the tram alignment through the overline bridges developed. The overline bridge structures, where the available width will introduce a reduction in the walkway cycleway width, are:

• Ravelston Dykes • St George’s School • Queensferry Road • Telford Road

3.6 The physical clearances through these structures will be based on a combination of the following: Track alignment through the structure Constraints on the approach to the structure Sightlines

3.7 The current alignment has developed the clearances for the walkway/cycleway as follows: Ravelston Dykes 2.80m St George’s School 2.90m Queensferry Road 2.70m Telford Road 2.55m

3.8 Further refinement of the design will be undertaken as the specification

for the tramcar is finalised and the precise locations of other features such as fencing, overhead line columns and noise mitigation measures (if required) are determined. These refinements will be developed by the detailed design team and the operator and will be subject to ongoing discussion with HMRI to confirm their safety and acceptability. The overall objective will be to combine a safe alignment for both the tramway and the walkway/cycleway, with the widest walkway possible, given the physical constraints of the bridges. It is proposed that a continuous 3m walkway/cycleway can be accommodated throughout the length of the Roseburn Corridor with reductions in this width being constrained to acceptable limits at these structures. Ongoing discussions are being held with organisations such as SPOKES as well as HMRI on the width availability. It is worthy of note that of the 3

kilometres of corridor under consideration only 4 bridges require to be developed in this way.

4. Conclusion

4.1 A continuous surfaced walkway/cycleway will be provided throughout

the Roseburn Corridor. Where the tramroad passes beneath 4 of the existing structures, the cycleway walkway will be locally narrowed from 3m reducing the width by approximately 10 to 45cm.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005



GARY TURNER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Error in submitted plans 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Error in submitted plans (i) Data based on most current OS information (ii) Aerial survey work undertaken 3. Error in submitted plans Data based on most current OS information

3.1 The Parliamentary Plans are based upon Ordnance Survey Mapping current at the time. At the time that the STAG drawings and parliamentary plans were drawn up, the OS data that was used was in the October 2003 version of Land-Line mapping from OS. This mapping does not reflect the extension to some properties.

Aerial survey work undertaken 3.2 In parallel with the preparation of these drawings we have undertaken a

more detailed topographical survey within the tram Limits of Deviation which has, in part, been obtained from aerial photography. This aerial survey does include the correct outline of the buildings including extensions and this outline has been used in all preliminary design development work and assessments e.g. noise and vibration assessments.

4. Conclusion

4.1 The omission of property extensions in the submitted plans is inherent

from the OS base data used. This factor does not materially affect the results of the work carried out as aerial survey work undertaken included the information required in developing the scheme. This information will continue to be used in the detailed design process.


1 \\Edn-app-001\Users\PUBLIC\!Work Pending\Tram 1 docs\43\promoter\2\Grp 43 - PROM GT lack of security.doc



GARY TURNER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Lack of security due to increased use of corridor 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Lack of security due to increased use of corridor (i) Improve security through tram operations (ii) CCTV proposals (iii) Experiences elsewhere 3. Lack of security due to increased use of corridor Improve security through tram operations


3.1 Residents have expressed concern that the introduction of tram to the corridor will increase crime to the area and will impact on the accessibility to the corridor for the police. It is the promoter's belief that safety and security will be improved through the introduction of tram. This in part will be due to the improved accesses and a consistent level of illumination leading to an increased level of general footfall as well as tram users, and in part due to the presence of the tram itself. It has been found elsewhere that the presence of the tram itself, with its driver and passengers, acts as a deterrent to anti social behaviour, a number of German cities [including Karlesruhe and Freiburg] have been keen to maintain their tramways in pedestrianised town centres for precisely this reason.

3.2 All tram drivers will have 2-way radio communication with the Edinburgh Tram control centre available to them at all times. They will thus be able to report anti-social behaviour to the Police, via the control centre. This is applicable for both on board the tram as well as along the corridor. Stops will be covered by monitored, recording CCTV and the system may be extended to other locations if required.

3.3 The Edinburgh Tram operators will have roving staff to patrol the system. Access along the corridor will continue to exist throughout its length with the tram proposals and improved access. And illumination will assist patrolling forces. This patrolling will be in addition to the existing patrolling in the Roseburn area, provided by the Lothians and Borders Police. It is the promoter’s contention that the additional security measures listed will make the Roseburn Railway Corridor a safe area for genuine users of the corridor and an unattractive area for those wishing to behave in an anti social manner. Planting along the edges of the corridor, wherever practical, will include blackthorn, dog rose and hawthorn acting as deterrent species thus reinstating a natural deterrent to trespass into adjoining gardens as well as providing foraging and habitat for wildlife.

CCTV proposals 3.4 As part of the general operation of the tram system it is proposed that

tram stops will be equipped with CCTV with recording facilities. This will enable operations and security staff to monitor stops and other locations around the system and, if required, to call on Police and/or security staff as appropriate. The recording system will be of high security and can be used in a law court as evidence in any prosecution. The tram cars will have recording CCTV, this may include forward facing, external view cameras, thus permitting the Edinburgh Tram operator to record anti-social behaviour on, or about, the tramway.

Experiences elsewhere 3.5 It has been the experience on other tramway schemes in the UK that

fears of increased anti-social activity around tram stops and walkways have not materialised, nor have the tram tracks been used as a means


of access to adjoining gardens. Particular fears were expressed in Croydon during the passage of the Croydon Tramlink Bill through Parliament. A number of large private houses, with extensive garden grounds, backed onto the disused railway that was reactivated to form the line of route from New Addington. New Addington is a socially disadvantaged area with high crime rates. Residents of the houses in the former railway corridor expressed similar fears to those brought forward by residents alongside the Roseburn Railway Corridor. The situation was monitored during the early period of operation of Tramlink and no evidence was found that the tramway was attracting vandals or increasing crime to the former railway alignment.

4. Conclusion 4.1 There is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of tram

passengers to areas such as the Roseburn Corridor will increase antisocial behaviour or crime. The promoter would contend that tram operations within the Roseburn Corridor will improve the security situation for neighbouring properties and users of the walkway/cycleway and anecdotal evidence from other schemes would uphold this.




GARY TURNER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Local accessibility 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Local accessibility (i) Rights of way (ii) DDA compliant access 3. Local accessibility 3.1 Rights of way

The promoter is not seeking powers to stop up any existing public rights of way within the Roseburn Corridor. An important aspect of the function of the corridor is as a walkway/cycleway and as such access onto it for walkers and cyclists is particularly important. All formal public access points have been identified and these will be retained as close as possible to their existing position. Some new access points will also be created. Proposals for access are indicated in the LHMP, further surveys will be undertaken to define them in more detail during detailed design.

3.2 DDA compliant access

Existing access arrangements to tram stops from adjacent streets will be improved in accordance with the appropriate Disability Discrimination Regulations affording high quality accessibility for all groups of users. Access will remain along the walkway/cycleway which will be realigned alongside the entire length of the tramway within the Roseburn Corridor giving greater access to a wider group of users.

4. Conclusion 4.1 The Promoter is not seeking powers to stop up any existing public

rights of way within the Roseburn Corridor. Existing access arrangements to tram stops from adjacent streets will be improved in accordance with the appropriate Disability Discrimination Regulations affording high quality accessibility for all groups of users.




GARY TURNER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Loss of garden 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses Loss of garden (i) Works wholly in LoD (ii) Title of LoD with CEC (iii) Unknown title 3. Loss of garden 3.1 Works wholly in LoD

Objectors are concerned that elements of the tram proposal, such as Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) support poles, will be built outside the Limits of Deviation in the Roseburn Corridor and utilise their gardens. This would appear to have emanated from the P5 1:500 STAG drawings where symbols indicating the potential type of OLE support poles are seen adjacent to, or in some cases in the mapping area of private gardens and outside the LoD. The OLE on these drawings is indicative of the type of OLE that may be used and was not intended to reflect either the actual type or location. The promoter wishes to assure objectors that no works associated with the Roseburn Corridor will be constructed outside the limits and that the construction and operation of the tram road will be carried out wholly within the Limits of Deviation and that NO OLE infrastructure will be placed outwith the LoD.

3.2 Unknown title The plot ownerships in dispute are shown on Figure 1 and lie between the Limits of Deviation and the boundary of ownership held by the City of Edinburgh Council. These plots are contained in the Book of reference as being of unknown ownership. The Promoter went to considerable efforts to try and establish the ownership pf these plots. We believe this strip of land may have formed part of the former railway boundary. Network Rail, Council, BRB (Residuary) Limited, Buccleuch Estates, or the housing developer who built the adjoining houses have not claimed to own or know who owns this strip of land. We have examined title plans where available along this stretch and this confirms that this land is not within the ownership of the adjacent property. Sasines results do not include a plan of the land and so are ambiguous. We have made enquiries with several of the adjoining properties and they were unable to reveal who owned the adjoining land. The unknown ownership may have derived from a conveyancing error some time ago. In our opinion the land is not owned by any of the adjoining properties, several registered title extents for the houses, show the land in question does not form part of the title. Further investigations are being carried out.

4. Conclusion The tram construction and operation will not require the compulsory purchase of any private gardens bounding the Roseburn Railway Corridor.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald


LEAD OBJECTOR: WESTER COATES TERRACE ACTION GROUP PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT IAN KENDALL

1 Resume

1.1 I am Ian Kendall, tie’s Implementation Director for Tram Line 2, and I have been in the tie team since August 2003. I have a BEng (Civil), an MEngSc (Geotechnical) and an MBA.

1.2 Prior to joining tie, I was Managing Director of Amey plc’s light rail business and before that with Tramtrack Croydon Limited (TCL) for 4 years during which time I was the Project Director for the development of the Croydon Tramlink. I all I have been a Director of TCL for a total of 6 years during construction and operations.

1.3 During my time with Amey I was involved in light rail projects and the

development of heavy rail and busway projects. I led final stages of £650m bid for the BBC property outsourcing and was responsible Concession Company Director for consolidating potential takeover and restructuring of £225m Croydon Tramlink.

1.4 I took responsibility for Amey’s light rail interests in bidding for

Manchester Metrolink and Leeds Tramlink and Developed additional business interests using the light rail customer base.with MTRC & Semaly. I worked with high profile developers to create business opportunities involving guided busway to release property value in two different locations (Elstow and Cambridge) and developed concepts for property and infrastructure fund.

1.5 At TLC I was Project Director and sole Executive Director and led all

aspects of the bid, including negotiation and construction phases for the Croydon Tramlink project (circa £225m) in South London. This process included resolving disputes in favour of the concession company. I was involved in both developing and managing this contract.

1.6 The Tramlink project included the pre-assessment of structures prior to

developing 28km of tramway through disused railways, parkland and one of the UK’s largest shopping centre outside of London, including 3.5km on street through historically sensitive environments. The project needed to extensively reinstate the surrounding areas to comply with

parliamentary undertakings and in accordance with planning approvals and good industry practice.

1.7 Before joining TCL I was involved with PFI projects in Australia with a

major construction company. I Reported to the Director of Civil Engineering Australia, and was involved in developing long-term maintenance contract pricing and risk strategy for assets of value exceeding $2bn. I undertook risk and contingency bid pricing on all major infrastructure projects, developed GBS alliance with Aker/Norwegian Contractors for NW Shelf applications and developed mineral resources feasibility modelling and risk assessments. Whilst there I developed marketing and operations strategy for the company’s civil engineering and railway division and was responsible for the development of major strategic initiatives including PFI, offshore alliances and project finance deals focusing on transport, water/wastewater, gold mining and offshore oil & gas.

1.8 Prior to this I worked at Thiess Construction, Sydney, Australia as

Development Manager. There I Developed bids for off-balance sheet project finance projects including water/wastewater, public building, prison and transport and reported to the Director of Environmental Services and Managing Director on major commercial issues and achieved Board approvals for projects. I Developed financial models with risk analysis using stochastic probability methods and was responsible for the management of all aspects of day-to-day interface between the project teams and the banks.

1.9 I have also gained management experience at CRM Management

Consultants in Australia and New Zealand where I developed feasibility for airport internationalisation, hotels and property developments and Project managed hotel refurbishment, dairy factories, earth dam, mineral resources and earthquake protection projects.

2 Scope of Evidence

2.1 My evidence addresses damage to property during construction.

2.2 My evidence will relate to the actions to be taken and remedies available during the construction phase of the project in relation to damage to property.

2.3 My evidence does not cover and aspect of property damage which might occur due to system operation and maintenance.

3 Damage to Property in Construction

3.1 tie acknowledges that there is the possibility of damage to property in the course of the construction works for the project, as there is with any construction project of this nature. We do not believe that there are any construction processes involved that are unique to this project and that create a significantly greater risk of damage than on other equivalent projects, e.g. in highway areas.

3.2 tie will arrange for pre-construction condition surveys to be carried out in locations that are appropriate, e.g. where there may be a legitimate concern about the proximity of construction works, or the use of accesses. These may cover the structural condition of buildings, or may be more general in nature, for instance in relation to the condition of landscaping.

3.3 The Code of Construction Practice, which will form part of the contract documentation for the construction contract, addresses the issue of damage.

3.4 The liabilities of the contractor that will be employed by tie to carry out the construction works will be clearly set out in the contract documentation.

3.5 The Code of Construction Practise indicates that the Contractor shall take every reasonable precaution to prevent his operations from unnecessary damage, and states that any damage that is identified as being caused by construction of the tram system shall be repaired within a reasonable time of identification at the expense of the Contractor to the reasonable satisfaction of the property owner and such that the property is returned to the standard of repair and stability existing before construction works commenced.

4 Conclusions

4.1 The concerns raised are acknowledged.

4.2 tie believes that the proposals set out in the Code of Construction Practise should be sufficient to address the concerns raised. Ongoing liaison with potentially-affected parties will continue to ensure avoidance of, or prompt resolution to, areas of concern.

Grp 43 - PROM JH witness statement Page 1 of 6


LEAD OBJECTOR: WESTER COATES TERRACE ACTION GROUP

PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT

JIM HARRIES Issue: Safety/tram speed 1 Resume

I am Jim Harries and I am the Project Engineer for Transdev Edinburgh Tram. I am a Chartered Engineer, a Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, a Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and a Member of the Institute of Logistics and Transport. I was Managing Director of Greater Manchester Metro Ltd. This company set up and operated Metrolink, the first new generation tramway in the UK in Manchester. I commissioned the Lewisham extension to the DLR railway in London and I commissioned the NET tram system in Nottingham.

I have extensive experience in the design, development, construction, commissioning and operation of tramways since 1990. This is drawn from my work on the Metrolink, DLR and NET systems.

My involvement with tie is as an employee of Transdev, working in tie’s offices and supporting tie in the development of the Edinburgh Tram system.

2 Summary

This witness statement should be read in conjunction with the witness statement submitted by Mr Dapré that relates to the operation of trams on the route between Crewe Toll and Balbrinie Place. The issue addressed in this statement is the assumed operating speed of the trams and the associated safety implications.

The processes that will be used in the design and implementation of the tram system will ensure that a safe tram system is implemented in Edinburgh. It is recognised that the speed of the tram is an important factor in the system’s safety.

The separate and independent approval process will also ensure that the design and implementation process is properly undertaken.

Once the system is opened, there is adequate regulation to ensure that safety standards are upheld.

Whilst perfect safety with zero risk is not achievable in anything in this world, the safety record of the many modern tram systems demonstrates that tram systems are inherently “safe”.

3 Operation on line of sight

The way in which trams are driven is similar to bus driving, and totally different to driving a train. Unlike trains, trams are driven on line of sight. This means that they can stop before colliding with obstructions. Trains are unlikely to be able to stop before a collision. This is why train systems are fenced off from the public and signalling systems are used to stop trains from colliding with each other. Trams, like buses, often run on streets where there are pedestrians and many other hazards. Tram driving is best thought of as being similar to driving a bus.

4 Brake performance

Tram brake systems include “track brakes”. These are devices that magnetically attract the rails and the friction between the track brake and the track slows down the tram. The combined effect of both the brakes that act on the tram’s wheels and the track brakes results in an overall brake performance that is equivalent to that of a bus.

5 Tram speed signage and enforcement

Tram speeds on new tram systems are indicated in kilometres per hour, not miles per hour. 50 mph is virtually the same as 80 kph, so care has to be taken when debating tram speeds to avoid any confusion.

Trams are driven on line of sight, relying on the tram driver to judge the available stopping distance. Places where the tram driver’s sight lines are likely to be restricted will be reviewed as part of the design process, and permanent tram speed restrictions will be indicated to the tram driver by installing tram speed restriction signage along the route. Tram drivers are not allowed to exceed these speeds. Their training and the enforcement of driving trams to the speed restrictions is based on the culture in the operation of trains, where any failure to comply with the speed restrictions is treated a serious matter.

6 Tram driver training process and monitoring

Tram driving is a skill that is governed by the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations. All tram driver training courses are fully documented and the assessment of tram drivers is also fully documented. Unlike other road vehicle drivers, tram drivers are subject to a programme of regular monitoring of their performance once they have passed the tram drive training course. This training and monitoring process delivers tram driving standards that are professional, safe and consistent.

7 Incidents involving tram driver speeding

The trams carry an event recorder which is the equivalent of a sophisticated tachograph or flight recorder. This continuously records the tram’s speed and the operation of some of the tram’s controls including the brakes, horn and indicators.

Instances of exceeding the speed limit may be detected as a result of:

1. .Supervisors and staff from the tramway monitoring tram drivers. Any incidents of speeding will be reported.

2. Incident recorder records are checked on a random basis in order to identify incidents of “speeding”.

3. Any reports from the public, regulatory authorities or other third parties

In all cases, the event recorder data can be used to verify whether the speed limit was exceeded or not. Appropriate action and/or retraining will undertaken with any drivers found to be exceeding the speed limits.

8 Incident investigation and the "black box" data recorder on the trams

Information is being continuously recorded by the tramway systems as follows:

1. The data recorder carried on each tram, as explained above

2. The data held centrally by the tramway control system

3. CCTV images both inside the tram and from cameras pointing forwards on each tram

4. CCTV at tramstops

All of this information allows any incident to be reconstructed with a great deal of certainty. The reconstruction of incidents on tramways can be achieved with much greater accuracy than almost any other category of road traffic incidents. This enables the real causes of incidents to be identified with great certainty. Consequently lessons can be learnt in order to reduce the level of risk, and action can be taken with those responsible for the incident when this is appropriate.

9 Tram system design and approval process

9.1 Tram System Design Process

The tram system design process considers all aspects of the tram system, and the speed at which trams operate is a fundamental part of the design process.

In order to deliver the necessary service to passengers on the tram system, rapid journeys are essential. A slow tram system is not attractive to passengers and a slow system will fail to meet its goals from the perspective of passengers, the public, funders and the City Council.

Tram speed limits are influenced by many factors, and are set at a speed that meets all of the following constraints:

1. Driver’s sightlines and stopping distances. These vary with may factors, including:

a. Gradient

b. Tram speed

c. Tram brake performance

d. Visual obstructions

e. Junction design

f. Degree of segregation for other traffic and pedestrians

g. Traffic and pedestrian flows

2. Track geometry and the consequential ride comfort of passengers

3. The performance of the tram itself

4. Occasionally other factors such as noise and vibration can influence the tram speed limit.

9.2 Tram System Approval Process

The Health and Safety Executive’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) is the body that grants permission to operate tram systems. They also ensure that other statutory bodies are content that the system can be operated by consulting directly with them. HMRI will satisfy itself that all aspects of the design and implementation of the tram scheme have identified and addressed all relevant risks.

HMRI is not responsible for the safe operation of the system. This responsibility rests with the tram operator.

HMRI will use their “Railway safety Principles and Guidance, Part G, Tramways” in particular as guidance in their approval process. This document can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/rspg/index.htm .

HMRI will satisfy itself that bodies such as Police, Fire, Ambulance services, the Roads Authority and Network Rail are content with the tram systems prior to approving the operation of the tramway.

The tramway design process will include ongoing dialogue with HMRI and all other relevant bodies in order to ensure that the processes used to establish that all aspects of the design, including the maximum speeds of the trams on the route are safe, robust and acceptable to the approval process.

10 Regulatory regime

The key regulatory authority that has a direct interest in the risks from the speed of the tram once the system is also the Railway Inspectorate (HMRI). However, the part of the HMRI that enforces Health and Safety legislation is separate from the part that operates the approval process. It is normal practice for HMRI to undertake inspections of the tram system once it is open to the public. This is likely to include both formal prearranged inspections and unannounced spot checks. HMRI will also react to any reports from the public that may relate to the safety of the system. HMRI has the full powers to enforce Health and Safety Legislation including issuing Improvement and Prohibition Notices and to prosecute individuals and organisations.

11 Trams are safe

The good safety record of tram systems has been covered in other evidence.

1


LEAD OBJECTOR: WESTER COATES TERRACE ACTION GROUP PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT KAREN RAYMOND Issues covered by this Statement

1. Environmental inputs to route appraisal 2. Visual and amenity impacts of the tram and development of landscaping

proposals. 3. Effects of loss of vegetation on security and privacy and effects of lighting. 4. Development of the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan. 5. Impacts of Tram on Local and Regional Air Quality

I am Karen Raymond, Principal Partner with Environmental Resources Management Limited and Managing Partner of ERM Scotland. I am Director of tie’s Environmental Advisers Team for Edinburgh Tram Line One. I have had overall responsibility for the work ERM has undertaken on Line One since our appointment in 2001 including preparation of the STAG environmental appraisals and the Environmental Statement which accompanied the Line One Bill, and for subsequent work on further development of the proposals. In this capacity I have been responsible for advising tie on the environmental impacts of its proposals and how these may be mitigated, including the impacts of Line One on the Roseburn Corridor. I hold degrees in Chemistry and Environmental Pollution and Control, I have worked in environmental planning and assessment since 1974 and I am registered as a Principal EIA Practitioner with the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management. I have more than 20 years of EIA experience in the transport sector and have been responsible for EIAs of many major developments and for training and preparation of EIA guidance for UK government departments and the European Commission. Issue 1 Environmental Inputs to Selection of the Route along the Roseburn Corridor Andrew Oldfield from Mott MacDonald has described the process of route development undertaken since July 2002 when our team was appointed to develop the proposals for Line One. This followed four main stages insofar as it affects the Roseburn Corridor:

• the sifting of possible route links between West Maitland Street and Ferry Road;

2

• appraisal of four overall loop options including the “Crewe Road” option; • investigation of options along Telford Road; • investigation of further options along Craigleith Road and Crewe Road.

In this part of my evidence I will review the environmental considerations that entered into selection of the proposed route along Roseburn Corridor rather than any alternative route. The overall approach to route selection was designed by other members of the team (Mr Oldfield and Mr Eyles) who will describe the criteria and methods used to appraise options at the different stages. Route Link Sifting On appointment our team’s first task was to review the selection of the preferred route identified in the 2001 NERTS Study carried out for Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd. This was done in two stages; the first was the appraisal of a large number of route links between points along the route to identify more favourable links which could be “strung” together into full loop options, and the second was the appraisal of those loop options. This section describes ERM’s input to the “link sifting” stage. In the western section of the loop some 25 links were considered against four criteria: technical implementability, economy, transport and environment. The links covered routes starting from the A8 at Queensferry Street in the east to those starting at the A8 at Murrayfield Road in the west, and ran north to various points on Ferry Road. They are illustrated in Figure 3.2 in the Work Package 1 Report (Report 203011/0004B December 2002). The environmental appraisal involved identifying the proximity of each link to people and to areas designated as of local, national or international environmental importance which could be directly or indirectly affected by construction and/or operation of the tram. The alternatives to the Roseburn Corridor can conveniently be considered in two parts, first those affecting the southern part, and second those from Queensferry Road north. All the link options between the A8 and Queensferry Road were appraised as presenting similar levels of environmental concern although the details varied, with impacts on the new town being most significant along the links through the west end and impacts on the Roseburn Corridor Urban Wildlife Site influencing the assessment of these options. Although not identified specifically as an environmental factor at that stage the absence of an interchange with heavy rail at Haymarket on the options through the west end, would also be relevant to a wider consideration of environmental sustainability. One on-road route further to the west along Murrayfield Road, Ravelston Dykes, Strachan Road, Telford Road and Groathill Road North, was assessed as least preferred on environmental grounds because of its impact on both the natural and built heritage. Of these southerly alternatives, one, a route along Queensferry Street and Queensferry Road to

3

Orchard Brae, was carried forward to the next stage, together with the Roseburn Corridor option. To the north of Queensferry Road the alternatives to the Roseburn Corridor included Orchard Brae and Crewe Road, Groathill Avenue and Telford Road, and Groathill Road South and North and Ferry Road. In environmental terms all three were assessed as presenting a lower risk of adverse environmental impact than the Roseburn Corridor route. A further alternative through Comely Bank was assessed as least preferred. The route along Orchard Brae and Crewe Road and the Roseburn Corridor option were carried forward to the next stage. Appraisal of Loop Options On balance, taking all the various factors into account, a shortlist of four full route options was identified by the full team by eliminating the poorest performing links and choosing between the better performers (as explained in Mr Oldfield’s evidence). These were the route defined by the NERTS study, which included the Roseburn Corridor, two other loop options including the Corridor, and one based on the route on Queensferry Street, Queensferry Road, Orchard Brae and Crewe Road. They are illustrated in Figures 3.4-3.7 in the Work Package 1 report.

The four route options were subject to an environmental appraisal in accordance with the draft STAG (Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance) Part 1 guidance which had been published in July 2001. Under the Environment objective four sub-objectives were considered.

Sub-Objective Impacts Considered • Road and rail traffic noise. • Reduction/increases in road noise;

increases in rail noise. • Air Pollutant emissions. • Changes in emissions of local and global

pollutants. • Townscape and cultural heritage. • Visual impacts, townscape/landscape

effects and impacts on historic sites. • Natural heritage and biodiversity. • Effects on protected and sensitive habitats

and species.

The impacts of each option were assessed in Appraisal Summary Tables for each option (see tables 5.3-5.6 in the Work Package 1 report). Elements of the assessment relevant to the western section can be summarised as follows: • For the Roseburn Corridor the appraisal reported that some unavoidable loss of

habitat from the former railway corridor would occur with impact on the designated Urban Wildlife Site. It was noted that this could be mitigated in part by strengthening the existing landscaping and planting where space allowed and that mitigation would be required if protected species were identified along the corridor. The route was also noted as crossing the Water of Leith Urban Wildlife Site and the Coltbridge and Wester Coates Conservation Area. Based on engineering advice it was assumed that the present walkway and cyclepath could

4

be retained along the corridor avoiding loss of this important amenity. The impact on the landscape of the corridor and on views from some properties, and the potential for noise impacts on properties were identified.

• For the alternative route via Queensferry Street, Queensferry Road, Orchard Brae

and Crewe Road the main differences were the significant impacts of the route on the New Town Conservation Area (the route runs through the Conservation Area from Shandwick place to the southern end of Orchard Brae) and the absence of impact along the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor. Impacts on properties from visual intrusion and noise were assessed as broadly similar. As at the link sifting stage, the absence of a link to Haymarket Station was also relevant to the appraisal although not identified as an environmental issue as such in the STAG methodology.

On balance no preference between the four loop options was identified on environmental grounds. In considering other factors, the Work Package 1 Report identified the NERTS proposal which included the Roseburn Corridor, as the preferred route on operational, cost and traffic impact grounds but recommended that alternatives which provided better access to the Western General Hospital should be investigated. The Telford Road Options Study Following the Work Package 1 Report an alternative route running to the rear of the Western General was identified and assessed. The tram would run along the Roseburn Corridor as far as the Craigleith stop just north of Queensferry Road. It would then turn onto South Groathill Avenue, Groathill Avenue and then Telford Road, rejoining the former railway at Ferry Road via a route through the Fire Training Centre car park (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Plan showing Roseburn Corridor option [blue] and Telford Road Option [red]

5

No sub-options were identified for the Roseburn Corridor route, but two sub-options were identified for the Telford Road route. The tram would run either on the east side of Groathill Avenue and the centre of Telford Road (Sub-Option 1), or on the west side of Groathill Avenue and the kerbsides of Telford Road (Sub-Option 2). The sub-options were examined and Sub-Option 1 was selected on operational and cost grounds. The only environmental difference was a slightly greater requirement for landtake with Sub-Option 1. At this stage a STAG Part 2 appraisal was carried out for the Roseburn and preferred Telford Road option, again in accordance with the draft guidance available at the time. The following sub-objectives were considered under the environmental heading. Sub-Objective Issues Considered • Noise and Vibration. • Impact of tram operations on ambient

noise levels during the day and at night. • Ease of mitigation of any significant noise

impacts • Potential for wheel squeal

• Geology, water quality, biodiversity and air quality.

• Impacts on local air quality • Impacts on water quality from track

drainage • Potential for use of sustainable drainage

systems • Impacts on geological resources • Risk of encountering contaminated land • Impacts on designated and protected

habitats and species and biodiversity • Townscape, visual and cultural heritage. • Impacts on cultural heritage –built heritage

and archaeology • Visual impact on properties • Impacts on townscape

Additional considerations included in this assessment included the use of the Roseburn Corridor for walking and cycling and severance effects from the tram. The environmental comparison of the two options together with the notes on additional considerations, and the appraisal of landtake and demolition needs are presented in Table 1. As at the previous stage, the Telford Road Report (Report 203011/0028B May 2003) concluded that there was a strong argument for the Roseburn Corridor options on technical and cost grounds. Any environmental difference between the options was not considered sufficient to outweigh this. Again, however, the strength of the argument regarding access to the Western General Hospital was recognised and the report recommended further consultation on this. This consultation was undertaken during June and July 2003, as described in Mr Oldfield’s and Mr Murray’s evidence.

6

The Craigleith Options Summary Report Consultation was undertaken during the summer of 2003 and following review of the findings by the Council we were asked to examine one further option. This new Crewe Road option left the Roseburn Corridor at Queensferry Road (slightly further south than the Telford Road option), and ran east along Craigleith Road, north along Crewe Road past the front of the Western General, and then back to the former railway corridor along Ferry Road (see Figure 2). Two sub-options leaving the Roseburn Corridor south and north of Queensferry Road were also examined. The southern sub-option (C1) was considered to be too difficult and costly and the northern sub-option (C2) was carried forward to the assessment.

Figure 2. Plan showing the Roseburn Corridor Option [blue], the Telford Road Option [red] and the Crewe Road-Craigleith Road option [black]

7

The assessment considered a number of factors relevant to the environment: landtake and demolition, impacts during construction, noise and vibration, impacts on biodiversity, geology and soils and townscape issues. The Roseburn Corridor option was compared with the new Crewe Road option and the Telford Road option considered at the previous stage. The preferred options under each topic were reported in Section 2.3 of the Craigleith Options report, and Table 1 below, as follows:

• Landtake and demolition – Roseburn Corridor • Construction disturbance – Roseburn Corridor • Noise and vibration – Telford Road • Ecology – Telford Road or Crewe Road • Geology and Soils – Roseburn Corridor or Crewe Road • Townscape - Roseburn Corridor or Telford Road

Taking these and other STAG appraisal objectives into account, the Craigleith Options Report (Report 203011/58B November 2003) recommended that the former railway corridor should remain as the preferred route on grounds of lower capital and operating cost, comparable patronage to the Telford Road Option, faster and more reliable runtime and lower land take and demolition of property.

8

Table 1 Environmental Appraisal of Roseburn Corridor and Telford Road Options

Objective Sub-Objective Former Railway Corridor Option Telford Road Option Noise and Vibration

Potential noise impacts from tram operations to properties adjacent to alignment, where present ambient noise levels are low. Noise impacts may be significant at night. A wide corridor of land is available between Telford Road and Ferry Road and it may be possible to incorporate noise barriers or similar measures into any peripheral corridor landscaping/planting which would provide some noise mitigation for adjacent residential properties

Daytime ambient noise levels are relatively high on Telford Road due to high road traffic flows. Noise from tram operations unlikely to be significant for roadside properties during daytime period (generally 0700 to 1900), though tram operations are predicted to become the dominant noise source at night (generally 2300 to 0700) Possible wheel squeal issues at the small radius curve between Telford Road and the Fire Training Ground

Environment

Air Quality, Water Quality Geology and Biodiversity

No specific air quality issues are predicted during operation New drainage will be required or renovated former railway drainage. No significant operational water quality issues are predicted. There is sufficient space in the railway corridor (between Telford Road and the Fire Training Ground) to consider use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) measures such as swales or lagoons for attenuation of operational run-off No significant impacts to geology are predicted. Scheme construction may encounter areas of contaminated land associated with the former corridor use as a railway. Provided all regulatory procedures are followed and best practice adopted during construction, no significant impacts are predicted Scheme development will result in the permanent loss of small areas of habitat (scrub, woodland and grassland) at the edges of the railway corridor, which is a designated

No specific air quality issues are predicted during operation Existing road drainage systems can be used and no significant water quality impacts are predicted. There is limited opportunity to employ any SUDS measures because of space constraints No significant impacts to geology are predicted. It is considered unlikely that any areas of contaminated land will be encountered along Groathill Avenue/Telford Road. Contaminated ground may be present in the Fire Training Ground car park/access area and will almost certainly be present at the site of a former petrol station between the car park and Telford Road through which the option passes. This latter site is likely to require significant remediation works prior to construction of tram scheme No significant impacts are predicted on ecology, habitats or biodiversity since the option runs almost entirely on-street

9


Urban Wildlife Site (UWS). Badger (a protected species) are known from the corridor, therefore mitigation measures may be required. Opportunities exist in the area of more open land between Telford Road and the Fire Training Ground for planting of replacement habitat

Cultural Heritage, Townscape and Visual

Cultural heritage is not predicted to be a significant constraint, provided alignment follows the course of the former railway. If the alignment deviates from the railway then there may be some potential for archaeological resources to be encountered Visual impacts on rear of properties on Groathill Ave and Groathill Road South. Potential slight visual impacts on rear of Telford Drive.

Cultural heritage is not predicted to be a significant constraint. The option does not pass through any areas designated for cultural heritage or townscape Visual impacts on properties on Groathill Ave Potential visual impacts on properties on Telford Road Potential slight townscape impact on Telford Road and Groathill Ave, and potential moderate townscape impact of cutting for link between Ferry Road and Telford Road

Additional Issues

The existing footway/cycleway is relocated to the western side of the tram alignment Formalised crossing point for footway/cycleway north of the Crewe Toll stop Some vegetation on the railway corridor would have to be removed, but there would be scope for replacement mitigation planting within the corridor The corridor is lined on both the eastern and western sides by residential properties which may experience significant changes in noise due to the tram, although screening could reduce this figure

Existing footpath on east and west side of Groathill Road at the junction with Telford Road will require to be realigned Noise is less likely to be an issue as the tram is running on-street at the front of properties Higher cost associated with trackwork and OHLE due to high percentage of street running There will be more PUs to relocated Easier access to the tram system from the adjacent residential area and the Western General Hospital Convenient passenger transfer between trams and buses

10


Various severance, access and amenity issues associated with the cycleway/walkway Fully segregated alignment removes scope for road vehicle – tram conflict

Probable contaminated land at the former petrol station Access road to Fire Training car park relocated to the south of the former petrol station Tram runs with traffic along Groathill Road and segregated along Telford Road Potential good access for Western General Hospital On street (mixed) running with junctions may marginally increase risk of accidents Gutter running on Groathill Avenue adjacent to houses with garages – safety hazard with cars reversing out of driveways (may be unacceptable to HMRI)

Landtake No landtake beyond demolition outlined below Landtake required for Western General Hospital to accommodate stop Landtake required from Disused Petrol Station between 219 and 255 Telford Road Landtake required from Fire Training Centre car park

Implementability

Demolition Footbridge at recreation ground required to be demolished Disused Petrol Station between 219 and 255 Telford Road required to be demolished

11

Issue 2 Visual and amenity impacts of the tram and development of landscaping proposals I will deal here with the general visual amenity of the corridor for its users and neighbours. Brian Evans will deal specifically with the impact of overhead line equipment (OLE). The Environmental Statement (ES) for Line One identifies that the tram will have major impacts on the landscape of the Corridor and on views for residents of neighbouring properties. It sets out principles for mitigation of these impacts by ensuring sympathetic design and replacement of lost trees to re-enclose and screen the area. Where the corridor is narrow, the need for careful treatment including replacement and reinforced screen hedging and fencing was identified. The potential for redesigning left-over spaces along the corridor was also identified. The early draft of the design manual also identified the requirement for sensitive design of OLE, stops, signals and the vehicles themselves, to fit as comfortably into the scene as possible. Since that time the project team have continued to develop the proposals and a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) has been drafted specifically for the Roseburn Corridor (see Issue 4 on development of the LHMP). This includes substantial new planting to replace that which is lost to the tram and to enhance that which remains by management and additional planting. The LHMP is designed to provide early impact with the implementation of some management measures pre-construction, and also by establishing a mixed structure of vegetation including semi mature trees, younger mixed woodland planting, scrub, informal grass and mown verges. Where properties overlook the corridor particular attention has been given to ensuring screening by management of existing hedges to reinforce them and by new hedge and tree planting. Attention has also been given to ways of softening the visual appearance of noise barriers for example through the use of climbers to provide vegetative screening. This will help prevent any adverse impact on the amenity of gardens adjoining the corridor. Overall along the corridor it is estimated that the total area of vegetation will reduce from the current figure of about 4.2 hectares to about 3.3 hectares, a loss of about 21%. The new vegetation will take time to mature, but the LHMP will ensure that an attractive green corridor remains along the length of the reinstated cycle and footpath. The only exceptions will be the bridge locations, where there is currently no vegetation beneath the underbridges or on the deck of overbridges. The width of the cycle and footpath available to users will remain at about 3 metres except in a small number of locations under or over bridges where its width will be slightly reduced.

12

Issue 3 Effects of Loss of Vegetation on Security and Privacy and Effects of Lighting Gary Turner has described in his evidence the issues relating to security for neighbouring properties. Reinforced boundary hedgerows and fencing, and new planting within the corridor, will offer a considerable improvement upon the often gappy hedges and intermittent and in some areas damaged fencing currently present along the corridor. Together with the other factors he describes, these measures will contribute to improve security for residents along the corridor. A general improvement in the condition of the corridor and increased activity as a result of the tram should also discourage flytipping and other anti-social behaviour which impacts adversely on the amenity of the corridor at present. The Corridor is already lit with street lamps and the intention is to replace these at a similar level. With modern lighting it will be possible to control any spill of light into the night sky, and into neighbouring properties. Tram stops will be lit but they will be designed to ensure that light does not adversely impact on windows of neighbouring property by careful placing of lights, and use of directional lighting and screens where necessary. A similar approach should be possible if tram headlights cause any difficulties for neighbours. Issue 4 Development of the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan The Roseburn LHMP has been developed to present the proposals for mitigating the landscape and ecological impacts of the Edinburgh Tram. The LHMP has been in development since the autumn of last year and the first full submission was published in June. This shows in some detail the proposals for new planting and for management of existing vegetation along the corridor from Balbirnie Place to Telford Road. It takes into account the results of a tree survey carried out along the corridor together with information obtained from a variety of other sources. Development of the LHMP has also taken into account The North Edinburgh Railway Path Network Wildlife Management Plan prepared for Lothian Regional Council (LRC) in 1989, although this plan was never implemented by LRC. For example the removal of invasive species such as Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, the removal of regenerating sycamore, planting to fill gaps in hedgerows, new planting of trees, shrubs and herbs using native species, and protecting and screening badger setts. Copies of the LHMP have been deposited with the Bill in Parliament and the partner libraries, and have been provided to individuals and organisations who have expressed an interest including community councils, local groups and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Comments are invited from all parties and will be taken into account in its further development.

13

SNH has confirmed in their letter of 24 June that they are pleased with the way the LHMP is being developed. Apart from that we have addressed a few minor queries which were clarified by amending text in the 17th June issue of the LHMP but have received no further comments as yet. The intention is to produce further drafts of the LHMP for consultation as the design is developed and to seek agreement to the final LHMP from SNH and the Council before it is implemented. Neighbours will be consulted in particular about their views on treatment of the boundary with the corridor. Issue 5 Impacts of Tram on Local and Regional Air Quality My evidence here responds to concerns expressed by the group regarding air quality. The Environmental Statement for ETL1 reports the results of an assessment of impacts on air quality at three levels.

• First at the global level where the principal emission of concern is carbon dioxide (CO2) because of its potential as a greenhouse gas. Predictions were made of the difference in total emissions of CO2 with and without Line One. These took into account the impact of the tram on CO2 emissions from use of fuel in road vehicles and in generating electricity to power the tram. It was concluded that there would be a very small net increase in 2011 CO2 emissions and a very small net decrease in 2026 CO2 emissions, as a result of Line One. In real numbers this means about 5,000 tonnes more CO2 in 2011 and 5,000 tonnes less in 2026. This is about 0.4% of current total transport emissions from Edinburgh (1.2 m tonnes). The effect on global greenhouse gas emissions is therefore very small.

• The second assessment was at the city-wide level where we considered

changes in street level concentrations of two pollutants of particular concern for urban air quality, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particles (known as PM10). We concluded that across the city there will be little if any change in air quality on the majority of roads, but there will be some areas where redistribution of traffic causes non-negligible differences between the with and without tram situations. On balance there will be a small to moderate net benefit with the air quality objectives for 2011 being breached at the roadside on about 5% fewer streets for NO2 and 1% fewer streets for PM10. The benefit is eroded by 2026 as traffic flows continue to grow although there is still a small improvement in NO2 compliance (1%).

• The third part of the assessment looked at individual streets. We looked at the

street where the largest increase in concentration was predicted to occur

14

between the without and with tram situations (Haymarket Terrace) and on the street with the worst air quality without the tram (Leith Walk). At Haymarket Terrace the concentration of NO2 is predicted to increase from about 36 µg per m3 without the tram, to nearly 40 with the tram in 2011, an increase of 4 µg per m3. The air quality objective for NO2 is 40 µg per m3 and the increase is therefore about 10% of the standard. It is caused by slower speeds in this section even though there is actually a small reduction in traffic flows. The PM10 concentration will increase from 23 to 26 µg per m3. The PM10 standard of 18µg per m3 and is therefore beached whether or not the tram is present. On Leith Walk concentrations of NO2 and PM10 are both very marginally improved with the tram (differences of <1 µg per m3). The NO2 air quality objective is met in both cases whilst the PM10 objective is breached both with and without the tram.

With reference to the Roseburn Corridor and neighbouring streets, with the exception of Roseburn Terrace which is one of the more polluted streets in the city owing to high traffic flows, air quality is and will continue to be good compared to the centre of the city. Although no specific predictions of localised air quality were made, we can be confident that the tram will have a negligible effect on air quality in the neighbourhood and that all air quality objectives will continue to be met. Documents Edinburgh Tram Line One Northern Loop New Transport Initiative; Work Package I Report, 203011/0004B 19 December 2002 (Hard copy) Edinburgh Tram Line One Northern Loop New Transport Initiative; Review of Telford Road Options Initial Stage 2 Report – For Consultation, 203011/0028B May 2003 Edinburgh Tram Line One Northern Loop New Transport Initiative; Craigleith Options Summary, 203011/58B November 2003 Scottish Environmental Consultants (1989) The North Edinburgh Railway Path Network – Wildlife Management Plan. SEC.



LES BUCKMAN Contents 1. Witness Summary 2. Outline of Evidence 3. Step 1: Route sections 4. Step 2: Corridor options Appraisal Process Comparative Assessment between Former Rail Corridor & Crewe Road 5. Step 3: Options within Core Corridor Former Rail Corridor/Telford Road Former Rail Corridor/Craigleith Road

1. WITNESS SUMMARY

1.1. I am Les Buckman and I am a consultant Transport Planner. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering from The City University, London and an MSc in Transport from Imperial College, London. I am a Principal Consultant of Steer Davies Gleave based in London. Steer Davies Gleave represents both the public and private sectors and our clients include major transport operators, central and local government, policy makers, legislators, funding agencies and property developers. The consultancy has experience in all passenger and freight modes of transport, with extensive work in rail, bus and coach, air, underground, car, LRT, guided bus, cycle and pedestrian studies. I have worked for the firm for three years, and have worked at similar consultancies previously for a total of 11 years.

1.2. I am responsible for managing and directing major modelling and appraisal studies for transport schemes. I have been the project manager for the demand forecasting and appraisal of Edinburgh Tram Line 1.

2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

2.1. The evidence presented here relates to the option development and selection process for the western section of the Line 1 loop, namely that between the City Centre and Granton. In broad terms, the evidence will set out a series of sequential steps taken that culminated in the adoption of the Roseburn Corridor as the preferred route for Line 1.

2.2. This option development and selection process was undertaken consistent with the guidance set out in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)1. At all times, options were developed to a level of detail sufficient to enable a robust and auditable selection to be made.

2.3. These steps on which this evidence is based are set out as follows:

• Step 1: Review, appraisal and sifting of all the potential route sections that may be used to make up a Line 1 loop;

• Step 2: Derivation of corridor options upon which comprehensive appraisal was undertaken and a preferred option was selected; and

• Step 3: Development of options within this corridor.

2.4. Options serving the Western General Hospital were considered at all steps above.

2.5. The process and results of these steps are summarised in Section 4.3 – 4.5 of the Line 1 STAG report of September 2004. It is important to note that, as the scheme developed, some figures might have changed since the production of the various reports referenced by this evidence. Nevertheless, the relative assessments of the merits or otherwise of the options referred to in this evidence have broadly been kept.

3. STEP 1: ROUTE SECTIONS

3.1. The Northern Loop was initially conceived through the Outline Business Case (OBC study, which is now called the North Edinburgh Rapid Transit study "NERTS"), and was designed to serve key areas including the city centre, Granton, Newhaven, Leith and the new development areas along the waterfront. The development and definition of the route was based on STAG objectives, patronage potential, feasibility criteria and on the results from the consultation process.

3.2. The process of selection of possible route sections making up the Line 1 loop involved a number of tasks:

• From the NERTS and subsequent consideration of further potential options, a total of 61 possible links (discrete segments of routes within the broad Northern Loop) were identified.

• An initial sifting process was carried out to eliminate the worst performing links, using the following four STAG consistent criteria, with weights applied (so that more important criteria have a greater consideration in the process):

1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Transport/Integrated/14788/518

• Technical (weight of 1.5)

• Economy (weight of 1.0)

• Transport (weight of 1.25)

• Environment (weight of 1.25)

(STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sifting options (See Chapter 4, page 4-5, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/transport/stag-00.asp). They were used in an attempt to make the sifting process more transparent, less subjective, auditable and fair. They reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration (i.e. there is no guidance for the actual weights used). This ensures that more important criteria are given greater consideration than less important ones.)

Each link was then scored (using a seven-point score) against each criterion. The process resulted in an overall score for each link and an overall ranking. Some 30 links were carried forward to the following stage.

• From this more manageable number of links, certain sequences of links were put together into sensible loop combinations, or routes, for testing.

• Four coherent loop route options were selected for further development and subsequent appraisal using STAG. Some of these options included minor variations (e.g. along Princes Street and along the disused rail line). These route options are:

Preferred Route. Crewe Road. Easter Road. Junction Street.

3.3. Further information about Step 1 can be found in the Work Package 1 report of December 20022.

4. STEP 2: CORRIDOR OPTIONS

Appraisal Process

4.1. Given the level of project development and information available at this stage, the four options identified were appraised using a simplified version of the STAG appraisal table. This retained the key elements of the appraisal, namely appraisal against the planning objectives and the government’s five objectives (using a sub-set of sub-objectives commensurate with the level of appraisal and available information).

2 Work Package 1 Report, Report No. 203011/0004B, 19 December 2002, Mott MacDonald et al.

4.2. To support this process, a detailed modelling exercise was carried out to produce estimates of demand for each of the four options, considering:

• The AM and inter-peak periods;

• Bus, tram and rail demand;

• Forecast years: 2006, 2011 and 2016.

The results indicated that the Preferred Route was the best performing, with Easter Road route close behind. Crewe Road and Junction Street performed demonstrably worse.

4.3. The STAG process confirmed that the Preferred Route option performed best overall, and on this basis, was recommended as the preferred option. Further details of Step 2 are set out in the Work Package 1 report of December 20023.

Comparative Assessment between Former Rail Corridor & Crewe Road

4.4. This evidence focuses on two key routes, one along the disused rail corridor (Preferred Route) and the other which avoids that corridor (Crewe Road route). These routes are shown in Figures 1 and 2 overleaf.

4.5. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the comparative appraisal of the former rail corridor against the Crewe Road option.

3 Work Package 1 Report, Report No. 203011/0004B, 19 December 2002, Mott MacDonald et al

Figure 1 – Preferred Route

Figure 2 – Crewe Road Route

Table 1 – Former Rail Corridor Appraisal Summary Results

Planning objectives

To improve accessibility To reduce pollution To reduce congestion To make the transport system safer and more secure

Performance against planning objectives

Materially improves accessibility to the Granton and Leith development areas and to the socially deprived areas of North Edinburgh. Provision of a high quality public transport system, with significant sections off-street or segregated, will encourage modal shift, reducing the environmental impact of traffic and reducing congestion. Inclusion of modern security systems will enhance the safety and security of users and non-users alike.

Objective Sub-Objective Qualitative Assessment Quantitative

Assessment Score

Economy Transport economic efficiency

Provides high quality PT service in northern Edinburgh. Western section off-street or segregated, reducing impact on highway network.

By 2016, LRT patronage of 18.5m pa, removing 14.3m veh/km from highway network.

+++

Economic activity and locational impacts

Route penetrates key business centres of City Centre, West End and Leith, but could reduce access to businesses by car. Provides accessibility to existing and regeneration areas of employment. Supports regeneration areas of Granton and Leith by materially improving accessibility.

+++

Environment Noise and vibration

Short term noise impacts during construction. Noise from tram operations (particularly at night), although reduced traffic noise from modal shift is possible

–

Air quality Tram operation has potential to reduce local air pollutants if reductions in road traffic flows result from modal shift

+

Townscape and cultural heritage

Scheme affects townscape of a number of conservation areas, including Edinburgh New Town (World Heritage Site). Mitigation crucial to minimising townscape and visual effects

– – –

Natural heritage and biodiversity

Habitat loss from Roseburn railway corridor. Best management practice during construction will prevent significant impacts to the Firth of Forth SPA/ cSAC/SSSI and Water of Leith UWS.

–

Safety Security Benefits to security on stops and vehicles. ++ Accidents Number of road

accidents: 13 (2006) or 15 (2011/16)

+

Accessibility Base Accessibility

Journey timesavings from city centre to Granton = 12 minutes and Leith = 22 minutes. Population within 800 m of scheme = 125,100

+++

Integration Transport interchanges

A number of tram stops with quality interchange facilities, enabling efficient inter-modal transfers.

++

Policy integration

Access benefits to deprived, elderly and mobility impaired, with level boarding access and wheel chair facilities.

++

Land use transport integration

Closely consistent with land use and planning policy. ++

Table 2 – Crewe Road Corridor Appraisal Summary Results

Planning objectives

To improve accessibility To reduce pollution To reduce congestion To make the transport system safer and more secure

Performance against planning objectives

Materially improves accessibility to the Granton and Leith development areas and to the socially deprived areas of North Edinburgh. Provision of a high quality public transport system will encourage modal shift, reducing the environmental impact of traffic. However, the route is entirely on-street and will have mixed impacts on reducing congestion. Inclusion of modern security systems will enhance the safety and security of users and non-users alike.

Objective Key Indicator Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment Score

Economy Transport economic efficiency

Provides high quality PT service in northern Edinburgh. Wholly on-street, with attendant impacts on highway network.

By 2016, LRT patronage of 15.1m pa, removing 10.7m veh/km from highway network.

++

Economic activity and locational impacts

Route penetrates key business centres of City Centre and Leith, but could reduce access to businesses by car. Provides accessibility to existing and regeneration areas of employment. Supports regeneration areas of Granton and Leith by materially improving accessibility.

++

Environment Noise and vibration

Short term noise impacts during construction. Noise from tram operations (particularly at night), although reduced traffic noise from modal shift is possible

–

Air quality Tram operation has potential to reduce local air pollutants if reductions in road traffic flows result from modal shift

+

Townscape and cultural heritage

Scheme affects townscape of a number of conservation areas, including Edinburgh New Town (World Heritage Site). Mitigation crucial to minimising townscape and visual effects

– – –

Natural heritage and biodiversity

Best management practice during construction will prevent significant impacts to the Firth of Forth SPA/cSAC/SSSI and Water of Leith UWS

–

Safety Security Benefits to security on stops and vehicles. ++ Accidents Number of road

accidents: 9 (2006) or 11 (2011/16)

+

Accessibility Base Accessibility

Journey time savings from city centre to Granton = 13 minutes and Leith = 22 minutes. Population within 800 m of scheme = 101,700

++

Integration Transport interchanges

A number of tram stops with quality interchange facilities, enabling efficient inter-modal transfers. No interchange at Haymarket,

+

Policy integration

Access benefits to deprived, elderly and mobility impaired, with level boarding access and wheel chair facilities.

++

Land use transport integration

Closely consistent with land use & planning policy. ++

5. STEP 3: OPTIONS WITHIN CORE CORRIDOR

5.1. A more detailed appraisal has been undertaken for key options within the preferred corridor, namely (Figure 3 illustrates these options):

• Former rail corridor;

• Telford Road; and

• Craigleith Road.

Figure 3 – Options within the Core Corridor

Former Rail Corridor/Telford Road

5.2. Within the preferred corridor, the option of traversing Telford Road in order to better serve the Western General Hospital was raised and further development on this subsequently took place (Step 3). New patronage estimates indicated that there was no clear case for either option. While the Telford Road option would provide improved accessibility, it would require considerable additional costs (including land acquisition), result in longer journey times and cause more traffic conflicts.

5.3. Despite the economic and technical argument in favour of the former rail corridor, Telford Road option was also taken forward to public consultation, which was held in mid-2003. Following this consultation exercise, the Promoter reviewed the technical analysis and consultation results and recommended the adoption of the Roseburn corridor as the preferred route.

5.4. The relative merits of the former Railway and Telford Road corridors have been evaluated against the STAG criteria. The results are summarised in Table 3 below (the “+” sign indicates where each option performs better).

5.5. The former railway corridor performs significantly better in technical and operational terms, as well as requiring considerably less capital costs. It also captures more patronage and hence revenue than the Telford Road option. The main area where the railway corridor loses out is on the perceived accessibility of the stop location for the Western General Hospital, which is further away from the rear entrance than for the Telford Road stop.

5.6. Further details of the technical analysis and consultation results were set out in a report in September 20034.

4 Review of Telford Road Options, Report No. 203011/0028C, September 2003, Mott MacDonald et al

Table 3 – Summary of Key Issues for Route Comparison

Objectives STAG Sub-objective Former Railway Corridor Telford Road Corridor Technical Feasibility

Permanent Landtake

• No landtake required + • Landtake required

Implement-ability Appraisal Highway

and Traffic Issues

• One junction to be modified

• No traffic interaction with tram

+ • Four junctions to be modified

• Significantly greater traffic effects on the tram

Parking and Servicing Issues

• No issues with parking/servicing

+ • Significant impacts on parking/servicing

Structures / Earthworks

• Underbridge at South Groathill Road requires to be widened to accommodate the tram

+ • More structural and earthworks required

PU Issues • Minimal PU relocations + • Significant PU relocations

Route Length

• approx. 1480m (100% off street segregated)

+ • approx. 1670m (15.5% off street segregated)

Run Time (1) • 2 minutes 20 seconds + • 4 minutes 40 seconds

Operational Feasibility Operational

Issues • Fewer risks operationally + • Significantly greater

operational issues

Noise and Vibration

• Potential noise impacts introduced

• Less noise impacts +Environment

Biodiversity • Possible affects on small areas of habitat although mitigation possible.

• Less effects than Core Option

+

Capital Cost • £8 million + • £15.9 million (excludes land/property and vehicles if required, plus higher operating costs)

Economy TEE

Patronage & Revenue(1)

• 10.5 m pass/year (2011) • Revenue £7.4m

+ • 10.3 m pass/year (2011)• Revenue £7.2m

Accidents • Minimal risk of accidents + • Greater risk of accidents

Safety

Security • Isolated stop location could lead to vandalism and crime

• Better visibility and security

+

Accessibility Base Accessibi-lity

• Less accessible • Good access to the tram system from the adjacent residential area and the Western General Hospital

+

Note: (1) Run times are based on latest available information and include an allowance for junction delays, whereas the patronage forecasts relates to earlier run time estimates. Because run times are now slightly higher for the Telford Road option, the patronage figures for this alternative are also slightly optimistic.

Former Rail Corridor/Craigleith Road

5.7. Through the on-going consultation for Line 1, a further option was raised. It consisted of routing Line 1 via Craigleith Road and Crewe Road and rejoining the preferred route at Ferry Road, to further improve access to the Western General Hospital (the main entrance being on Crewe Road) and local business. However, this option was found to have a negative impact on demand and revenue, whilst

incurring additional capital (including land take and property demolition) and operating cost, reducing system reliability and causing adverse impacts on the highway network. On this basis, this option was rejected and the preferred option via the Roseburn Corridor retained.

5.8. The comparative assessment between the former railway and Craigleith Road corridors is shown in Table 4 below (the “+” sign indicates where each option performs better).

5.9. The former railway corridor performs again significantly better in technical, operational and economic terms, while the Craigleith Road option would provide better accessibility to the Western General Hospital and other key destinations. The railway corridor option also captures more patronage and revenue by 2011. Further analysis and findings were set out in a report in November 20035.

5 Craigleith Options Summary, Report No. 203011/58B, November 2003, Mott MacDonald et al

Table 4 – Summary of Key Issues for Route Comparison

Objectives STAG Sub-objective Former Railway Corridor Craigleith Road Corridor Technical Feasibility

Permanent Landtake

• No landtake required + • Land-take required. Significant if segregated running on Craigleith Road is achieved.

Implement-ability Appraisal

Highway and Traffic Issues

• One junction to be modified

• No traffic interaction with tram

+ • Four Major Junctions. Significant effects on tram – further modelling and analysis would be required to confirm feasibility at Crewe Toll.

• Unpredictable operation due to long length of shared running on Crewe Road.

Parking and Servicing Issues

• No issues with parking/servicing

+ • Impacts on parking and servicing, including possible loss of parking at retail park.

Structures / Earthworks

• Underbridge at South Groathill Road requires to be widened to accommodate the tram

• Long length of enhanced track bed required on shared running sections.

+

PU Issues • Minimal PU relocations + • Significant PU relocations

Route Length

• approx. 1480m (100% off street segregated)

+ • approx. 2810m (8.2% off street segregated)

Run Time(1) • 2 minutes 20 seconds + • 8 minutes 30 seconds

Operational Feasibility Operational

Issues • Fewer risks operationally + • Significantly greater

operational issues. • Unpredictability on

shared running sections.

• Full priority at junctions unlikely to be achieved.

Noise and Vibration

• Potential noise impacts introduced

• Less effects than railway corridor.

+Environment

Biodiversity • Possible affects on small areas of habitat although mitigation possible

• Less effects than railway corridor.

+

Capital Cost • £8 million + • £30.5 million (+ higher operating costs)

Economy TEE

Patronage & Revenue(1)

• 10.5 m pass/year (2011) • Revenue £7.4m

+ • 10.1 m pass/year (2011)• Revenue £7.1m

Accidents • Minimal risk of accidents + • Greater risk of accidents Safety Security • Isolated stop location

could lead to vandalism and crime

• Better visibility and security

+

Accessibility Base Accessibi-lity

• Less accessible • Good access to the tram system from the adjacent residential area, Western General Hospital, BAE, Police College and retail park

+

Note: (1) Run times are based on latest available information and include an allowance for junction delays, whereas the patronage forecasts relate to earlier run time estimates. Because run times are now higher for the Craigleith Road option, the patronage figures indicated for this alternative are considered optimistic.



LES BUCKMAN Contents 1. Witness Summary 2. Outline of Evidence 3. Issues for Stop Location 4. Inter Stop Spacings 5. Issues for Roseburn Corridor 6. The Roseburn Stop 1. WITNESS SUMMARY




2.1. This evidence cover a range of issues related to accessibility to stop locations, including:

• Issues for stop location (technical, demand, accessibility and network connectivity issues);

• Inter stop spacings for tram schemes;

• Issues for Roseburn corridor; and

• The Roseburn stop.

3. ISSUES FOR STOP LOCATION

3.1. A range of issues have been taken into account when deciding on stop locations:

• Technical – such as physical and engineering constraints and interaction with the highway network (for on-street stops);

• Demand – ideally, the stop would be located where it can serve the highest possible number of people, but even stops with low usage can be relevant in feeding into higher usage stops;

• Accessibility – stop locations should have high levels of accessibility to the surrounding catchment area, including satisfactory physical access to the station;

• Network connectivity – at the appropriate locations, stops should be provided to integrate the new service with existing public transport stops and services, providing wider connectivity across the public transport network (a notable example being Haymarket to integrate with rail and bus services through this hub).

4. INTER STOP SPACINGS

4.1. The typical range for inter-stop spacings for UK tram schemes is between 600 to 800 metres; this is normally higher than for buses, where stop spacings normally range from about 300 to 400 metres. The average space between stops for Line 1 is around 700 metres (22 stops within 15.5 km), towards the lower end of the spectrum for the range of UK tram systems.

4.2. A balance is normally sought between, on the one hand, introducing more stops providing higher accessibility levels and lower access time, but on the other hand, minimising the number of stops in order to reduce in-vehicle journey times.

5. ISSUES FOR ROSEBURN CORRIDOR

5.1. The choice of stop locations within the Roseburn corridor was heavily influenced by the nature of the corridor, notably the available access points. Between Roseburn and Telford Road in particular, the route is a narrow linear corridor with the back gardens of residential development on both sides; access to the corridor is effectively limited to the locations where roads cross this alignment and hence this was the key factor in determining stop locations.

5.2. On that basis, stops were located around the following road intersection points:

• A8 Roseburn Terrace (Roseburn stop);

• Ravelston Dykes (Ravelston Dykes stop);

• A90 Queensferry Road (Craigleith stop);

• A902 Telford Road (Groathill Road North stop); and

• B9085 Ferry Road (Crewe Toll stop).

6. THE ROSEBURN STOP

6.1. Demand forecasting using the transport model shows reasonable level of demand for the Roseburn stop. The model has forecast a total of some 0.46 million trips per year using the in 2011; in 2026 this increases to some 0.60 million passengers per year. These demand levels represent some 2.3% of the total demand on Line 1, against a network average of 4.5% per stop (given the 22 stops on Line 1). There will be variation in stop usage, but stops with lower than average usage are valid in feeding demand into higher usage stops.

6.2. The location of the Roseburn stop was to a great extent dictated by the presence of the Roseburn and Coltbridge viaducts, which are physical constraints to the south and north respectively. The selected location was the only place that allowed the introduction of a stop and the running of the track over both viaducts.

6.3. An alternative stop location to the south of the A8 has been examined, in response to comments at CLG's, but it is high on an embankment and will cause significant visual intrusion for a number of flats close by.

6.4. In wider terms, a stop at Roseburn will facilitate integration with the bus network and provide improved travel opportunities for local residents in the Roseburn area, notably the ability to travel to destinations on the Line 1 route not directly served by bus, such as Granton. The proposed location also facilitates good access to the surrounding area.



LES BUCKMAN Contents 1. Witness Summary 2. Outline of Evidence 3. Road Traffic Model 4. Highway Benefits

1. WITNESS SUMMARY




2.1. This evidence cover a range of issues related to the impacts of traffic on the road network as a result of the introduction of Line 1 in Edinburgh, and is structured as follows:

• Road traffic model, used to forecast the impacts on traffic; and

• Highway benefits, as one of the key elements of STAG appraisal process.

3. ROAD TRAFFIC MODEL

3.1. A comprehensive computer model of Edinburgh's transport system has been developed to simulate the changes in private and public transport and consequent impacts from the implementation of the tram system. On the highway part, the

model has a representation of the road transport network in Edinburgh and its environs, and through its assignment capability, is used to forecast the impacts on this network. The starting point for the model is 2001, with forecast years of 2011 and 2026. The model covers the morning peak, off-peak and inter-peak periods.

3.2. The changes in traffic flow, as predicted by the model, are largely due to the displacement of traffic by the tram, for example due to reduced road capacity in the streets on which the tram will operate and an element of re-routing of traffic in areas where particular traffic movements would be altered to accommodate the tram.

3.3. Further evidence on the impact on traffic flows arising from the introduction of Line 1 will be covered in the evidence presented by Stuart Turnball.

4. HIGHWAY BENEFITS

4.1. The economic impacts (both positive and negative) accrue to travellers remaining on the highway network. Such impacts are widely accepted as a key element of the appraisal of transport schemes, and are indeed a fundamental part of the appraisal process and guidance in the UK (webTAG) and Scotland (STAG).

4.2. For Line 1, the highway benefits have been estimated with the use of the transport model described above, and represent a considerable proportion of the overall benefits of the scheme. The model predicted net highway benefits, even if more congestion has been estimated at particular locations. The modelling analysis has indicated that Line 1 will remove significant levels of car demand from the highway network (total of 40.6 million veh-km per year in 2026, which reflects the severe levels of congestion forecast by that time).

4.3. The Transport Economic Efficiency analysis was based on the use of the TUBA (Transport Users Benefit Appraisal) computer program, developed for the Department for Transport to undertake economic appraisal for multi-modal transport studies. TUBA is also compliant with current economic appraisal guidance, hence the appraisal process has used standard tools which are consistent with STAG.

4.4. The model estimated travel time and operating costs savings for car trips, as a result of a more efficient transport network overall. Reduced levels of congestion caused by modal shift resulted in a large number of travellers experiencing a small level of benefit thereby producing a significant level of cumulative benefits.

GROUP 43 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA E LEAD OBJECTOR: …

Documents

Transcript of GROUP 43 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA E LEAD OBJECTOR: …