Transport (Southern Edinburgh)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-348, in the name of Mike Pringle, on transport in southern Edinburgh. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the continued traffic congestion on main routes into Edinburgh from the south, including the problem of parking by city centre commuters in residential streets in southern Edinburgh; further notes with concern the proposal for an out-of-town football stadium at Straiton that can only exacerbate existing traffic problems; considers that improved transport infrastructure, such as the proposed park-and-ride site at Burdiehouse, is essential to help tackle the problem, and considers that the City of Edinburgh and Midlothian councils and the Scottish Executive should ensure that these transport problems in southern Edinburgh can be resolved with added benefit to the wider Lothian and Borders region.
I am glad to see members here tonight who are obviously interested in doing something about transport issues in south Edinburgh and Lothian. Transport in south Edinburgh is crucial for Edinburgh's economic and social development as a whole, and it impinges on the quality of life and the health and safety of many people. I have highlighted in the motion a number of individual issues that are of concern and I am pleased to note at the outset that, since I lodged the motion, the matter of the ludicrous ground-share proposals for Hearts and Hibs appears to have been put to rest. As the Straiton problem shows, travelling into Edinburgh is not just a weekday thing, and any decisions that are made on future transport infrastructure must take into account the fact that, for better or for worse, Edinburgh is now a seven-days-a-week city.
Let us consider some of the facts. Car ownership in Edinburgh has gone up by 77 per cent in the past 20 years, and more than 50 per cent of journeys of more than a quarter of a mile in the city are by car. Major infrastructure projects—such as trams, Edinburgh Park railway station and the airport rail link—are now under way to alleviate problems in the west of the city and will benefit the city as a whole. However, over the past 20 years, the major rise in peak-time traffic flow has been on the A702 into south Edinburgh, with an increase of 53 per cent during the morning peak compared with only 30 per cent on the A8 to the west.
It was satisfying to me, when I was a local councillor for North Morningside, to see improved bus lanes into the city centre starting to produce an increase in bus use after years of decline. However, buses still account for only 3 per cent of vehicles during the rush hour; what would certainly reduce the number of cars coming into south Edinburgh are decent park-and-ride schemes to the south of the city.
Today's debate was partially inspired by the worrying news that Midlothian Council is to hold up planning permission for the park-and-ride site at Straiton until it has carried out a full review of transport. I cannot understand that—we have been talking about the site for years and we have had numerous transport reviews. I remember back in 1992 talking to the now transport guru, Professor David Begg, who told me confidently that Edinburgh would have three or four park-and-ride sites by 1996. Sadly, the site now at Newcraighall has proved not to be as successful as was hoped, but that site is of greater benefit to people coming from the east of the city. We urgently need the site at Straiton to go ahead.
I was pleased to see that the City of Edinburgh Council is considering putting its own site at Burdiehouse in my constituency. If the council feels that that site could be up and running before the desired opening date for Straiton, which was supposed to be in April next year, my view is that it should go it alone. I call on the Minister for Transport to support whatever site the council feels can be completed first. The delays are completely unacceptable; we must ensure that Edinburgh has another park-and-ride site to the south of the city as soon as possible.
Until the park-and-ride site is up and running, there will still be the problems of commuters using residential streets as unofficial park-and-ride sites. I was worried to see that some drivers are now using hospital car parks at the new Edinburgh royal infirmary, despite the huge cost of parking there, and at the Western general. There are also problems with motorists parking in streets around the new Edinburgh royal infirmary and the University of Edinburgh's King's Buildings, which is causing real problems for residents.
In Morningside and Marchmont, we have the daily problem of people parking in streets just outside the peripheral permit zone and getting the bus into town. The council has proposed extending the parking zone, but it proposes to give only one permit to each house. That has resulted in numerous complaints from many of my constituents who have real difficulties with that proposal. For example, I was contacted by one family in which the father is a doctor and the mother is a community nurse. Each has a car and both need their cars for shift work. I suggest that there should be more flexibility for allowing up to two permits for families who need them. Having a draconian one-permit-only limit is just daft.
Another suggestion for improved transport infrastructure that I wish to mention briefly is the possible reopening of the south suburban rail line through south Edinburgh. I completely accept that that proposal can be taken forward only in conjunction with improvements to Waverley and Haymarket stations, and I want to use this opportunity to call on the minister and on civil servants not to lose the long-term vision for Waverley. It is a redevelopment that will last for 100 years, and only with more through platforms can plans for a suburban railway in south Edinburgh come to fruition.
There also exists the option of a south suburban passenger line without the need to worry about Waverley. The line could be open from Newcraighall through to Gorgie, which would greatly encourage east-west traffic across the city. I noticed that back in 1999 the City of Edinburgh Council's local transport strategy proposed possible rail services from Midlothian to the west of the City, in particular to the Gyle.
No discussion of transport in south Edinburgh would be complete without mentioning congestion charging. The Liberal Democrat group on the council—me included until recently—has not wanted transport improvements to be linked to congestion charging. I support congestion charging in principle as a means by which to cut congestion, but the policy is being implemented by the City of Edinburgh Council executive as a money-raising scheme. Almost £1.5 billion of transport improvements are already coming to the south-east of Scotland. Those should be properly planned and implemented; they should not be promised on the expectation that there will be more toll revenue.
I would like to see a congestion-charge scheme that cuts congestion in Edinburgh dramatically but does not affect the economic growth of the city. A serious congestion charge has already been introduced in London, but it has not raised nearly as much money as was anticipated and the evidence is that it is causing real problems for theatres, museums, restaurants and bars in the centre of London. The congestion charge in Edinburgh needs to raise enough money to pay for itself. However, we will not get such a scheme because the transport improvements will not be in place by 2006, when the charge comes into force. I call on the City of Edinburgh Council to think again about the details of its scheme.
Transport in south Edinburgh is vital to the lives of all of my constituents. All the businesses in Morningside Road depend on it, all the visitors to the hospital at Little France depend on it and all the residents of areas from Kaimes and Gilmerton to Sciennes and Merchiston depend on it. It drives our whole lives, if members will excuse the pun, and it is time that urgent action is taken to address many of the concerns that I have expressed today. If members will excuse another transport pun, let us get south Edinburgh's transport issues back on track and not pushed into a siding.
I should declare an interest, not only as the transport spokesman for my party and an MSP for the constituency, but as a resident of the locality that is involved.
As is usual, I congratulate the member on securing the debate. The issue is important not just for those of us who are residents of Edinburgh. Edinburgh is to some extent the economic dynamo of Scotland and if it is to continue to fulfil that function, it is fundamental that the city's infrastructure should allow it to do so.
The status quo is unacceptable. The problem is that matters have to some extent been superseded by the debate on congestion charging. It is thought that either opposing or granting congestion charging will somehow resolve matters, but that is not the case. We require short-term action, but we also require a long-term vision.
I accept that it is one thing to be critical of the Executive or the council, but quite another to propose sustainable and appropriate solutions. As MSPs or as councillors, we cannot always be critical without putting forward adequate proposals.
As Mike Pringle correctly said, transport is important not only because of what it does for the city but because of what it does for our society and for our economy. I think that all members recognise that Edinburgh is doing well, but if it is to do better and if we are to avoid running into pitfalls or potholes, it is imperative that we address transport issues. Members of the work force must be able to access the city if, as in many instances, they are unable to live there.
We must also recognise that we have to have a vision. One of the great problems is that we have been dealing with matters on a piecemeal basis and have been reacting to events. We must now ensure that we create a transport solution for Edinburgh from now until 2010 and far beyond that.
It must be a two-way process, because there is a high road and a low road. The high road is about where we want to get to. I will leave aside congestion charging—I take the view that to some extent trams are contingent on congestion charging, whatever Transport Initiatives Edinburgh may suggest. The fact is that no tram scheme in the United Kingdom pays its way, so how are we going to fund trams if not out of the coffers of the rates, which is a restricted area, or from congestion charging?
Of course, we aspire to a tram scheme in the same way as we aspire to a south suburban line, the Borders rail line and other projects. Many of those are far bigger infrastructure projects, which will take time. We must ensure that we project forward and deliver them within a definable time scale.
The member mentions delivery of the Borders railway. Will he explain why the Scottish National Party neglected to put that matter in its manifesto in the recent elections?
Our commitment has always been to infrastructure improvements in Scotland, but we have never got into the argument about one improvement against another. The Government decides which improvements should go ahead. I think that it is important that we upgrade the Aberdeen to Inverness route and that we introduce the Borders railway, but to suggest that we are agin one and for another is false. The matter comes down to governance, which is about priorities. Our view is that the Borders railway is essential, although whether it is our number 1 priority is debatable, given that we have other important rail links and the M74 north extension to consider. However, we view the Borders railway as important and to suggest otherwise is fallacious.
There is a low road. Not all public transport improvements need to be large sexy schemes or have to involve great investment. As Mike Pringle said, improvement in the existing bus network is a priority and money has already been put into that. The bus link to Edinburgh airport has shown us what can be done to change people's attitudes towards bus services. Investment in the bus network would enhance the situation. That ties in with park-and-ride facilities and with enforcement. We must take lessons from Transport for London on that. As well as ensuring that the measures are in place, we must have enforcement. For example, we must ensure that those who impinge on bus lanes are prosecuted.
We need a vision for the future, but we must also introduce relatively cheap and speedy short-term measures.
I, too, thank Mike Pringle for providing the opportunity to debate transport issues in Edinburgh and the Lothians.
I suspect that the problem of residential areas being used as unofficial park-and-ride or park-and-walk facilities is prevalent throughout the city and is not confined to the south. The problem has led the City of Edinburgh Council to consider expanding the size of the current central parking zone to incorporate areas within Mr Pringle's constituency and elsewhere. Although that measure might bring relief to his constituents and others, it will negate the concept of a central parking zone and displace parking into other non-controlled streets and so on and so forth until parking throughout the city is controlled, regulated, priced and policed. Is that really the way that we want to go? Should we not devise a strategy to provide proper parking facilities for residents, commuters and visitors to the town?
There is a balance to be struck. As Mr MacAskill and Mr Pringle rightly acknowledge, Edinburgh has a vibrant economy. To sustain that economy and the neighbouring communities within Edinburgh's commuter area, we must work with the grain of human nature and behaviour by acknowledging that the car is the preferred, convenient and appropriate method of transportation for many people in their day-to-day lives. We must act accordingly in policy making, rather than adopt a simplistic and dogmatic anti-car agenda.
Public transport in the city can be improved and I hope that it will be improved. I speak as an MSP who comes to work every day on the bus. However, public transport is not the be-all and end-all. Policies that are based on providing people with choices and options rather than subjecting them to penalties are much to be preferred, given the high level of taxes that we already pay.
Like Mr Pringle, I am not keen on the prospect of an out-of-town football stadium at Straiton. I have spent three years avoiding shopping at Straiton and where Ikea has failed, I have no desire to see Sir Tom Farmer and Chris Robinson succeed. However, as Mr Pringle pointed out, perhaps the plan is already a dead letter.
One interesting absence from Mr Pringle's motion is any mention of the T-word—tolls—although he referred to the issue in his speech. It might be helpful if I remind Mr Pringle of highly pertinent events in the Parliament before his election to it. While he and his fellow Liberal Democrat councillors in the City of Edinburgh Council were running round telling people that they were opposed to tolls, his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Parliament approved legislation that gave the City of Edinburgh Council the power to impose tolls. That was despite the fact that there was no doubt that empowering councils in general was the equivalent of empowering City of Edinburgh Council in particular, as only that council was seeking such a power.
Mrs Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
I take exception to the use of the word "impose". The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 gave councils—we knew, at the time, that that meant City of Edinburgh Council—the right to ask our constituents whether they wanted tolls. There is no question of City of Edinburgh Council, or any other council, being able to impose congestion charging on anybody without having satisfied certain key criteria in the 2001 act.
There is a role for the minister and the Scottish Executive, which I shall come to in concluding my remarks.
Mr Pringle might have missed the recent pronouncements of Don Foster MP, who is the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman at Westminster. Following the first six months' experience of congestion charging in London, Mr Foster urged ministers to work with councils throughout Britain to identify congestion hotspots and introduce similar schemes. Mr Foster is the MP for Bath. I have no doubt that, even as he delivered his ringing endorsement of tolls, somewhere in a ward in Bath a busy little Liberal Democrat was already organising an anti-tolls petition. However, consistency is the last thing that we would expect to find in a party that positively discourages consistency among its members.
Tolls would be a disaster for Edinburgh. They threaten the vitality and economic strength of our city—especially the city centre, as the chairman of John Lewis has pointed out. Tolls will not reduce congestion; they will merely displace it. They are a money-making scheme for the council and another tax on motorists who, only this week, have seen further increases in petrol tax. We have been saying that consistently in the Parliament for five years. If the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to change their minds and acknowledge that we were right all along, all converts are welcome.
Fortunately for Mr Pringle and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, help may soon be at hand in the person of their very own Minister for Transport, Mr Nicol Stephen. Mr Stephen's ministerial predecessor approved the Edinburgh tolls scheme in principle and, as a consequence, paid the price. If Mr Pringle and other Liberal Democrats do not wish to suffer the same fate, they should strongly urge Mr Stephen to reject the Edinburgh tolls plan forthwith and tell the Labour council not to waste any more time and money on this fruitless and expensive exercise and to concentrate its energies instead on developing a realistic transport plan that does not depend on tolls in partnership with its neighbouring councils.
I welcome Mike Pringle's move to introduce this important topic to the Scottish Parliament. It is important to note the amount of consensus that there is on the issue. Kenny MacAskill made one of the most positive speeches on transport that I have heard from the SNP. However, as ever, the consensus starts to fall apart when it comes to the Conservatives.
Congestion in Edinburgh is a problem. Nobody can deny that there are too many cars entering the centre of Edinburgh. Over the past 20 years, there has been a 72 per cent increase in the number of cars that come into the city centre. About 30 years ago, there was a proposal to build an inner ring road around Edinburgh—the classic solution to the problem of too many cars: build more roads. In my area of Edinburgh, that would have meant building a motorway on stilts along the water of Leith. That proposal was rejected. There was no way to build more roads in Edinburgh, which is a world heritage site and has many valuable buildings that need to be conserved. Those buildings cannot simply be knocked down to build ever-wider roads. Nevertheless, that is what the Tory line—David McLetchie's line—would result in.
When I studied economics at the University of Edinburgh, one of the basic facts that I was taught was that, although most people have unlimited desires and wants, there have to be limits to resources. I am sure that every car driver would love to drive down a completely empty road straight from their house to a conveniently sited free parking point outside their place of work, but that cannot happen. Everybody cannot drive through a city such as Edinburgh—there is not enough room on the streets. Ultimately, we must have a solution.
Mike Pringle made the point that one of the problems with the London congestion charge is that it is not raising as much money as was expected. However, that can be turned on its head; we can say that the congestion charge is much more successful than was expected, because it is succeeding in reducing congestion much more than was expected. It concerns me that bar owners are reporting problems because of the congestion charge. I hope that people are not driving home from pubs in London's west end, but are taking public transport or paying someone else to drive them home.
We must grasp the nettle. We cannot continue to build more roads. There must be a scheme that distributes transport costs more widely. In Edinburgh, about two fifths of households do not have access to a car and rely on public transport. We must have a congestion charge for Edinburgh to support those people. We must give them better public transport and attract people out of their cars and on to clean, efficient public transport, which so many European countries have.
I share Mike Pringle's concern about what is happening in Edinburgh. I was a community councillor who was responsible for environment and transport issues. We were bombarded with a multiplicity of different schemes: the closure of Princes Street; the trams; the extension of controlled parking zones; and congestion charges. All those will affect the centre of Edinburgh, but the City of Edinburgh Council has said little so far about how the various schemes will be reconciled and work together in practice. As Kenny MacAskill said, we need a vision from the council. We need to know what transport in Edinburgh will be like in the future. We do not necessarily need myriad different schemes that will impact on one another and which might undermine not only one another, but the schemes' desired effects.
We need a wider vision for transport in Edinburgh. We need to get beyond the small schemes—laudable though they are—to a wider vision of a city where we do not have to own a car and have a choice not to do so. We need a city that is not planned around the car and which does not continually invest in out-of-town shopping centres that are accessible only by cars, but which instead supports neighbourhood shops.
I hope that the proposal for a new, shared stadium at Straiton for Heart of Midlothian Football Club and Hibernian Football Club is on the back burner and does not go ahead, but I have a funny feeling that it will reappear in perhaps a slightly different form in a few years' time. That is the kind of scheme that drives up congestion, because people who would normally walk to Easter Road or Tynecastle would be forced into their cars. That is why we need a wider vision of how Edinburgh as a city will be planned and how we can get a decent, integrated public transport system for all Edinburgh's citizens.
I congratulate Mike Pringle on securing the debate, which is highly relevant and topical. It is extremely useful for us, as members of the Scottish Parliament, to focus on the issues that Mike Pringle's motion raises. As David McLetchie said, considering traffic in south Edinburgh means considering traffic in the rest of the city because the traffic that gets stuck and creates problems in south Edinburgh tends to weave its way into other parts of the city. Therefore, it is right to strive for an overview and a strategic vision that members across the chamber can share.
It is important to say that we are debating the issue in the context of record levels of investment. If we were having this debate four years ago, the context would be different. Then, the Waverley project was regarded as way out there and a dream—it had been David Steel's dream for 30 years. The project was regarded as impractical. Work had been initiated by previous Scottish Office ministers, such as Gus Macdonald, but nobody really thought that the Waverley project was on the table. Similarly, a crossrail system for Edinburgh was regarded as a nice idea by transport planners but not as something that would happen on the ground. Things have moved along. Trams, too, were viewed as a nice idea for Edinburgh, but people said that we had missed our chance. Now, those big projects are being seriously examined. Money has also been allocated to assessing the feasibility of the south suburban line.
Despite the fact that big transport projects such as those are now being looked into, I agree with colleagues that we should not restrict ourselves to them. That is why the comments contained in the motion are absolutely appropriate. We need to consider park-and-ride schemes, for example. They are not so exciting, but they are fundamental to getting quick wins in public transport and to giving car commuters a real choice. We know that new park-and-ride facilities are demanded and used by drivers, and that drivers want that choice.
As the MSP for Edinburgh Central, my concern is not about whether a park-and-ride facility is located in Burdiehouse or in the Midlothian Council area; my concern is that the project goes ahead quickly. The City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council should work together to ensure that the facility is secured. The proposal for Burdiehouse is an expression of our urgent need for such facilities, and the City of Edinburgh Council wants to get on with it without protracted delays.
I agree that having an out-of-town football stadium on the edge of Edinburgh will not improve our transport problems and that it could set us back to a huge extent. Let us hope that other solutions are suggested and will work.
I welcome the new investment that we have and that is coming, but I would not pretend for a minute that that investment will be available to use tomorrow. The agenda for investment is a long-term one—that is one thing on which we can agree. The city council is now proposing orbital bus routes. The investment of £7.5 million is huge, and would not have been made several years ago. The next routes to be put in place and quality bus corridors, which will cut from the south of the city up to Leith, will benefit from £9.5 million.
Big changes are beginning to take place, but they are not here yet, and we need to ensure that they are delivered on the ground, in the same way that crossrail—which we know is beginning to make a difference—has been delivered, and that the new railway station in the west of Edinburgh will make a difference.
However, that will not be enough. We also require other measures. We are not at the stage of debating Edinburgh's plans for congestion charging, because those are about to be put out for consultation. If members are not happy with them, the onus is on them to come up with something better. They should come up with practical suggestions and not just say that they do not like the plan and might like something better in, say, 10 years' time—which is far enough away in the political distance not to cause any problems now. We will have to take decisions across the city, as will the people of Edinburgh.
I loved the bit in David McLetchie's speech when he spoke about Liberal Democrats in different parts of the UK. I was equally fascinated by the fact that he did not suggest his alternative. It is not good enough simply to say that we should not be anti-car. Members are not anti-car in any part of the chamber. However, we acknowledge the difficult issues to be addressed, and if we ignore the fact that traffic is projected to grow by 20 per cent, we are not doing our constituents any favours. We have a job to do in engaging in those tough problems. It will not be easy; such issues are not electorally popular. I hope that we will have a referendum, which will allow us to take a sober, mature look at the issues.
It does not help to tell people that the City of Edinburgh Council's potential solution is to charge pensioners £20 every time they enter the city, which is something that I heard last night at a meeting about local buses. We need to have proper engagement and an honest discussion about the issues and choices. If people do not want congestion charging, that is fine, but they should tell us how they would tackle congestion. While it is the city council that is driving proposals forward, every member in the area—whether they are a constituency MSP or a list MSP—will have to engage in the issue.
One thing that we need to focus on, but which is not in Mike Pringle's motion, is work between the Executive and the council, which is imperative. We need the allocation of £375 million from the Executive to make the trams work, and we will need the Executive to deliver improvements to Waverley and Haymarket stations.
The agenda is exciting and radical, and I congratulate Mike Pringle on securing his first members' business debate. It is work in progress and, although I am glad that we are able to discuss the subject in the chamber tonight, this is not the end of the debate. We need a long-term vision and short-term action. Perhaps medium-term action is required too, so that, when we debate the difficult parts of this agenda, we ensure that practical public transport improvements can be put in place.
The debate is not just about public transport; it is about issues such as 20mph zones around our schools, more pedestrian facilities and more cycling facilities. We must have an integrated approach and there must be real choices for commuters, regardless of whether they come into the city through Edinburgh South, through Pentlands or from the east. We know where they all want to go—to jobs, leisure facilities and shops in our city. It is our job to ensure that we get the resources and that the City of Edinburgh Council has the resources to deliver improvements on the ground.
I heartily endorse one comment made by Mr McLetchie—like other members, he offered congratulations to my colleague Mike Pringle on securing parliamentary time to debate this important issue. The debate is important because it rightly recognises that transport policy in one part of Scotland impacts on other areas of the country. When that part of Scotland is the capital city, the implications are even wider.
Mike Pringle's motion addresses the interests of Midlothian and the Borders, the two local authority areas into which my constituency falls. I am delighted to make most of my comments this evening about the largest town in Midlothian, Penicuik, which is in my constituency. Any transport policy for the south of Edinburgh inevitably affects Penicuik, just as the housing needs and economic development of, and transport issues relating to, Penicuik and other towns in Midlothian affect the southern edge of Edinburgh.
Nothwithstanding the current financial status of Hearts and Hibs and the proposal for a new football ground at Straiton, serious consideration needs to be given to the transport needs of the area. Regardless of the form of development that takes place there—it is clearly a development site, as office units are proposed and the extension of the retail park has been approved—urgent infrastructure improvements are needed to service the area.
I commend Midlothian Council for commissioning its latest multimodal study of the transport needs of Penicuik. The first part of the appraisal report, which appeared in September, makes for useful reading and is the first stage in developing a full strategic view of the town's future transport needs.
The area includes a world-class biotechnology resource at the Bush and at Roslin, tourist destinations and leisure sites. A significant number of residential developments are expected across the strategic plan area. With all those proposed commercial and domestic developments, as well as the prospect of an increased number of workers travelling to Edinburgh, it is estimated that if trip-making patterns remain largely unchanged there may be an approximate doubling of traffic flows on the A701.
In that context, I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate Mike Pringle's motion. In my view, the best way of easing the burden on the roads from Peeblesshire, through Penicuik, to the bypass and beyond or to a park-and-ride facility at Straiton is rail infrastructure serving the town of Penicuik. Rightly, there is pressure for improved bus services. Those services are regular and largely efficient, but they suffer most during peak times. The discussions that have taken place between local bus operators and local councillors about renewed bus services between Penicuik and Edinburgh, perhaps enhanced by trolley services, newspapers and news bulletins, are very welcome. I understand that such a service is operated between Cumbernauld and Glasgow. However, such services do not have the potential to provide a long-term solution to the structural problems of the area.
The original passenger rail line to Penicuik was closed in 1933. Freight services were withdrawn and the track was lifted in 1968. Since then, there have been major losses in both track and structures. The route of the Waverley line has not suffered as much as the former route to Penicuik, but we should not discount totally the introduction of a heavy-rail service serving Penicuik from Waverley. The real issue, which other speakers have touched on, is capacity at Waverley station. The multimodal study estimated a journey time of less than 40 minutes for such a rail service and I hope that that option will be seriously considered. The study was also right to consider a light-rail scheme to serve the town, which would deal with many of the deficiencies of a heavy-rail service, provide the flexibility that is needed in Penicuik and offer the option of a faster turnaround of services.
Rightly, the Scottish Executive's transport strategy is built around the needs of the passenger but takes into account environmental and social inclusion considerations. Transport policy should also be linked with the regeneration of city or town centres. That is as relevant for development in Penicuik, where the town arcade has the potential to serve as a transport as well as a shopping hub, as it is for Waverley station.
There is a debate about the impact of the Waverley development on the rail service to Penicuik and on the Borders rail link, which is vital to the other part of my constituency. I am delighted that, in the chamber this evening, we have a former Labour transport minister, who initiated the restoration of the line by commissioning the feasibility study, and the Liberal Democrat Minister for Transport, who is tasked with implementing the proposals for the line.
I was pleased to read in the briefing note for the debate from the City of Edinburgh Council that the Borders rail link is a priority initiative for the council. The easing of the burden on the road infrastructure in the constituency of my colleague Mike Pringle, especially in relation to the A7, will be welcome to his constituents, as it will reduce congestion and, crucially, pollution. Although I welcome the positive effects on Edinburgh, my colleague will forgive me if my priority is the provision of rail infrastructure to the Borders through the Waverley line, which will stimulate economic development and offer relief to the rural roads network.
I congratulate Mike Pringle on his motion, which highlights the positive effects on other parts of Scotland of improvements in transport in south Edinburgh. I hope that the minister will be able to address in due course the transport needs of Midlothian and the Borders.
I congratulate Mike Pringle on lodging the motion. The problem is that road traffic is predicted to increase by 20 per cent over the next 20 years. That would leave us in an impossible position. We have to act now. Road traffic brings with it the accompanying problems of pollution, noise, lack of speed on vital journeys, congestion, health impacts and accidents. We heard just last week that, last year, 400 children in Scotland were injured in accidents when going to and from school. That figure is not acceptable. We have to do something to address the problem of road traffic.
As has been said before, the Green party is not anti-car. We are not for the abolition of road traffic; we are for the reduction of road traffic. I drive a car. I try to drive it only when that is absolutely necessary, but the problem is that our culture is geared towards putting us into cars and forcing us to drive. We are surrounded by adverts that tell us how sexy cars are when they are driven at top speed along empty roads and how successful we are if we have the best cars. We are surrounded by attitudes such as that awful statement attributed to Mrs Thatcher that, if someone over 30 is on a bus, they are a failure. We have to attack such attitudes towards public transport and the use of the car. We have to realise that public transport is the only acceptable way forward. We have to plan our cities so that they are geared towards the use of public transport and not towards cars.
Currently, 40 per cent of families in Scotland have no access to a car. In a society that revolves around the car, those families are marginalised, excluded and suffer tremendous problems. We must change that.
I look to the minister to answer three questions. Will the Executive be able to put enough money into the development of Waverley station to allow for an expansion of services not just on the south suburban line, but to East Lothian? There is a pressing need for those services.
Chris Ballance mentioned two advantages to the development of Waverley station. There are clearly others. One is the connection to the Borders through the Borders rail link. A connection needs to be made to East Lothian and Berwickshire. Commuter services up and down the east coast main line can be developed only if Waverley has sufficient capacity. Does the member agree that it would be beneficial if Waverley were developed to ensure adequate commuting space for east coast main line trains?
I am not sure whether those questions were addressed to me or to the minister. I certainly agree with Mr Robson and I hope that the minister will agree with him, too. I thank Mr Robson for asking those questions.
I would also like from the minister a cast-iron guarantee that we will all be able to use a rail service into Edinburgh from the Borders in five years' time. Recent announcements from the Strategic Rail Authority have worried several of us. We therefore seek a genuine commitment from the Executive that the project will happen. I would be grateful to hear the minister's response.
For the final guarantee, I would like to hear whether the Labour and Liberal members of the Executive whole-heartedly support the concept of congestion charging. If the Executive supports the concept, I very much hope that it will support the introduction of such a scheme in Edinburgh. Proposals are now on the table; I hope that the Executive accepts that the principles of the proposals are correct and I hope that it will now engage in the debate on the exact details of the proposals. We need the Liberal members of the Executive in particular to take the lead. I have not seen such a lead being taken, either today or previously.
Mike Pringle mentioned the possible effects of congestion charging on the theatres, bars and restaurants of central Edinburgh. I have heard no suggestion that the theatres, bars and restaurants of central Edinburgh will be affected by congestion charging, regardless of what has happened in London. Suggestions that businesses in central London have been affected have now, I think, been generally proven to be incorrect. The effect on businesses is the same on Saturday as it is from Monday to Friday. That suggests that the downturn has been caused more by the current state of the economy—and perhaps the knock-on effects of 11 September—than by congestion charging.
If the Executive can give us those three guarantees, this will have been a first-rate debate and a thoroughly worthwhile occasion.
I, too, add my congratulations to Mike Pringle on bringing his motion before Parliament. I know that transport problems in the south of Edinburgh are a great concern of his.
Lest I forget later on, I immediately turn to Don Foster—the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesperson, to whom David McLetchie referred—and his constituency. Perhaps I should call this part "taking an early Bath". Mr McLetchie made up a fictional situation that seemed extremely speculative. The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" sprang immediately to mind when I thought about the Scottish Conservatives. Perish the thought that the Tories in Scotland would ever take a populist, unprincipled and opportunistic approach to any issue. Which party first championed the idea of road tolls? Which party built the Skye bridge and imposed the discredited road tolls on it? Members may recall that, during the election campaign, the party dressed up poor Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in his school-crossing-patrol outfit, gave him a lollipop and stood him in front of the cameras where he shouted "No road tolls!" The credibility of the Conservative party, on this issue as on issues such as student finance and free personal care for the elderly, is not high. Look not at what they say in opposition but at what they do in government.
There is a tradition of charging tolls on bridges and, indeed, of financing such new facilities by that method. The Skye bridge—the tolls on which have yet to be abolished by the Executive—was erected only by virtue of that charging mechanism. However, the Executive is proposing to charge people tolls for driving on roads that have already been paid for by their taxes. There is a significant difference between charging tolls for a new facility, such as the Skye bridge, and charging tolls for roads that already exist.
We have no such proposal. David McLetchie may wriggle and squirm, but he lacks credibility in the eyes of the people of Scotland not only on that issue but on others.
I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made, and I welcome the wide range of views that members from across the parties have put forward. Congestion in Edinburgh South is a significant problem. I give credit to the parties that have made constructive proposals and suggestions about how to get to grips with the problem, but I do not see much sign of that from the Conservative party.
The Scottish Executive is committed to a first-class transport infrastructure for Edinburgh. We are supporting a number of transport schemes. Sarah Boyack referred to those—indeed, she instituted several of them—and I agree with her that such schemes were not invested in during the years of Conservative Government and over the decades. Those schemes would have been inconceivable when the new Scottish Parliament was being campaigned for and when it was first established.
Congestion is a great concern for many parts of Scotland. It hampers our economy and damages our environment. Our target must be to contain traffic growth, to invest in public transport and to reduce congestion. That is why we are sharply increasing the share of spending on public transport projects.
Provided that I have time, I will touch on some of the schemes in southern Edinburgh. Most of them have already been mentioned by Mike Pringle. Park-and-ride schemes are very important in tackling congestion and I want to see more such schemes moving forward more quickly. We have committed £2.3 million to the Straiton park-and-ride scheme as part of a wider package of improvements that will help to tackle congestion. The package includes the provision of real-time information, a quality bus corridor and public transport interchange points. I am aware of the issues surrounding the siting of that park-and-ride scheme, and I totally agree that they should be resolved quickly. I hope that the councils involved can work together to resolve those local problems as soon as possible.
A second park-and-ride scheme planned for the south of Edinburgh is the Todhills scheme, which will be located near Danderhall in Midlothian. I am pleased that that scheme, to which the Executive has committed around £2 million, is now progressing. I understand that Midlothian Council has recently gone to tender to deliver the project.
Let me touch on the south suburban railway line, which was mentioned in a recent debate in the Parliament. The line is currently used as a freight line and has been closed to passenger traffic since the late 1960s. I know that Mike Pringle is leading the campaign to help to deliver that scheme, so he knows that the Executive has already provided significant support. We funded to the tune of more than £500,000 a study into comparative demand for passenger and/or light rail services on that line. I understand that the study is due to be completed shortly. It is clearly the responsibility of the City of Edinburgh Council to take the lead on developing the project, but the Executive stands ready to continue its support.
The new Borders rail link will, of course, run through the south of Edinburgh. The Scottish Executive is committed to supporting the reopening of the line. We awarded £1.86 million to enable the Waverley railway partnership to start the process of obtaining parliamentary powers to reinstate the line between Edinburgh and the central Borders. The private bill promoting the line has been introduced to the Scottish Parliament and we await the submission of the business case, which will be made shortly.
As I said earlier, congestion is not limited to southern Edinburgh. That is why we have invested in several Edinburgh-wide initiatives, some of which will clearly benefit Edinburgh South. The tram has a key role to play as part of a first-class transport infrastructure for Edinburgh. We have guaranteed the future availability of £375 million, which will secure the completion of at least the first tram line as soon as the council produces its business case. We have already invested in the development of proposals for the north tram loop, the west tram line and a tram line serving the south-east of the city. Private bills for tram lines 1 and 2 are likely to be submitted to the Scottish Parliament at the end of the year. I was pleased that the results of the tramtime consultation were published last Friday.
We are committed to the improvements that are required at Waverley station, particularly to increase capacity, which members have mentioned. We play a central role in the Waverley station working group that is considering the development of Waverley. The Executive is determined to ensure that we take a partnership approach with Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority, the City of Edinburgh Council and others to deliver a major upgrade of Waverley station.
Crossrail is progressing and is an important part of tackling congestion. Two new stations at Brunstane and Newcraighall have already been opened, and major progress has been made on Edinburgh Park station, which will open shortly.
I conclude with a brief mention of road-user charging. Congestion charging is one measure that can be used to tackle the problems that we face in many urban parts of the UK. We have made it clear that if any local authority presents an appropriate road-user charging scheme with clear evidence of public support, ministers will provide the necessary support. I know that Edinburgh will shortly be consulting on its proposals. We will return to the issue on more than one occasion.
I thank all members who contributed to the debate, which was worthwhile and touched on issues of significance to other cities in Scotland.
The Executive has made a significant commitment to investment in public transport projects in Edinburgh—more than £1 billion of investment that had not been committed at the time of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. I take this opportunity to reiterate and underscore our commitment to working closely with everyone involved in order to proceed with those projects.
Meeting closed at 17:57.