GROUP 35 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA C LEAD OBJECTORS: … · 2011-12-20 · 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS

GROUP 35 – ROSEBURN CORRIDOR AREA C

LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT

STUART TURNBULL Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3 Initial Review of Options – Work Package One Report 4 Review of Telford Road and Craigleith Route Options 5. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Stuart Turnbull, a Divisional Director with Jacobs Babtie. I have 17

years experience in transport planning and traffic engineering in Scotland. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.

1.2 I have been responsible for managing the input from Jacobs Babtie on

the Edinburgh Tram Line One scheme. This has involved me working closely with other members of tie’s Technical Advisers team and officials of the City of Edinburgh Council in developing appropriate junction configurations along the length of the Edinburgh Tram Line One (ETL1) route that could accommodate the needs of tram and other road users. I was also a member of the Modelling and Appraisal Working Group, the remit of which was to ensure a common approach was being taken by the Technical Advisers working on the three tram lines.

1.3 I am also Project Director on a commission for the City of Edinburgh

Council where Jacobs Babtie has been providing transport planning advisory services since November 2001. This commission has involved developing a number of schemes aimed at improving provision for buses, pedestrians and cyclists throughout Edinburgh.

1.4 In addition to my extensive experience within Edinburgh I have worked

on the proposed light rail schemes in Dublin, Manchester and South Hampshire.

2 Scope of Evidence 2.1 The scope of evidence relates to the proposed alignment of the

Edinburgh Tram Line One (ETL1) within the Roseburn section. 2.2 My colleagues will present evidence on the overall route selection

process and the specific tram alignment, costs, patronage and environmental considerations. My evidence will cover the highway and traffic impacts associated with the preferred alignment and the other options considered.

3 Initial Review of Options 3.1 Mr Oldfield has explained in his witness statement the process involved

during the Work Package One report in evaluating the various alternative sections that could comprise the route of the ETL1. In summary this involved:

• Appraisal of link options; and • Comparison of route options

3.2 The paragraphs below outline the key traffic related issues within this

process. 3.3 On the western leg of the ETL1 approximately 25 possible links were

examined. In all cases other than via the former railway corridor these links involved on-street running. In traffic terms the routing of the tram along on-street sections is clearly less desirable than the option of segregated running. The areas of particular concern in traffic interface terms are:

• Impact on traffic, servicing and levels of congestion resulting

from running on Haymarket Terrace, as opposed to the promoted route through the Haymarket Yards area;

• Impact on traffic, servicing and levels of congestion resulting from running on Corstorphine Road, as opposed to the promoted route through the Haymarket Yards area;

• Congestion impacts of turning right across heavy flows on Corstorphine road into Murrayfield Road;

• Impact on parking resulting from running on Belford Road; • Impact on traffic and levels of congestion resulting from running

on Queensferry Road, as opposed to the promoted route through the former rail corridor;

• Difficulty in negotiating Crewe Toll Roundabout connecting Ferry Road and Telford Road;

• Need for shared running on Crewe Road South and the consequential impacts on tram reliability;

• Need for right turning manoeuvres for tram at a number of junctions, impacting on operation of the tram.

Figure 3.1 Plan showing the route sections considered during Work Package One

3.4 Following the examination of individual link sections, two loop options within the western section of ETL1 emerged, one incorporating the former rail corridor in Roseburn and one involving on-street running north from Hope Street, Queensferry Street, Orchard Brae and Crewe Road, to Crewe Toll.

3.5 In comparing these options an assumption was made within the

transport models that absolute priority would be afforded to the tram at junctions along the route. This therefore if anything will overestimate the benefits of the on-street options compared to the option of running on the former rail corridor through Roseburn.

3.6 Taking cognisance of the traffic related concerns outlined in paragraph

3.3 it is clear that on traffic grounds the preferred route is the option that utilises the former rail corridor and therefore minimises the interaction with other road users.

4 Further Review of Options 4.1 As Mr Oldfield has explained, following the initial review of individual

sections undertaken as part of the Work Package One Report three basic loop options were identified, and in the case of option 3 two sub options were identified, for further analysis, as shown in Figure 4.1:

• Option A- Tram route would continue on the former railway corridor

from Craigleith Road north to Ferry Road; • Option B – Tram route would leave the former railway corridor at

South Groathill Avenue, where it would head north to Telford Road.

It would then head west before Crewe Toll and rejoin the former railway corridor at Ferry Road;

• Option C1 – Tram route would leave the former railway corridor at the junction of A90 Queensferry Road / Craigleith Road where it would travel eastwards along Craigleith Road, northwards along Crewe Road South to Crewe Toll roundabout, then westwards along Ferry Road to rejoin the former Railway corridor at Ferry Road.

• Option C2 –Tram would leave the former railway corridor to north of A90 Queensferry Road / Craigleith Road junction and would progress along south west corner of Craigleith Retail Park before joining Craigleith Road and would continue as C1 above.

Figure 4.1 Plan showing the Reserved Railway Corridor option [blue], the Telford Road option [red] and the Crewe Road-Craigleith Road option [black]

4.2 When considering the highway and traffic impacts of each of the

options, the key issue is the overall lengths of the routes and the degree of segregation from other traffic. The following table summarises the route lengths and degree of segregation:

Option Total Length

(m) %age on-street segregated

%age on-street with traffic

%age off street segregated

A – Former Railway Corridor

1480 0 0 100

B – Telford Rd 1670 61 23 16 C – Craigleith/Crewe Rd

2810 39 53 8

For comparison purposes, lengths are taken from the hotel access overbridge to Crewe Toll Stop (at Ferry Road Junction). The “best case” Crewe Road Option is assumed as segregated running on Craigleith Road. 4.3 Due to the increased level of on-street running, the on-street alignment

on Telford Road and Craigleith Road/Crewe Road would reduce highway capacity, causing a negative impact on non tram operation. In addition, four new signalised junctions would be required for operation of these options. Whilst it may be possible to design the traffic signals as far as possible to offer the tram priority over other traffic, each additional junction would likely introduce a delay to tram operation and potentially other road users.

4.4 The Craigleith route would involve a significant element of on-street

running and interaction with a number of busy junctions on the route. Although detailed modelling of these junctions was not undertaken at this stage I would estimate that on average the additional delays caused to the tram vehicle as it travels through these junctions would be approximately 1 minute. It should be noted that these delays were not taken into account on the patronage assessments for the Craigleith/Crewe Road option. If theses delays were taken into account the predicted run times would increase and the patronage levels would decrease. The route along the Railway Corridor would suffer no such delays.

4.5 Of greatest concern with the Craigleith option, in respect of traffic

interface, would be the need for the tram to negotiate the Crewe Toll junction (connecting Ferry Road/Crewe Road and Telford Road). Along the length of the proposed tram route it would be generally preferable to reconfigure the junctions to a signalised form as this would provide the most efficient and safest layout. In August 2002 the Scottish Executive awarded the City of Edinburgh Council £10.5m to fund a series of measures aimed at improving public transport access to three of Edinburgh’s growth areas. Within this initiative, known as “Access to Growth Areas”, was the proposal to reconfigure the Crewe Toll roundabout to a signalised form, incorporating bus priority measures. However further work commissioned by the City of Edinburgh Council concluded that it is not possible within the constraints of the available land, to reconfigure the Crewe Toll junction to a signalised form that

would operate more effectively than the current layout. On this basis I believe that there is a significant risk that it will not be possible to design a layout that could successfully accommodate the tram and other road users that would be acceptable to the Roads Authority.

4.6 Furthermore less reliable operation could be expected due to the need

to mix with general traffic on Crewe Road South. It will also be likely that significant impacts on parking and servicing on Craigleith Road would be expected to enable the tram to operate in a segregated manner.

4.7 The Telford Road option would avoid the congested junction at Crewe

Toll and in general result in less interaction with general traffic. However there would still be the need to modify four junctions along the route and, as described above, it is unlikely that the tram would achieve full priority through these junctions. Although detailed modelling of these junctions has not been undertaken at this stage I would estimate that on average the additional delays caused to the tram vehicle as it travels through these junctions would be approximately 30 seconds. It should be noted that these delays were not taken into account on the patronage assessments for the Telford Road option. If theses delays were taken into account the predicted run times would increase and the patronage levels may decrease. The route along the Railway Corridor would suffer no such delays.

4.8 Under the Telford Road option it is also likely that parking spaces

would be lost on Groathill Ave to accommodate the tram. 5 Conclusions 5.1 As part of the Work Package One Report, completed in December

2002 a number of individual route links were reviewed against agreed criteria. I have commented in Section 3.3 of my Witness Statement on the traffic related concerns I have relating to the on-street running sections of the route.

5.2 From this initial review a number of loop options were considered in

further detail, as described in sections 3.4 -3.6 and 4.1-4.8 of my Witness Statement. Based on the above it is considered that, in traffic terms, the route shown in blue in Figure 4.1, using the former railway corridor is the preferred option in the area

Stuart Turnbull Divisional Director Jacobs Babtie 4 July 2005



MARK M BAIN Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Alignment Considerations (General) 4. Alignment Considerations (Specific) 1. Resume 1.1 I am Mark M Bain. I am a Senior Engineer with Mott MacDonald for the

Technical Consultants, commissioned to examine the technical aspects of the project. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have 16 years experience in Civil Engineering, half of which has been spent in the planning and design of transportation projects including those tram and light rapid transit projects in Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, as well as, Edinburgh.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses

(i) Alignment considerations.

3. Alignment Considerations 3.1 This evidence relates specifically to the geometric design (horizontal and

vertical fit of track) of tram alignments before and following selection of tram route corridors. Preliminary geometric design is undertaken in the early stages of projects to establish whether particular routes are technically feasible. It is however uncommon for candidate routes to be found technically unfeasible and other factors usually determine which route is selected for development. For evidence specifically relating to route selection, reference should be made to that particular witness statement. This evidence does however consider the physical extents of a tram corridor which is predominantly influenced by the geometric design of tram alignments.

3.2 Within this statement reference is made to ‘corridor(s)’ and ‘Limits of Deviation’

and consequently these terms are explained below.

Corridor is the term used to define the restricted tract of land used for

the construction, operation and maintenance of the authorised tram works, and any associated infrastructure and landscaping including any mitigation measures; and

Limits of Deviation (LoD) is the term used to define the extent to which

the works can deviate from the centre lines shown on the plans. In lateral terms, the works can deviate within lines that have been drawn on the parliamentary plans. In vertical terms, the works can deviate up to three metres upwards and to any extent downwards. LoD are used to introduce a certain amount of flexibility in where the works may be constructed, otherwise the Bill would be impracticably strict. If the works had to be constructed along the centre lines indicated on the plans, then the slightest alteration that might be required would mean that the works would be constructed contrary to the authorisation.

3.3 Although the LoD need to be flexible they need not be unduly wide, and it

should also be noted that total extent of the LoD need not necessarily be subject to compulsory acquisition although the Bill as written provides such powers. The promoter is only interested in acquiring the lands that will allow the authorised works to be constructed, operated and maintained with some degree of flexibility to alter the alignment if required.

3.4 This flexibility can in certain cases benefit the landowner as well as the promoter. One example of where such flexibility can present opportunities for landowners is in the section of the route that passes through the land owned by Forth Ports at Leith. Without this flexibility it would not have possible to respond to the Forth Ports emerging development proposals and the mutual benefits that have ensued would not have been possible to achieve with tighter LoD.

3.5 The extent of the LoD is made sufficient to allow for the construction of the tram, which would normally be a larger area than that required for tram operation, which is generally a smaller area than that required to facilitate maintenance of the built infrastructure, which is in turn is usually smaller than the area required for the construction of the tram. This demonstrates that depending on the stage of a tram systems development the area actually required within the LoD varies.

3.6 Where the tram is located in the public highway the LoD is generally extended for a certain distance into side roads at road junctions in order to provide the promoter with sufficient scope to regulate road levels.

3.7 It should be noted that the promoter and their technical advisers have made efforts to minimise the impact on private land once route corridors have been identified. However, until the LoD are drawn and corresponding land searches have been conducted the ownership and/or rights of/over all land parcels is not known.

3.8 All geometric design of ETL1 tram alignments comply fully with the

requirements of the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance (RSPG), Part 2, Section G – Guidance on Tramways first published by the Health and Safety

Executive in July 1997 with the current revision recently issued in February 2005. As noted in Paragraph 2 of this report ‘This document does not intend to set out mandatory standards. It supports and amplifies the Part 1 safety principles by giving examples of established good practice acceptable to the Inspectorate to provide an acceptable level of safety for the public (passengers and others), employees and contractors’. The Inspectorate refers to HM Railway Inspectorate. As the RSPG provides guidance and does not set out mandatory standards, the Inspectorate will consider departures from the guidance on a case by case basis.

3.9 When designing tram corridors, the corridor needs to be sufficiently wide to

allow not only for tram operation but also its initial construction and subsequent maintenance (and also maintenance of adjacent developments). It should be noted that greater width will be required for the particular tram vehicle configuration, sections of curved track, Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) support poles, Inspectorate safety clearances (specified in RSPG, Part 2, Section G) and to accommodate stop platforms. These examples are not exhaustive but represent the main factors that impact on the width of tram corridor. Some examples of non direct factors that affect the width of tram corridors, which need to be considered in the design, include the need to accommodate footways and cycleways, undertake visibility assessments to take into account the needs of both vehicle and tram drivers and also those of pedestrians and cyclists, and develop integrated road and tram junction layouts. Once again, these examples are not an exhaustive list of factors.

3.10 With reference to RSPG, Part 2, Section G, Paragraph 102 to 105 inclusive,

the following definitions are respectively provided.

‘The definition of the developed kinematic envelope (DKE) is based upon the static envelope and the dynamic envelope.’;

‘The static envelope is that formed by the maximum cross-sectional

dimensions of trams to be used on the tramway and, where applicable, their loads when at rest on straight and level track. It should take into account allowances for tolerances in the manufacture of the trams and the effects on the suspension of tram loading and loads arising from the wind and other weather.’;

‘The dynamic envelope is the static envelope enlarged to allow for the

maximum possible displacement of the tram in motion, with respect to the rails on straight track. It should take into account tram suspension characteristics, and allowances for tolerances in the maintenance of the trams including wear. The effects of end-throw and centre-throw of trams on curved track are not included, and are disregarded in the development of the dynamic envelope.’; and

‘The kinematic envelope is the dynamic envelope enlarged to allow for

the permitted tolerances in track gauge, alignment, level and cross-level and the dynamic and static effects of track wear.’.

3.11 Following on from these definitions and with reference to RSPG, Part 2,

Section G, Paragraph 107 reads ‘A DKE should be established by enlarging

the kinematic envelope to take into account all the possible effects of curvature, including superelevation of the track, and end and centre throw of the tram. It too is speed dependant, but is unique to the particular location at a given speed’. It should also be noted that the DKE is unique to a particular tram vehicle. Definitions and an illustration to clarify the meaning of superelevation, end throw and centre throw are provided below.

Superelevation (also referred to as Cant in railway sector) is the term

used to indicate the raising of the outer rail on curved track to allow faster speeds than if the two rails were level. Cant compensates for the centrifugal force arising from a train traversing a curve;

End-throw is the term used to indicate the dimension measured from

the centreline of a curved section of rail track to the outermost point of a tram vehicle body when traversing the curved section of rail track (End throw = E + 0.5 Tram Vehicle Width); and

Centre-throw is the term used to indicate the dimension measured

from the centreline of a curved section of rail track to the innermost point of a tram vehicle body when traversing the curved section of rail track (Centre throw = C + 0.5 Tram Vehicle Width).

3.12 Currently no particular tram vehicle has been selected for use on the

Edinburgh Tram network. However, it is understood that the promoter is seeking to implement a high quality low floor tram vehicle. Although there are only a selected number of manufacturers who each offer only a select few standard tram vehicle configurations, there are both commonalities and differences with respect to the discrete vehicle parameters which influence the width of the DKE. Consequently, an outline vehicle specification was prepared at the outset of the ETL1 project that included a standard set of typical tram vehicle characteristics which were adopted for tram alignment design. These characteristics were reviewed at the outset of the ETL2 project to arrive at the set of mutually agreed tram vehicle characteristics which are consistently applied in all design work undertaken for the development of the Edinburgh Tram network. These characteristics are detailed in Section 6.3.1 of the Line One STAG Appraisal report (Revision H) dated September 2004.

3.13 Not all of the above referenced vehicle characteristics impact on the tram

corridor width and hence the geometric design of the tram alignments. However, the main characteristics that influence the tram corridor width/ alignments are listed below.

Indicator Characteristic Overall length 40m Vehicle width 2.65m Vehicle height, excluding pantograph 3.365m (from top of rail to roof) Minimum horizontal radius 25m Minimum vertical radius (sag or hog) 500m Multiple unit operation Only in case of breakdown and

emergency Bi-directional Yes Maximum gradient 6.5% (see 3.14)

3.14 It should be noted that since the vehicle characteristics were first specified,

the maximum gradient figure of 6.5% has been reviewed and revised to 8.0%. The original figure was chosen to allow greater flexibility in the specification of the number of traction motors used in each typical tram vehicle. Following receipt of the detailed topographical survey, it was identified that a few localised points on the route would require the maximum gradient to be set at 8.0%. These points are local to the streets which connect St Andrew Square with Princes Street and Queen Street.

3.15 The overall length of 40m and width of 2.65m were specified to provide a

particular tram vehicle capacity commensurate with early patronage figures. 3.16 Most modern tram vehicles are articulated, and are configured from two or

more tram vehicle body units jointed together by articulations which allow the body units to rotate relative to each other. These units are generally supported by bogies (an undercarriage with generally four wheels pivoted below particular points of a tram vehicle unit), but certain tram configurations can have body units which are suspended between two articulations supported directly by bogies. In relation to the DKE extent, the number of body units and length of each body unit, the number of articulations and length of each articulation, the relative distance from the outer end of the body unit to the nearest bogie, and the relative distance from an internal bogie to the nearest articulation are all critical factors. Examples are shown below.

Croydon

Strasbourg

Sheffield

Amsterdam

3.17 Although the DKE extent can be predicted by design to a certain accuracy,

the exact DKE extent can only be established once a particular tram vehicle has been procured and the exact dimensions are known.

3.18 With reference to RSPG, Part 2, Section G, Paragraph 85 reads ‘The tramway

path is the area reserved for a moving tram in its environment. It is derived from the DKE by adding the minimum appropriate clearances where this is specified in this document, or a clearance agreed with the Inspectorate if this document does not specify one. It therefore depends upon the DKE and upon the nature of the operational environment and the structures and features within it‘. The ‘… minimum appropriate clearances …’ are specified in Paragraphs 110 to 114 inclusive depending on the particular environment the tram is operating within. It should be noted that ‘… tramway path …’ can also be referred to as the ‘tram swept path’.

3.19 In the development of the geometric design of tram alignments myself and

colleagues at Mott MacDonald have used a number of market leading and industry standard computer software packages which include the following.

Bentley MX which is an advanced, string-based modelling tool that

enables the rapid and accurate design of road and rail alignments. It enables you to design three-dimensional alignments representing particular road features or rail trackwork;

AutoTrack for Light Rail Design allows the user to undertake advanced

swept path analysis of all types of trams and other rail bound vehicles. The system can be used to check clearance envelopes for the tram body and the pantograph envelope; and

AutoTrack for Highway Design is an advanced swept path analysis

software package which allows the user to model all types of steered vehicle. Uses include the analysis of junctions, roundabouts, car parks, service stations and loading areas.

3.20 The geometric design of the tram alignments was initially undertaken using the

Ordnance Survey Landline Mapping information supplied on request from the City of Edinburgh Council under their license agreement. As this information is only two dimensional and therefore has no height information, it was necessary to procure a three dimensional topographical survey to allow both horizontal and vertical alignments to be designed. BKS Surveys Ltd, in collaboration with Becker Geomatics, was appointed in Autumn 2003 to undertake the topographical survey of both ETL1 and ETL2.

3.21 BKS chose to undertake the topographical survey predominantly by means of

an aerial photogrammetric survey, which entailed flying at very low altitude (1000ft AMGL) along the routes with the resulting aerial photography exposed at a photoscale of 1:2000, where AMGL means Above Mean Ground Level. These photographs were subject to a photo control survey using Global Positioning System (GPS) static methods resulting in a typical point accuracy of ± 7mm horizontally and ± 10mm vertically. A control framework of Permanent Control Markers (PCM’s) on the ground was established using GPS methods, with additional secondary GPS points established at 1km

spacings which are accurate to ± 5mm horizontally and vertically. The resulting ground Photo Control Points (PCP’s) were then subject to aerial triangulation before the topographic and height data was captured to generate a three dimensional Digital Terrain Model (DTM).

3.22 In relation to the ETL1 route, the survey method described above was used for the entire route with the exception of the city centre section of the route between the junctions of Manor Place/Shandwick Place and Broughton Street/Picardy Place. Within the city centre area, the City of Edinburgh Council provided tie with the topographical survey data, which had been surveyed by Loy Surveys for use on the Central Edinburgh Traffic Management (CETM) project. This survey was undertaken using traditional land surveying techniques. With regard to both surveys undertaken, the requested tolerances for levels and co-ordinates of directly recorded points on strings were set at ± 7mm vertically and ± 20mm horizontally for carriageways and hard surfaces and ± 20mm vertically and ± 25mm horizontally for other points. The Loy Surveys CETM survey was tied into the ETL1 survey to provide a DTM for the complete route.

4. Alignment Considerations (Specific) 4.1 I can confirm that the parliamentary alignment meets all the technical criteria

detailed earlier in this statement. 4.2 With reference to the alignments considered as alternatives to the Roseburn

Corridor in MM Doc. Refs. 203011\0004 (Work Package 1 Report) and 203011\0058 (Craigleith Options Summary), none of these options have been subject to detailed geometric design. In terms, of whether they meet the criteria detailed in this statement, it could be said that they could all be engineered to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, if the repercussions of doing so were ignored. These repercussions are discussed in the particular witness statements that specifically relate to issues associated with route selection appraisals, highways and traffic impacts, capital costing and patronage and journey time.

Mark M Bain Senior Engineer Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005



NEIL HARPER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Capital Costs 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Neil Harper, an Associate Partner with Brian Hannaby &

Associates, Chartered Quantity Surveyors. I have 36 years professional experience in private practise, the past 24 years of which have been predominantly on public transport related projects. I am a Technical Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors. I have been responsible for managing the input from Brian Hannaby & Associates on the Edinburgh Tram Line One scheme where I have been particularly involved in the preparation of capital cost estimates for all aspects of Line One including considered route alternatives.

1.2 In addition to my role on the Edinburgh Tram project I have been

involved with the preparation of capital estimates and post-contract cost management for Manchester Metrolink Lines 1 & 2 and preparation of capital cost estimates for the proposed Metrolink extensions to Oldham & Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, Manchester Airport, Trafford Park and Stockport. I have a continuing involvement in capital cost management for all aspects of Merseytram Lines 1, 2 & 3 and have participated in cost audits on light rail proposals for Nottingham Lines 2 & 3 and West London Tram.

2 Scope of Evidence 2.1 The scope of evidence relates to selection of the Roseburn Corridor as

the preferred alignment for this section of the tram route. 2.2 My colleague Mr Oldfield will present evidence on the route selection

optioneering and appraisals and Mr Bain will present evidence on the tram alignment considerations. My evidence will cover the principles

1

applied to the preparation of the capital cost estimates which have been taken into account for the route selection appraisals.

3 Capital Costs 3.1 Mr Oldfield has described the three alternatives considered for this

section of the route which are referred to as follows:

• Option A – Roseburn Corridor • Option B – Telford Road • Option C – Crewe Road/Craigleith Road

3.2 The capital cost estimates for the route alternatives have been

compiled on an elemental basis to enable comparisons and appraisal to be fully considered. It should be noted that capital costs, in this context, relate to tram infrastructure construction costs and do not extend to associated land/property matters, e.g. acquisition costs, mitigation measures, compensations or the like.

3.3 Each element of the tram infrastructure is estimated by reference to a

data base of cost information gathered from direct involvement in cost management of similar completed and planned light rail projects in the UK which have been appropriately subjected to and passed DfT audit scrutiny. In addition, the particular nature of the Edinburgh Tram route location and environment has been fully considered. The coverage of the infrastructure elements is as follows:

• Trackwork – track construction for segregated or on-street running

including drainage and lineside service duct system • Power Supply – traction substations and distribution to overhead

line equipment (OLE) • OLE – overhead contact lines and associated support equipment • Signalling & Communications – tram operation, monitoring, control,

security and information systems • Stops – platform structure, finishes, furniture and equipment • Civils Work – demolitions and clearance, bulk earthworks,

construction of new and modification of existing structures • Associated Highway Works – modifications to highways and

drainage to accommodate the introduction of the tram system including traffic signalling, landscaping, street lighting & furniture and third party accommodation works

3.4 All estimated costs were, for consistency, fixed at 2nd Quarter 2003

base point. 3.5 The capital cost estimates are as follows and relate to the section of

the route between identical points, to the north of Ferry Road and to the south of Queensferry Road, for all three options. The cost coverage

2

includes the infrastructure elements described in 3.3 above together with utilities diversion works:

• Option A - Roseburn Corridor £8 million • Option B - Telford Road £15.9 million • Option C - Crewe Road/Craigleith Road £30.5 million

4 Conclusions 4.1 The principal factors contributing to the greater costs for Options B and

C, in comparison to Option A, are:

• Increased route distance • Predominantly street running requiring highway specification

trackslab construction • Significant scope of diversion of utilities apparatus required • Increased scope of associated highway and accommodation works

4.2 The result of the comparison of route options considered indicates that

the Roseburn Corridor, from the capital cost perspective, is the most economical and preferred option.

Neil Harper Associate Brian Hannaby & Associates 4 July 2005

3



STEVE MITCHELL CONTENTS PART 1 - OVERVIEW 1. Introduction 2. Acoustic Terminology 3. Background 4. Effects of the Scheme during Construction 5. Effects of the Scheme during Operation 6. General Conclusions

PART 2 - SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY GROUP 35 OBJECTORS

7. Response to Specific Objections

APPENDICES 1 What is “Noise” ? 2 The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy

1. INTRODUCTION

Qualifications

1.1 My name is Steve Mitchell. I hold an Honours Degree in Physics with Modern Acoustics. I am a Member of the Institute of Acoustics and I serve on the committee of the Institute’s Environmental Noise Group. I have worked in the field of environmental noise for 17 years specialising in the effects of transportation noise and vibration. I have published 10 academic papers on various aspects of transportation noise. I have lectured on the effects of transport noise at South Bank University, London. I have also managed major community noise research projects for the UK government.

1.2 I am a Principal Consultant with Environmental Resources Management

(ERM). In that capacity I am responsible for a team of acousticians assessing environmental noise impacts from a wide range of developments. I have assessed noise impacts from over 30 railway systems including 8 new light rail or tram proposals for the Docklands Light Railway in London, Centro in Birmingham, Merseytravel in Liverpool, and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham. Scope of Evidence

1.3 My evidence covers potential environmental noise and vibration affects associated with the construction and operation of the scheme.

1.4 My evidence is divided into two parts, as follows:

Part 1 Gives an overview of the noise and vibration effects I have

predicted, including the terminology used, the assessment methods and the overall results.

Part 2 Provides responses to the specific queries raised in the Witness Summary for objector Group 35.

1.5 In my evidence I refer to the following parts of the Environmental Statement

(ES): Chapter 13 Noise and Vibration; and Annex I Details of the Noise and Vibration Assessment.

1.6 Before discussing these issues, I briefly explain some of the acoustic terminology that is used to describe the effects of noise and vibration.

2. ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

2.1 In my assessments of noise and vibration I have quantified expected levels, I have compared them against recognised standards and I have recommended mitigation measures where necessary to meet those standards where possible. Where adequate mitigation is not likely to be available I have reported residual effects. To discuss the expected effects of noise and vibration I must refer to the noise and vibration numerically. This chapter outlines the key terminology and metrics that are required.

2.2 In November 2004, at the request of the West End Community Liaison

Group (CLG) I produced a note entitled “What is Noise”. This is included as Appendix 1 to this evidence. It explains the two main metric I have used to assess noise, LAeq, period and LAmax, with particular reference to the assessment of tram noise along the Roseburn Corridor. Some objectors have queried the use of the LAeq, period metric because it gives a noise levels representing the level ‘averaged’ over a long period. My assessment has used LAeq, period because it is the recommended metric for assessing railway noise, as I explain in Appendix 1. In my tram noise assessment I have considered LAeq levels over three periods as follows:

o 0700-2300 hours (day);

o 2300-0700 hours (night); and o 1 hour during the night.

2.3 I have also considered the peak in the noise levels as the tram passes

using the LAmax metric. 2.4 I explain how these three noise metrics are used to assess tram noise

impacts in Chapter 5.

2.5 To explain my assessment of vibration effects I have used the following two metrics.

2.6 Vibration Dose Value (VDV) is a measure of the accumulated level of

ground vibration over a stated time period and, through the application of British Standard BS6472 (1), is the standard metric for predicting the likelihood of adverse comments from affected building occupants. I describe the application of this standard in Chapter 5.

2.7 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is a measure of peak vibration often used to

assess the potential for damage to building structures.

(1) BS6472: 1992 Guide to evaluation and measurements of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)

3 BACKGROUND Sensitive Receptors and Baseline Conditions

3.1 The majority of the ETL1 route runs along existing streets with approximately 3km of the route running along the Roseburn Rail Corridor. There are neighbouring properties along the majority of its route. In the Leith and city centre areas many of these properties are commercial with some residential areas too. In other areas the route passes through mainly residential areas which are more sensitive to noise effects, particularly at night.

3.2 The effect of tram noise will depend to some extent on the existing noise

levels; tram noise will be more noticeable in currently quiet areas and less obtrusive in already noisy areas. The ES reports baseline noise surveys at 26 representative receptors long the route. The existing noise environment along the route can be considered as two distinct types; sections in the city along streets, and the off-street Roseburn Corridor section. Along the street running sections ambient noise levels are generally high with noise levels mostly in the range of 60 to 70 dB LAeq, period during the day and 55 to 65 LAeq, period in the night-time hours when the tram will operate.

3.3 Along the Roseburn Corridor the corresponding noise levels are mostly in

the range of 45 to 50 dB LAeq, period during the day and 35 to 40 LAeq, period at night, except near to road crossings where levels are higher. The potential for noise impacts is therefore substantially greater along the Roseburn Corridor than elsewhere.

Tram Noise Policy and Legislation

3.4 There are no statutory limits on noise from railways or from tramways in

Scotland. Planning Advice Note 56 Planning and Noise primarily gives guidance on planning new housing development, but in paragraph 17, under the heading Noisy Development, it gives the following guidance:

Planning Authorities should generally aim to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable noise disturbance. They should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. Areas vary in character and level of noise that area acceptable in one location may not be acceptable in another.

3.5 Tie has recognised that in planning, designing and operating ETL1 and 2

there will be opportunities to incorporate noise and vibration mitigation measures to help avoid unnecessary disturbance. Tie’s committed approach to noise control is presented in two documents; the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) covering the construction phase, and the Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy covering the operational phase. The commitments to noise and vibration control made in these are summarised below. The Edinburgh Tram Code of Construction Practice

3.6 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 recognises that noise disturbance cannot

be used as a reason to prevent necessary construction projects by advocating the use of ‘Best Practicable Means’ for reducing construction noise. The promoter has adopted this approach as a means of minimising noise and vibration disturbance during the necessary construction works. Accordingly, a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) has been prepared as a means of enforcing the use of best practicable means through contractual requirements. The CoCP takes the commitments made in the ES and summarises them into a form that will be contractually binding on the contractor who constructs the tramway. The main elements of the CoCP that will control noise and vibration affects are summarised as follows:

3.7 The CoCP limits normal hours of working to 0700-1900 hours. This is an important form of site noise management. Construction work at night is required to be kept to a minimum and requires the consent of the Council.

3.8 It lists a series of noise control measures aimed as minimising noise

emission at source and making use of noise screening.

3.9 The CoCP includes a series of noise limits and requirements to monitor noise.

3.10 The CoCP also includes vibration limits to protect residents from

disturbance due to ground vibration and to protect buildings from structural damage, and requires monitoring of vibration where needed.

3.11 The CoCP requires the Contractor to have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise disturbance from noise and to comply with the recommendations of BS5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites. As such, the CoCP does not give a permit to make noise levels up to the stated limits, but rather to minimise noise as far as practicable. The overriding requirement is to adopt the ‘Best Practicable Means’ to control noise and vibration levels. The term ‘Best Practicable Means’ is defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act where‘…practicable’ means reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications’. The test of Best Practicable Means has been tested in a substantial body of case law relating to statutory nuisance from construction works. It is for this reason that it provides a clear and appropriate test against which to ensure that adequate noise and vibration measures are adopted during the construction phase. The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy

3.12 During the preparation of the ES it became clear that there was potential for noise impacts, mainly along the Roseburn Corridor, and discussions took place to consider what mitigation measures should be developed given the absence of any statutory requirement to control tram noise. It was also recognised that although noise impacts may not be predicted in other areas, where there are noise control measures that can make the whole system

quieter, the promoter should take them. Tie committed to an approach where noise mitigation would be developed wherever significant noise impacts were predicted and the measures were reasonably practicable and not unacceptable to affected parties. This approach was adopted in the ES and led to the set of mitigation measures reported therein.

3.13 Since lodging of the Bill, with the accompanying ES, various objectors to the

scheme have questioned tie’s commitment to noise mitigation and sought clarification as to the measures to be adopted. In response to this tie has produced The Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two Noise and Vibration Policy (the N&V Policy) which was first published in March 2005, and is included as Appendix 2 to this Witness Statement. The policy seeks to strike a balance between the need to limit noise levels in some areas and the objective of providing a safe and efficient tram service. City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services department assisted in the development of the N&V Policy and endorse it.

3.14 The N&V Policy commits to a hierarchy of noise mitigation measures

starting with the tram vehicles design, through the track design, to noise screening structures, and as a last resort noise insulation. These mitigation measures are to be applied above certain threshold levels. These threshold levels are the same as those used on the ES to assess significant noise impacts, and are discussed below in Section 5.1. The peer review of the ES, by Casella Stanger, accepted these thresholds as appropriate for assessing tram noise.

3.15 Other tram promoters in the UK have produced Noise and Vibration Policies

in recent years; Centro in Birmingham and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham have policies produced in the last two years for the proposed extensions to their tram systems. The ETL1 N&V Policy adopts equivalent standard to these policies, consistent with best practice.

3.16 Consequently, I believe the N&V Policy adopts appropriate thresholds

above which to consider noise mitigation, within the practicable constraints of an operating tramway.

3.17 It is important to appreciate that these are non-statutory noise threshold

levels, and there may be cases where they cannot be achieved, for practical reasons, for example due to the presence of road traffic on street running section of the tramway. As it happens there tends not to be noise impacts on street running sections of the tramway because of the relatively small additional noise the tram adds to road traffic noise, as I shall explain in Chapter 5. The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise Insulation Scheme

3.18 The Line 1 and 2 Bills make provision for a noise insulation scheme. Following detailed consultation with the City of Edinburgh Environmental and consumer Services Department, it has been agreed to adopt the same noise insulation scheme as the statutory requirements for England and

Wales. (1) These regulations are referred to in Planning Advice Note 56. They have been used on light rail schemes in England and are considered appropriate. The trigger levels for noise insulation in residential properties can be summarised as follows:

• LAeq, 0600 to midnight 68 dB at 1m from the façade; • LAeq, midnight to 0600 hours 63 dB at 1m from the façade; and • Noise levels must be at least 1dB above prevailing noise levels.

3.19 Noise insulation usually requires the installation of secondary glazing (ie an

additional sheet of glass supported independently behind the existing glazing). This can present practical difficulties in houses with shallow window sills, but because it has little affect on the external of the building is not hindered by listed building or conservation considerations. In some cases additional ventilation is also required, and this can take the form of a small mechanical ventilator in the building façade.

3.20 Whilst noise insulation is effective at avoiding noise intrusion into properties,

it has several disadvantages over noise control at source; it does nothing for external areas, it can prevent opening windows, and it may cause inconvenience to the building occupant. For these reasons it is considered a low priority mitigation measure in the mitigation hierarchy of the N&V Policy. In fact, as I shall explain later, the levels of noise expected from tram operations are unlikely to exceed the trigger levels for noise insulation, so it is not considered a major element of the overall noise mitigation strategy for the tram.

3.21 In response to concerns expressed over the possibility of wheel squeal on tight bends, it is proposed that the Noise Insulation Scheme will be extended to include special provisions in case this particularly characteristic form of noise should occur as trams traverse bends. Wheel squeal is a complex phenomenon, and whilst it is expected that a series of good design and operating practices can avoid its occurrence, it is discussed further in my evidence in relation to those objectors who have raised it as specific concerns in their area.

(1) The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No 428).

4 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING CONSTRUCTION Assessment Methodology

4.1 Section 13.3 of the ES reports predictions of noise at 50 representative noise-sensitive receptors, resulting from the 4 main phases of work required to construct the tramway. These predictions are necessarily based on appropriate assumptions. They are based on lists of generic groups of plant that are expected to be in operation during the noisiest phases of construction work. In each case they represent the worst case predicted noise level when the group of plant is at its closest approach to each receiver. The predicted noise levels are assessed against the LAeq, daytime 75 dB standard widely adopted for assessing construction noise impacts. The assessment methodology was judged as appropriate by the committee’s peer reviewers, Casella Stanger.

Construction Noise Effects

4.2 Whilst the noise control measures in the CoCP will reduce construction

noise levels, some noise disturbance is inevitable for any construction project of this type. Enabling works will produce some of the highest localised noise levels affecting the nearest receptors along much of the route, but it will be of relatively short duration compared to the overall construction programme. Stop construction will also affect nearby receptors. Each Stop will typically take two to three months to construct, but noise will affect receptors for only part of this period, mainly when the foundations are being constructed. Tracklaying and other activities will generally not produce noise levels above the LAeq, daytime 75 dB criterion, and whilst this may be noticeable, I do not expect it to have significant impacts on users of neighbouring buildings.

4.3 Some night work may be required at a small number of locations, for

example, at busy road junctions. Ambient noise levels tend to be high in these locations lessening the effect of night-time construction work, but even after mitigation, some residual noise impacts are expected, albeit over brief periods.

4.4 It can be concluded that whilst there may be some disturbance from construction noise, these would result only in short term annoyance over limited areas and, given appropriate control through the CoCP procedures and Council involvement, I do not consider these unacceptable in the context of the overall tramway project. Construction Vibration Effects

4.5 Vibration annoyance and damage from construction work is most typically associated with driven piling (such as drop hammer piling or sheet piling where piles are struck to drive them into the ground). This type of piling is not expected and other construction work will give rise to lower levels. At the closest receptors ground vibration may be perceptible from time to time when the works are in the immediate vicinity. However, for general construction works annoyance standards should not be exceeded, and

vibration levels are not expected to be high enough to risk damage to buildings.

5 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING OPERATION Assessment Methodology

5.1 In the ES tram noise has been predicted at 41 representative noise-sensitive receptors along the route based on noise source level data from other comparable systems. Train speeds will be up to about 48kph on street running sections and up to 70 kph on the sections of segregated track along the Roseburn Railway Corridor. The frequency of the train service is also important in predicting overall noise levels, and the following service pattern is assumed: • Monday to Friday – 0500-0700 4 trams per hour

0700-1900 8 trams per hour 1900-0030 4 trams per hour • Saturday - 0600-0900 4trams per hour

0900-0000 8 trams per hour • Sunday – 0600--0030 4 trams per hour

5.2 This means in a peak daytime hour (apart from Sundays) there will be one tram pass-by every 3 ¾ minutes, and at other times there will be a tram pass-by every 7 ½ minutes.

5.3 The predictions of tram noise levels were carried out using established

methods, but some objectors have questioned whether these predictions can be accurate since full details of the tram system are not yet known. I have measured noise levels from tram systems throughout the UK and across Europe, and I have been advised of those design parameters for the Edinburgh Tram that influence noise emission; vehicle length, number of wheels, floor level, track guage etc. For modern tram vehicles that fall within these parameters, I have found that the divergence in noise emission levels is small, so I am confident I have used a realistic noise emission level in my predictions. Other stages in the noise prediction process involving predicting propagation losses, summing noise from tram vehicles etc, have all followed the standard Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN) methodology as published by the Department of Transport in 1995. I have had the opportunity to validate such predictions on numerous occasions. I am therefore confident that I have predicted tram noise levels to an accuracy suitable for assessing potential noise impacts from the Edinburgh Tram.

5.4 A noise assessment methodology was adopted that considered both

absolute thresholds of tram noise impact and also the extent to which tram noise would increase existing ambient levels. The threshold values, below which no impact is expected, were taken from Planning Advice Note 56, by adopting the noise levels at the top end of Noise Exposure Category A, as follows: • For daytime noise, LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 55 dB. • For night-time noise LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 45 dB.

These represent the noise levels given in the Planning Advice Note below which noise need not be considered a determining factor in granting planning permission for new housing adjacent to existing noise sources. This guidance is for the planning of new houses next to existing noise sources, rather than the reverse, which is the case here. However, the basis of these levels is a large body of research that has found that at levels below these, few people are annoyed by noise. The National Noise Incidence Study 2000 found that 55±3% of the population of England and Wales live in dwellings exposed to day-time noise levels above 55 dB LAeq,day and 68±3% of the population of England and Wales live in dwellings exposed to night-time noise levels above 45 dB LAeq,night.

5.5 It is for these reasons that I consider these threshold levels to be stringent

assessment criterion to adopt and criteria that should not be applied in isolation without consideration of pre-existing ambient noise levels.

5.6 In the ES changes in noise were considered over one hour periods, ie LAeq 1

hour, during the peak daytime hour and the night-time hours when trams will run. The test that was applied to assess the significance of the predicted noise change was the commonly used 3dB threshold of perception for change in environmental noise, so that changes in LAeq, 1 hour of less than 3dB were judged to be ‘slight’ and insignificant. Greater noise changes, when at least 3dB above the noise impact thresholds, were reported in the ES as giving greater levels of potential impact (3-5 dB moderate, 5-10 dB substantial, and 10 dB or more severe). Impacts predicted to be greater that slight were considered significant and mitigation was considered.

5.7 Maximum (LAmax) levels of tram noise were also assessed against the 82 dB

noise criterion for potential sleep disturbance contained in PAN56 in order to consider if individual tram noise events are likely to cause significant sleep disturbance.

5.8 The ETL1 committee appointed Casella Stanger to carry out a peer review of the noise and vibration assessment reported in the ES. This review report (September 2004) supported the methodology used to assess tram noise, and included the following comments in its conclusions: o ‘Appropriate standards have been used as a basis for the

assessment and the correct conclusions have been drawn.’ o ‘There are no recommendations for improving the chapter except to

ensure that the supplementary work suggested is actually carried out. Most of the supplementary work suggested cannot be carried out until further development of the detailed design of the scheme.’

5.9 Since publication of the ES engineering design work has advanced and in

response to objections from residents with houses backing on to the Roseburn Railway Corridor further detailed noise modelling has been carried out in this area. This has allowed mitigation measures to be progressed in more detail in this area, as discussed in Part 2 of this Witness Statement.

5.10 In the ES estimates of levels of ground vibration were made based on measurements taken adjacent to comparable systems that included detailed measurements of vibration levels from Phase 1 of the Manchester Metro in 1996. The estimated levels were compared to the Vibration Dose Values (VDVs) given in BS6472 below which the probability of adverse comment is low. The standard includes the following guidance on adverse comments from vibration.

Table 2 BS6472 Table 7: Vibration Dose Values (m/s-1.75) above which various degrees of adverse comment may be expected in residential buildings Place Low probability

of adverse comment

Adverse comment possible

Adverse comment probable

Residential buildings 16 hour day

0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6

Residential buildings 8 hour night

0.13 0.26 0.51

5.11 The design standard adopted in Section 5 of the Noise and Vibration Policy

is set at the levels where there is a ‘low probability of adverse’ comment. These levels are half those at which ‘adverse comments are possible’, and are a quarter of those at which ‘adverse comments are probable’. The standard has been widely used to assess the impacts of tram and railway vibration. It has been widely adopted as the design standard for other tram and light rail systems in the UK. Noise Effects During Operation

5.12 Outside the Roseburn Corridor noise impacts no greater than slight are predicted, except at one location, West Pilton March on West Granton Approach Road where a 5 dB exceedance of the assessment criteria is predicted. A noise barrier will probably be appropriate here to mitigate this impact in accordance with the N&V Policy. So, outside the Roseburn Corridor I do not expect there to be any significant noise impacts from the operation of trams. This is largely a result of the relatively high ambient noise levels along the route, as discussed in Section 3.1.

5.13 The ES predicted noise impacts at about 200 properties along the

Roseburn Corridor and suggested that approximately 2.5km of noise barrier would be required to mitigate these affects. It also noted the need to develop the barrier design so that it can be accommodated into the complex corridor setting as the detailed design of the scheme progresses. It also noted that residents’ views would be important in determining the appropriateness of barriers in particular locations. Much work has been done since the ES to develop noise mitigation along the Roseburn corridor and views have been expressed by many of the affected community. Where necessary noise barriers will be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively an innovative low level ‘noise plenum’ system may be possible to provide the necessary level of mitigation without the need for such high screening structures. I describe the further work that has been carried out to develop the mitigation measures here in more detail

in response to the relevant objectors in Part 2 of this Witness Statement. 5.14 Some objectors have expressed concern that there will be high level of

noise from tram stops. Unlike railway stations the tram stops will not make use of a public address system to inform passengers to tram schedules. This will be done by visual display units, and audible announcements will be made inside the tram vehicles except in emergencies or periods of service disruption when external announcements will be necessary. The N&V Policy requires the levels of external announcements to be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services Department in any case where neighbours have concerns over noise disturbance. Vibration Effects During Operation

5.15 The tram tracks will be embedded in a resilient sleeve. Vibration levels due to tram operations are expected to be perceptible at various sensitive receptors, but not at levels that exceed the BS6472 VDV standard for a low probability of adverse comment.

5.16 Where the tracks run very close to noise sensitive buildings, and other conditions prevail (such as high tram speed and unfavourable ground conditions) a trackform offering greater vibration isolation, such as Isolated Track Slab may be required to achieve the VDV levels that the promoter has committed to in the Noise and Vibration Policy. Isolated Track Slab designs mount the concrete slab that supports that track in a resilient layer that further reduces vibration transfer into the ground. Isolated Track Slab used on other comparable tram systems has achieved these limits. With these measures in place, vibration impacts are not expected.

5.17 It is not uncommon in my experience for owners to properties close to

proposed tram routes to fear that vibration from the trams could damage their homes. This is a misconception as demonstrated by considering the fact that there are very many street running tram systems around the world that run in close proximity to buildings without damaging them. A technical assessment of this issue is provided in Section 13.7 of the ES which provides measured vibration data showing Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) levels of up to 1.5mm/s as close as 3m from the tracks, whereas a safe threshold for damage to structures is 15mm/s. So, even as close as 3m tram vibration is a factor of 10 below the safe level. Further measured data in the ES shows that at approximately 15m from the tram tracks the vibration levels are a factor of 100 below this safe threshold. Monitoring and Maintenance

5.18 Section 6 of the N&V Policy requires the tram system to be maintained, and

in particular the wheel and rail surfaces, so as to minimise noise and vibration at sensitive receptors. Maintenance of the wheel and rail surfaces is an important means of avoiding tram noise increasing over the years of operation. Much of the maintenance work on the track will be undertaken at night when the tramway is not in use, and some objectors have expressed concern that this will be noisy and could disturb them. Most maintenance

activities are not particularly noisy, but rail grinding may cause some disturbance. Rail grinding is likely to be required at a frequency measured in years rather than weeks or months and will deliver long term noise and vibration benefits. Rail grinding in the vicinity of a particular receptor will take only a few hours and would generally be completed over a single night shift. Section 6 of the N&V Policy also requires the operator to give due notice to City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department and to local residents of rail grinding.

5.19 In accordance with section 6 of the N&V Policy noise and vibration levels

will be monitored throughout the operation of the scheme, to a schedule to be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department. The results of this monitoring will be used to inform maintenance programmes so as to avoid unnecessary increases in noise or vibration levels.

5.20 Overall, I consider the N&V Policy provides a good level of protection against noise and vibration impacts. The policy goes well beyond statutory requirements, and in my opinion will ensure that an appropriate level of mitigation is applied and unacceptable impacts are avoided.

6 CONCLUSIONS Effects During Construction

6.1 The promoter will put in place a series of procedures that will ensure that the proposed tramway is built using the ‘best practicable means’ as defined by the Control of Pollution Act to reduce noise and vibration to a practicable minimum. These include; a Code of Construction Practice placing contractual requirements to control noise on the contractor; noise limits; and noise and vibration monitoring to identify potential shortfalls in noise control performance.

6.2 Even with the use of the best practicable means to reduce noise, some

noise disturbance cannot be ruled out during unavoidably noisy activities. In the overall context of the tramway scheme, and with the mitigation measure I have described in this evidence, I do not consider these residual impacts to be unacceptable. Effects During Operation

6.3 The Edinburgh tram system will operate short, light vehicles at modest speeds, and as such it is fundamentally less noisy than traditional railway systems. There are no statutory limits on tramway noise in Scotland. Nonetheless tie has developed a N&V Policy to ensure that noise and vibration levels are controlled wherever necessary and practicable.

6.4 Levels of tram noise have been predicted and compared to both noise

impact threshold criteria and existing ambient noise levels. The only area of potential widespread noise impact is within the Roseburn Railway Corridor where ambient noise levels are currently much lower than elsewhere along the route. Here various mitigation measures will be developed in the detailed design stage in accordance with the N&V Policy. Detailed modelling work has already been completed to demonstrate that these measures will be affective. If necessary noise barriers will be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels, or alternatively a low level ‘noise plenum’ system will provide the necessary level of mitigation without the need for such high screening structures. Along the corridor, tram noise will be audible as a new type of noise, not heard there for over 30 years. Although some increases in ambient noise levels are predicted, because currently some areas adjacent to the corridor are quiet, mitigated noise levels will not give rise to unacceptable noise impacts.

6.5 Ground vibration from trams is likely to be perceptible at various receptors

but not at levels that would be expected to give rise to adverse comments. No significant impacts from vibration are predicted to occur.

PART 2 - SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY GROUP 35 OBJECTORS

7 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS

Approach To Objections

7.1 Over 150 objectors raise noise and/or vibration concerns, with the majority living in along the Roseburn Corridor. I have attended several of the Community Liaison Group meetings to try to explain how I have assessed noise and vibration impacts from the tram, what measures the promoter will be taking to address these, and what the result will be.

7.2 In Part 1 of this Witness Statement I have tried to respond to the common

concerns raised in the objection letters of this and other Objector Groups. In this chapter I respond to any other specific points of objection that are raised in the individual objection letters and the Objector Group 35 Witness Summary. Noise Mitigation Measures for Roseburn Corridor Area C

7.3 Roseburn Corridor Area C runs from Ravelston Dykes and Ravelston Dykes tram stop in the north to the Water of Leith on the south. The majority of the route is bounded by residential property and it runs from cutting in the north through to elevated structure in the south.

7.4 The extent of noise mitigation measures in this area has been developed

through detailed noise modelling as reported in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a developing document that has been published in stages since April 2005. Prior to that, in October 2004, noise mitigation measures were illustrated for sample sections of the corridor in ERM‘s report Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures in the Roseburn Corridor.

7.5 The N&V Policy sets target levels for noise mitigation. The policy commits

the promoter to adopting the best practicable means to achieve these noise targets through a hierarchy of measures from selection of a quiet tram, through track design and screening to noise insulation as a last resort. Along the Roseburn Corridor, unlike street-running sections of the route where options are more limited, the track design can be modified and screening provided to provide noise mitigation. This is the focus of noise mitigation throughout the corridor, and it is not envisaged that noise insulation will be required.

7.6 Along the Roseburn Corridor ambient noise levels are generally below the threshold levels described above, so the baseline noise levels do not need to be known in detail in order to specify the required mitigation in these areas.

7.7 Much work has been done since the first issue of the LHMP on April 1 to develop this mitigation as an integral part of the design. Modelling work on requirements for noise mitigation has been refined and progress has been made in developing a low level screening structure, referred to as the

‘acoustic plenum’. This differs from the more conventional form of noise barriers, in that it allows the noise propagation path from the tram wheel/rail interface to the receptor to be interrupted close to the track and at a low level, so it is less visually obtrusive. The current concept has dimensions similar to a tram stop platform, although narrower, ie very close to the trams but below tram floor level. It comprises a hollow box that absorbs the noise that reverberates under the bodies of the passing tram vehicles. A form of acoustic plenum has been used to great success in Hong Kong. I expect a similar system would provide adequate mitigation along the Roseburn Coridor.

7.8 There are a series of design challenges to overcome before the form of the acoustic plenum can be finalised, and it is possible that any of these could jeopardise its feasibility. Safety considerations pose the greatest challenge, and space across the tram solum is at a premium in some areas. However, preliminary discussions have been held with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, and it appears likely that the acoustic plenum is a feasible option for noise mitigation.

7.9 If it should transpire that the noise plenum is not the best solution in certain areas, then conventional noise barriers will be pursued. These would generally have the appearance of solid wooden fences varying in height from approximately 1 to 2.5m. 2.5m is considered a practicable maximum. Where high barriers are required in sensitive areas semi-transparent materials may be used for the upper portion of the barrier to reduce the possible enclosing effect on the corridor. Final design of the track, its geometry and relationship to the noise barriers will progress in the future. Further baseline noise surveys and refined modelling will be needed to check compliance with the Noise and Vibration Policy as the design progresses. These factors could affect noise barrier requirements in some areas, so their dimensions can only be indicative at this stage. Provisional locations of noise barriers in this area are as follows:

• On the west side of the tramway – a noise barrier approximately 80m long and 2.5m high from the bridge to the north of 11 Upper Coltbridge Terrace to approximately 20m south of 8 Upper Coltbridge Terrace.

7.10 The location of this barrier is illustrated in Figure C7-2 of the LHMP. 7.11 This noise barrier would provide useful mitigation. However, Number 11

Upper Coltbridge Terrace looks down onto the tramway which is in a cutting with a road bridge over, but the ambient noise levels are low since the road is only an access road. As a result of this unusual combination of circumstances there may be a residual noise impact of approximately 5dB here with this noise barrier configuration. Alternative noise barrier configurations will be investigated in accordance with the N&V Policy to improve the level of mitigation if practicable. The preferred level of mitigation required is 8 dB, and I would expect the noise plenum option to achieve this, if it proves practicable.

7.12 I understand 11 Upper Coltbridge Terrace has planning permission to

extend further towards the tramway. If appropriate, this will be accounted for in developing the final noise mitigation measures in this area. Removal of Vegetation Affecting Noise

7.13 Several objectors along the Roseburn Corridor suggest that vegetation will be removed that would otherwise reduce tram noise. Vegetation as found in this area does not reduce noise levels significantly, regardless of the season and whether or not trees and hedges are in leaf. Even in dense forest long distances are required to produce noticeable noise attenuation. The vegetation in this case is not of that order.

7.14 There can be a subjective effect, whereby there is a psychological benefit of

not seeing the noise source. The LHMP describes in detail how vegetation will be replaced in those areas where it is necessary to remove it. So, where it applies, this benefit will not be lost. Noise Increases will be Noticeable Even with Mitigation

7.15 Some objectors have noted that the N&V Policy does not commit to ‘no increase in noise’ and in currently quiet areas the N&V Policy will allow noise levels to be increased substantially even though the required threshold levels will be achieved through mitigation.

7.16 In currently quiet areas ambient noise level will be increased when the tram

begins operation. In the short term after opening this noise increase will be noticeable to many residents, and given the concern expressed by such residents at this stage, it may be that some find the noise objectionable. However, a wide range of social surveys have shown that at noise level equal to or below the threshold noise levels committed to in the N&V Policy the proportion of a population that is annoyed by the noise is low. Therefore, I would expect that in the longer term only a low proportion of residents would report tram noise as annoying if asked. It is for this reason that the planning system (ref PAN56) does not consider noise a determining factor if a new dwelling is proposed at a location where noise levels are at the N&V Policy threshold levels. Technical Comments in Witness Summary

7.17 Table 1, item 1, of Objector Group 35’s Witness Summary makes several technical comments relating to the noise assessment suggesting it was erroneous in various ways. I have attempted to liaise directly with the objector group’s expert to discuss these points, but at this stage I have been unsuccessful. I would refer the objector to the Peer Review undertaken by Casella Stanger that addressed similar technical matters and, as I have noted above, found the assessment methods and conclusions acceptable. Proposed Amendments to the Bill

7.18 The Group 35 Witness Summary includes two proposed amendments to the Bill that relate to noise and vibration.

7.19 Suggested amendment 2 proposes that the noise and vibration targets that

the promoter has committed to in the N&V Policy should be specified in the Bill. The promoter’s position is to adopt noise and vibration mitigation measures at source to achieve these noise and vibration target levels through the use of Best Practicable Means, as defined in the Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Best Practicable Means is well defined and tested under noise nuisance law, as I have discussed in Chapter 3 of this Witness Statement. The promoter cannot accept mandatory limits in case, for some reason there is no practicable way that the targets can be met in a given case which would render operation of the tram illegal.

7.20 The planning system recognises that transportation creates noise. In Chapter 3 I have explained how planning advice on noise notes that local planning authorities ‘should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. The objectors’ proposal is contrary to this planning policy.

7.21 Amendment 3 proposes that all noise and vibration mitigation measures should be within the limits of deviation and if necessary should include lower tram speed.

7.22 As noted above, the N&V Policy aims to take mitigation measures at source (ie within the Limits of Deviation) to achieve the noise target levels that the proposed amendment appears to endorse. Noise insulation, although included in the N&V Policy, is not a preferred option, and as explained in Chapter 3, is intended only as a last resort, and I do not expect the noise levels will be high enough anywhere in this area to require noise insulation.

APPENDIX 1

WHAT IS NOISE ?

Information paper for The Craigleigth Community Liaison Group in November 2004

and And The West End Community Liaison Group in 20 April 2005

WHAT IS “NOISE”? The terms “sound” and “noise” tend to be used interchangeably, but noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Your neighbour may enjoy the sound of his music at 2am but you would be disturbed by the noise. Sound is a normal and desirable part of life. However, when noise is imposed on people (such as from industry, construction or transportation) it can lead to disturbance, annoyance and other undesirable effects. It is relatively straightforward to physically measure sound with a sound level meter, but it is a different matter to quantify the sound in terms of how noisy it is perceived to be and the effects it may cause. For this reason we draw on various standards and guidelines that relate a measured noise level to the effect it is likely to have. These guidelines are generally based on large scale social surveys that have produced accepted, all be it approximate, relationships between noise level and effect. AN EXPLANATION OF NOISE LEVELS Noise is measured and quantified using decibels (dB). This scale is logarithmic, which means that noise levels do not add up or change according to simple linear arithmetic. For example, any two equal noise sources added together give only an increase of 3dB higher than the individual levels (e.g. 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, not 120 dB). This represents what happens in practice when two equal sounds coincide; the ear perceives only a slight increase in noise and not a doubling. The following table illustrated examples of noise levels.

Table 1 Examples of Noise Levels on the Decibel Scale

Noise Level dB(A)* Typical noise source / example 0 Threshold of hearing (lowest sound an average

person could hear) 30 Quiet bedroom at night 40 Whispered conversation at 2 metres 50 Conversational speech at 1 metre 60 Busy general office 70 Loud radio indoors 80 Lorry at 30 kph at 7 metres 90 Lawnmower at 1 metre

*The dB(A) scale is a particular way of measuring the different frequencies in sound designed to match how the human ear works, called ‘A’-weighting. The way human hearing works is conveniently similar to the logarithmic changes in noise.

• An increase of 1 dB in noise levels cannot usually be heard (possible in ‘laboratory’ conditions).

• An increase of 3 dB is generally accepted as the smallest change that is noticeable in ordinary conditions.

• An increase of 5dB is clearly perceptible. • An increase of 10dB seems to be twice as loud.

HOW IS NOISE MEASURED Introduction There is a little more to the measurement of noise than pointing a sound level meter and taking a reading. Because noise tends to vary over time, we need to find a way of measuring it in a manner which represents the variation in noise level that also reflects people’s perception of how noisy it is. Over the years a number of different ways to measure noise (metrics or parameters) have been developed as the best ways of representing different types of noise sources (single events, industry, road traffic, railway, aircraft etc). Those relevant to the Edinburgh Tram Proposal are introduced below. MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS LAeq, T

This metric is called the continuous equivalent sound level. It is a widely used noise parameter that represents a varying noise level by calculating the constant noise level that would have the same energy content over the measurement time period. The letter ‘A’ denotes that ‘A’-weighting has been used and ‘eq’ indicates that an equivalent level has been calculated. Hence, LAeq is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level, measured over time period ‘T’. Detailed surveys have been carried out into people’s responses to different sources of noise and these have been used to define which noise metrics provide good relationships with perceived noisiness. The EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise, for example, advocates LAeq, Period for all types of transportation noise. It is important to appreciate that whilst LAeq does give a measure of the accumulated noise over a period of time it is not like a conventional (arithmetic) average. It is in fact a logarithmic average. The effect of this is to give a high weighting to high noise levels even if they are relatively short lived or infrequent peaks. The difference between arithmetic and logarithmic (LAeq) averaging can be illustrated by considering the average age of a class of 30 children and their teacher. Suppose the children are 5 years old and the teacher is 40 years old. The arithmetic average age is just 6, whereas the logarithmic (Leq) average is 16. This partly explains why Leq has been found to be a good indicator of the effects of noise that comprise a series of varying signals over a period of time, such as railway noise.

An LAeq can be calculated over different time periods depending on the characteristics of the noise and how people are exposed to it. If the noise is steady, a relatively short measurement period will be sufficient to characterise it. If it fluctuates randomly or has cyclical elements, then a longer measurement period will be required to obtain a representative sample. Some standards specify a measurement period, but 10 to 15 minutes is often adequate to obtain repeatable results. Measurements over 10 and 15 minute periods have been carried out during the Environmental Impact Assessment in order to quantify existing noise levels along the tram route. These can conveniently be used to give an indication of the impact assessment criteria used to assess tram noise. The threshold criteria, below which noise impacts are not expected are LAeq, 0700 – 2300 hours 55dB for the daytime and LAeq,

2300 – 0700 hours 45dB for the night-time. Above these thresholds noise increases of greater than 3dB are considered significant. Table 2 gives examples of some locations along the Roseburn Corridor where existing noise levels of approximately LAeq, 10 minutes 55 and 45 dB have been measured.

Table 2 Examples of Existing Daytime Noise Levels in the Roseburn Corridor

Location LAeq, 10 minutes daytime dB Upper Coltbridge Terrace ~ 45 Blinkbonny Road ~ 45 Balbirnie Place 55 - 60

In contrast noise levels on Princes Street were measured at about LAeq, 10 minutes 70 dB. LAMax

This is a measure of the ‘peak’ in a varying sound signal and is the maximum A-weighted noise level, LAmax. For tram noise, it is the highest level experience when the vehicles passes directly in front of the receptor location.

APPENDIX 2

THE EDINBURGH TRAM LINES 1 AND 2 NOISE AND VIBRATION POLICY,

MARCH 2005

EDINBURGH TRAM LINES ONE AND TWO NOISE AND VIBRATION POLICY MARCH 2005

1. INTRODUCTION

This policy statement sets out the approach the promoter proposes to adopt to mitigate noise from the operation of Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two. Impacts during construction will be covered by the Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two Code of Construction Practise. This policy has been developed in the absence of any statutory requirements for noise mitigation from rail systems in Scotland. Unlike the situation for new roads throughout the UK, and for new railways in England and Wales, there are no noise insulation regulations or other statutory requirements to control noise from railways in Scotland. The promoter therefore proposes to implement a noise scheme based upon non-statutory standards set out in this policy statement. These are set at significantly lower noise levels than apply for statutory noise insulation elsewhere and mitigation will be provided wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so. It is important to recognise that this is a non-statutory arrangement and there will be cases where there are practical limitations as to what can be achieved. This Policy clarifies how these circumstances will be addressed.

2. APPROACH

The promoter will undertake measures to mitigate significant noise impacts for residents and other noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the routes, following a tiered approach. In this, different options for mitigation will be considered in turn, taking into account what is reasonably practicable and acceptable to affected parties in the circumstances of each location potentially affected by noise. This policy will be applied in accordance with the principle of best practicable means (1).

(1) Best Practicable Means are defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 as those measures which are "reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to financial implications”.

• Firstly, the promoter will define and apply strict noise emission standards when procuring all tram vehicles.

• Secondly, the promoter will use all reasonably practicable measures to

avoid significant noise impacts through design of the track and trackbed. • Thirdly, where these measures are not sufficient to mitigate significant

impacts, the promoter will provide noise barriers to attenuate noise between the track and sensitive receivers.

• Fourthly, the promoter will offer noise insulation within residential

properties where, after all reasonably practicable and acceptable attenuation at source is provided, residual noise levels would exceed given thresholds.

Noise sensitive receivers are defined to include all types of dwellings, schools, libraries, hospitals, theatres and concert halls, and places of worship. In defining what is reasonably practicable (ie what constitutes best practicable means), the promoter will take into account engineering feasibility, maintenance of driver sight lines, safe operation of the tram, safe interaction with road traffic, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and security and crime considerations. It will also take into account the cost of any proposed mitigation measure and the level of benefit achieved in terms of number of properties affected, the degree of noise reduction and the resulting noise levels, such that costs are not disproportionate to the benefits achieved. In defining what is acceptable the promoter will consult affected residents and take into account impacts on their amenity and that of other parties such a recreational user of facilities, and any other environmental concerns. The application of these principles is further described below. A key aspect of their application is the definition of what constitutes a significant impact and this is set out in the next section before describing how this applies to the selection of appropriate noise mitigation measures at the four levels in the mitigation hierarchy.

3. DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACT

As noted above there are no statutory requirements for mitigating tram noise in Scotland. It is therefore necessary to define criteria to establish when noise mitigation should be considered. These have been based on the approach used in the Environmental Impact Assessments for Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two. The likelihood of exceedance of these criteria will be determined in advance of construction by noise modelling (1).

(1) Predictions will be made at the final design stages by modelling and will take into account details of the track alignment and

Options for noise mitigation will start to be considered if the free-field noise level outside the window of any sensitive receiver exceeds either of the upper values specified in PAN56 (1) for Noise Exposure Category A ie:

• for daytime noise, LAeq 0700-2300 hours 55 dB; or

• for night time noise, LAeq 2300-0700 hours 45 dB. Where tram noise is predicted to be more than 3dB (2) above either of these thresholds, mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impact of noise will be considered according to the extent to which the pre-existing ambient (LAeq, 1 hour) noise level is increased, as follows:

• Increase of 3-5 dB - mitigation considered on a case by case basis, and implemented if reasonably practicable and acceptable to affected parties.

• Increase of greater than 5 dB – mitigation implemented if reasonably

practicable and acceptable to affected parties.

4. THE MITIGATION HIERARCHY

4.1 Tram Vehicle Procurement

The promoter will define and apply strict noise emission standards in the procurement of all tram vehicles. These will be decided following a review of achievable performance standards at the time of procurement of the tram vehicles and will be designed to reflect prevailing good standards at the time. The tram vehicle and the tram rails will be designed in a coordinated manner, so as to achieve the required performance standard in the circumstances to be encountered on the Edinburgh Tram system.

4.2 Track Design

The promoter will adopt all reasonably practicable and acceptable measures o reduce noise at source by design of the track to attenuate noise. A variety of measures may be available to contribute to noise reduction at source and the promoter will consider all current developments in the field in developing the final design for the scheme. These will include the use of grass track which is already planned along some sections of the route and installation of acoustic

surrounding ground form between the track and the nearest building facade, the presence of natural barriers, the selected tram vehicle and the operating schedule.(1) Scottish Executive Planning Advice Note 56 Planning and Noise.(2) Exceedences of up to 3 dB are considered to be of marginal significance. In line with current guidance, 3 dB is taken as the limit of perception of change in environmental noise.

plenum structures alongside the tram rails if this is acceptable to HM Railways Inspectorate.

4.3 Noise Barriers

Where significant noise impacts are still predicted to occur, the promoter will consider the provision of noise screening structures within the tram corridor. The dimensions (length and height) and form of each structure will be determined by modelling and in consultation with affected properties. Where an attenuating structure proves not to be reasonably practicable or acceptable, or is only possible with reduced dimensions, the promoter will consider whether there are additional special measures that can be taken to mitigate noise that are proportionate in the circumstances of the case.

4.4 Noise Insulation

If approved, the provisions of the Edinburgh Tram Line One and Two Bills will empower the promoter to set up a noise insulation scheme. Details will be provided before completion of the parliamentary process.

5. VIBRATION

Trackforms will be designed adjacent to sensitive receptor buildings using Best Practicable Means to keep within the guideline levels of Vibration Dose Value (VDV) given in BS6472, 1992 below which the probability of adverse comments is low:

• Day (0700-2300 hours) 0.4 m/s1.75; and • Night (2300-0700 hours) 0.13 m/s1.75.

6. MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING

The promoter is committed to maintaining the tram system, and in particular the wheel and rail surfaces, so as to minimise noise at sensitive receivers. For each section of the route a noise and vibration monitoring scheme will be established and results will be regularly reported. The noise and vibration monitoring scheme will be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and consumer services department. The results will be used to inform wheel and track maintenance programmes in order to minimise unnecessary increases in noise. The promoter will give due notice to the City of Edinburgh Council’s

Environmental and Consumer services department and potentially affected residents of plans to carry out any potentially noisy maintenance activities at night such as rail grinding. The operator will establish a policy on the appropriate use of vehicle horns in accordance with safe working practices. The operator will co-operate with the City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department in establishing appropriate sound levels for tram stop Public Address systems if complaints are received from occupiers of noise sensitive premises.



SCOTT MCINTOSH Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Construction 4. Rate of Construction 5 Experience from other systems 6. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott

MacDonald the Technical Consultants for the Edinburgh Tram. I hold a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Cambridge and various post graduate qualifications, I am a Member of the Permanent Way Institution. I have around 20 years experience in Light Rail, dealing with the planning, promotion, specification, design and commissioning of systems.

1.2 I have been Project Manager for a number of projects, including Croydon Tramlink and was a member of the Board of the public/private Tramlink Project Development Group. I was a member of the UITP [International Public Transport Association] Light Rail Commission and co-author of the UITP ‘Guidelines for the Design and development of Light Rail Schemes’.

1.3 I am currently a Board member of the UK Tram consortium [the objects of which are ‘to encourage the effective development and use of light rapid transit systems in the UK…by… the development of national guidelines, codes of practice and standards based upon experience in the UK and overseas’]. I have advised on tramways in Europe and the Middle East and I am currently advising on tramways and light rail schemes in Blackpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as Edinburgh.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 My evidence will cover the construction impacts on public and tenant

access and servicing of properties.

The evidence addresses: Construction

(i) Construction Impacts & Disturbance (ii) Mitigation to preserve Pedestrian and Vehicle

access (iii) Rate of Construction (iv) Information Centre & Website (v) Impact on Businesses (vi) Experience from Other Systems

3 Construction

3.1 Construction Impacts & Disturbance 3.1.1 The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction

project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter’s contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP]. This document has been created by the promoters using current industry best practice. It is my understanding that a copy of the CoCP has been passed to the objector. The promoters contend that the CoCP will answer all the questions raised in section 1.6 of the objection

3.1.2 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects,

particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon (Tramlink), Manchester (Metrolink), Nottingham (Nottingham Express Transit) and planned for Liverpool (Merseytram). The CoCP for Merseytram was recently considered during the Public Inquiry into the Merseytram Draft Order deposited in 2004, under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. At the conclusion of the Inquiry the presiding Inspector reported that the Draft Order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State has subsequently followed the Inspector’s advice. The CoCP has been subject to consultation with all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, and the technical advisors to the scheme. The Construction Contract will require that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.2 Mitigation during construction 3.2.1 Maintenance of accesses

• The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

• Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using

the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

• Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

• All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of

Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)] At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

• The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.2.2 Working Hours

Working hours are defined in section 3 of the CoCP; ‘Normal hours of working for construction of Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two shall be: Monday – Saturday 0700 – 1900 hours’ . Exceptional work outwith these hours may only be undertaken with the prior approval of tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. Furthermore ‘Where Sunday or evening/night working has the potential to disturb nearby land users and occupiers they shall be notified seven days in advance, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance and the proposed hours of working.’

3.2.3 Site housekeeping

Section 4 of the CoCP sets out particular standards for maintaining cleanliness and order within work sites and the minimisation of visual impact on the surrounding areas;

• All work sites will be surrounded by fences or hoardings which will painted in a colour and style to be approved by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 4.2 (d)].

• The Contractor shall clear and clean all working areas and accesses as work proceeds and when no longer required for the carrying out of the works.

3.2.4 Noise Control

Strict standards of noise control are set out in section 6 of the CoCP; ‘The Contractor shall have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise nuisance from noise. The noise limits specified … shall not be regarded as a licence to make noise up to the stated limit.’ An effective monitoring regime is established at s.6.1 (c) ; ‘In order to ensure that the best practicable means are used to meet the levels set out above, a programme of on-site monitoring by a suitably qualified practitioner shall be agreed between the Contractor, tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. This monitoring programme shall include the location and frequency of readings and will define to whom the results shall be made available. Monitoring will be undertaken at locations identified in the Environmental Statements as those where mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid significant noise disturbance.’ And strict requirements are laid down to ensure that these requirements are adhered to ; ‘In the event that measurements indicate noise has exceeded the limits … the Contractor shall stop the operation in a safe manner and take all practicable measures to prevent recurrence’.

3.2.5 Other emissions

Vibration and dust emission are covered by strict standards in CoCP sections 7 and 8. A requirement to assist frontagers by cleaning parts of their property affected by dust is included at s. 8.1 ( c ) ; ‘Where dust generating works (e.g. excavation, demolition) are undertaken close to buildings such that there is a potential for soiling of windows and ledges with dust the contractors shall clean those windows and ledges as necessary – and at least weekly - during periods of dust generating work and on completion of works.’

3.2.6 Effects of these mitigation measures

It is the promoter’s contention that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum

4. Rate of construction 4.1 The rate of construction will depend upon a number of issues,

including;

• any particular construction problems encountered within the corridor

• constraints on construction imposed for environmental or wildlife considerations

• weather conditions .

4.2 However what can be said is that the contractors will be required to keep the public fully informed of the progress of the work. Section 2 of the CoCP requires that; ‘The Contractor shall appoint a liaison officer to manage all public relations, information and press related matters, who shall liaise with tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, other statutory bodies, members of the public, press and the media on all matters relating to the works’.

4.3 This is ensured by the requirements set out in the rest of the section;

2.1 Information Centre and Website

The Contractor shall provide and maintain an Information Centre at a location to be agreed with tie and the City of Edinburgh Council. The Information Centre shall be accessible to stakeholders, frontagers, interested third parties and the general public, between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday (excluding local and national Public Holidays). Up to date information on the progress of the works and the current areas affected by construction shall be freely available at the Information Centre. The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a website which shall provide the same information.

2.2 Weekly newsletter

The Contractor shall publish a weekly newsletter every Wednesday, detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s works. This newsletter will be published;

• on the Website, • by Fax and email to; local and national newspapers and other

news media, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police, the emergency services and to any other

persons or organisations that have requested receipt of the newsletter.

Sufficient free-distribution, take-away hard copies of the newsletter shall be placed in the Information Centre by 0800 every Thursday morning. No charge will be made for this service.

2.2.1 Complaints Hotline

The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a Freephone Hotline to deal with any complaints, comments or queries received in connection with the Edinburgh Tram Works. The Hotline will be answered by the Liaison Officer, a deputy or by another designated competent operator between the hours of 0700 and one hour after work terminates for the day, on every day when construction work is being undertaken. Outwith these hours an automated call recording service will be provided. The telephone number, fax number and website address of the hotline shall be publicised through the press and the Weekly newsletter and clearly displayed on hoardings around every worksite and at other suitable locations within and in the vicinity of every worksite.

2.2.2 Contacts Log

All complaints, comments and queries received shall be registered in a suitable Log and appropriate action in response instigated within 24 hours by the Contractor. A record of remedial action shall be logged, in the event of a complaint a follow up letter or electronic communication shall be passed to the complainant within 48 hours of the initial complaint, outlining their complaint and the remedial action being undertaken by the Contractor. All comments, questions and complaints shall be logged in writing together with any response and a record of any actions taken, including a record of the time when that action is completed. An up to date copy of the Contacts Log shall be compiled daily, together with a report on the progress of any actions. The Contacts Log shall be inspected and signed daily by a nominated senior representative of the Contractor and shall be counter signed by the Contractor’s Project Director at least once per week. and the Weekly newsletter A copy of each week’s Contacts Log shall be placed every Friday in the Information Centre, where it will remain until completion of all construction works. All deposited copies of the Contacts Log may be freely inspected by any person during the normal opening hours of the Information Centre. An additional copy of the Contacts Log shall be forwarded to tie once per week and the master register shall be available for tie to inspect at any other time during normal working hours.

3.4.4 Communications Regarding Noise

(a) The Contractor shall give seven days notice to local residents who may be adversely affected by noise from the proposed programme of work, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance, and the proposed hours of working.

(b) The Contractor shall provide the City of Edinburgh Council

Department of Environmental and Consumer Services with a list of contacts who will be responsible for investigating and resolving noise issues during the construction phase of the project.

5. Experience from other systems 5.1 The promoters accept that the introduction of a major public work such

as the Edinburgh Tram will cause some disruption and would point out that Edinburgh has coped with a number of major disruptions over the last few years as major new buildings, such as the Conference Centre, the Scottish Parliament etc are added to our city. The promoters accept that some of the earlier tramway schemes – such as Sheffield -caused unacceptable disruption. The promoters of schemes have learned from these experiences and the 1997-2000 construction of Croydon Tramlink and the 2001 – 2004 construction of the first line of Nottingham Express Transit have benefited from the tighter controls on construction now incorporated in the Edinburgh Codes of Construction Practice.

6. Conclusion 6.1 The Edinburgh CoCP builds upon the positive experience of the

development of appropriate Codes on other tramway schemes. It seeks to identify all likely risks of nuisance and to control them before they occur. If, notwithstanding the best endeavours of the promoter, such nuisance does occur then the CoCP established a way by which aggrieved parties can seek alleviation of the nuisance. The promoters contend that it will minimise disturbance and result in a major public work of lasting benefit to the city.

Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005



SCOTT MCINTOSH Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Health and Safety effects due to infrastructure 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott



1.3 I am currently a Board member of the UK Tram consortium [the objects of which are ‘to encourage the effective development and use of light rapid transit systems in the UK…by… the development of national guidelines, codes of practice and standards based upon experience in the UK and overseas’]. I have advised on tramways in Europe and the Middle East and I am currently advising on tramways and light rail schemes in Blackpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as Edinburgh. .

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Health and Safety effects due to infrastructure

(i) Radiation risks from electric traction systems (ii) Risks from rails in the road (iii) Risks from overhead line support columns

3. Health and Safety effects due to infrastructure Risks from electric traction systems - General 3.1 There are two broad categories of electric traction system used in

railways, tramways and other urban transport systems;

• Direct Current systems [dc] these generally use voltages in the range of 550 volts [v dc] to 1500 volts [v dc].

• Alternating current systems [ac] these generally use a voltage of 25000 volts [v ac] at a frequency of 50 – 60 cycles per second (hertz [hz])

3.2 The lower voltage dc systems are generally used on urban trolleybus,

tramway and metro systems, with the higher voltage ac systems used for main line and suburban ‘heavy rail’ systems. All systems use open conductors to transmit the traction current from the sub-stations to the trains. Low voltage dc systems either use overhead wires or – on fully segregated railways – a low level conductor rail. High voltage ac systems always use overhead power supply.

3.3 The only known hazards from low voltage dc systems are electric burns or electric shock if the victim comes into direct contact with the bare conductor. These risks are increased in high voltage ac systems in that it may be possible for the current to bridge a small air gap [‘arc over’] to injure persons who do not come into direct physical contact with the bare conductor.

3.4 There have been claims that high voltage ac power transmission lines may cause stray electro magnetic effects, but there is no conclusive evidence for this. The Edinburgh Tram will be using the lower voltage dc system.

Tramways 3.5 There are approximately 400 tramways in the World. A total of 87 new

tramway and light rail systems have opened in 25 countries over the last 25 years. Whilst tramway development is worldwide it is notable that most rapid development is in economically advanced countries. France has lead this movement with 10 new tramways since 1985 and a further 4 on their way. The USA has 26 systems with more under development. Even the UK has managed 7 new systems, with Nottingham – the most recent – opening in 2004. All of these systems are operated at either 600v dc or 750v dc.

Trolley bus systems 3.6 There are approximately 400 trolleybus systems in the World, new

ones continue to be added to the total, two of the most recent European examples are in Landskrona, Sweden and Rome, Italy. Virtually all of these systems operate at either 600v dc or 750 v dc.

Metros and other electric railways 3.7 Metro systems are in operation in most of the major cities in the world,

including Barcelona, Berlin, London, Madrid, Moscow, Paris, New York and Washington. All of them operate at voltages between 600 v dc and 1500 v dc. The ‘Southern Electric’ system in the south of England operates a network that covers almost every railway line south of the Thames from Rochester in the east to Bournemouth in the west. The entire network is electrified at 750v dc. The rail network on Merseyside is operated at 750v dc. The Tyne and Wear Metro is operated at 1500 v dc.

A very large proportion of railway operations throughout the EU are carried out by means of electric traction at voltages varying from 600v dc to 25kv ac. In the UK the West Coast and East Coast main lines, the rail network in East Anglia and most of the Strathclyde local network is operated at 25kv ac.

Safety in operation - Electric radiation risks 3.8 All these systems are subject to government rules covering safe

operation of the system and, where applicable, the electric traction system. No European country has expressed any worries as to the radiation hazards created by electric traction systems. There are no recorded cases of local residents sustaining claims for radiological damage to health from any of these systems.

3.9 There is no evidence that systems operating in the range 550 – 1500 V dc generate any harmful radiation risks to persons near to the system.

3.10 There have been claims that there might be some risk from the transmission of high voltage ac systems, however recent research has failed to find any link between these systems and health problems for local residents. In the USA these issues have been examined by the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] and the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Abstracts from their published Reports are set out below.

1. Abstracts from ‘Summary Assessment of the Safety, Health, Environmental and System Risks of Alternative Fuel’ by FTA – Equipment and Infrastructure Section

“3.3.8.2 Safety Issues

All of the safety issues associated with electricity are directly related to the transmission of electric power to … the fleet facility.

The major safety concern is the exposure of personnel to electrical hazards as they work with the … system. This is not expected to be a serious safety hazard because the normal design practices for setting up the connections involve safeguards to ensure that personnel are protected from direct exposure to electrical hazards.

One of the safety advantages of electricity compared to the other AMFs [alternative fuels] is that all facility personnel are generally familiar with the hazards associated with electrical power. Therefore, personnel …..can be expected to be aware of the dangers and follow the proper safety procedures.

3.3.8.3 Health Issues

There are no specific health hazards associated with the transmission and use of electricity at a fleet facility. “

2. Abstracts from Reports presented by the American Industrial Hygiene Association

60 Hertz Electric and Magnetic Field Health Effects Research Update [Presented: May 1996, Washington, DC by M. Eroh, Arizona Public Service Company, Phoenix, AZ]

“There is now a fairly extensive body of research looking at the potential adverse health effects resulting from exposure to 60 hertz (hz) electric and magnetic fields (EMF). This research includes occupational and public exposure assessment and epidemiology studies, and laboratory studies designed to look for mechanisms of interaction.

The conclusion of most scientific reviews of the EMF research has been that the evidence of potential adverse health effects is marginal and inconsistent, and that there is no scientifically accepted biological mechanism by which these fields could cause health effects.”

3 American Industrial Hygiene Association White Paper on Extremely

Low Frequency (ELF) Fields

‘The search for biological and health effects of EMF exposure has been going on at an accelerating pace for more than three decades. Results have been mixed, and their interpretation has been controversial, with little consensus on biological effects and virtually none on health

effects that might arise from fields at the levels found in occupational or general community environments’.

Safe operation of the tramway and its electric traction system 3.11 I have issued a questionnaire to the operators of all the existing major

tramway operators in the UK, asking them to indicate the number of occasions since the system opened (or during the last 10 years if the system has been operating for a longer time) they have had problems with the overhead line system. The full results of the survey were not available at the time that this Witness Statement was presented. Full results will be laid before the Parliamentary Committee once all responses have been collated, however it can be said that, to date, not a single incident has been reported of a failure of the overhead line system leading to the injury of a passenger, passer-by or local resident.

Risks from rails in the road 3.12 It has been claimed that steel tram rails may cause additional risks to

road users. There has been one case where an accident has been attributed to the presence of rails in the carriageway, the case – Roe V South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive – is subject to final review and it would be inappropriate to comment upon the case in great depth until final determination; however it would appear that acceptable tolerances for laying apparatus in the street may have been exceeded in this case and that this may have been a significant factor in the skidding of the vehicle being driven by Mr Roe.

3.13 The potential risk from tram rails has been mitigated on most systems by a combination of measures;

• careful alignment of the rails and carriageway surface • ensuring that tram rails are laterally offset in shared carriage

lanes so that road vehicles do not normally run on the area occupied by the rails

• careful road layout to ensure that traffic lanes do not cross tram rails at shallow horizontal angles.

3.14 The Health and safety executive publish annual accident statistics for

all rail systems, those for tramways show that over 80% of all accidents involve minor moving vehicle collisions (vehicles ‘jumping’ traffic lights and coming into contact with trams, etc.) – very few accidents are as a result of other road vehicles skidding on tram rails.

3.15 It is claimed that tram rails present a particular hazard to cyclists. It is

often claimed that cycle wheels can become trapped in tram rail grooves. Given that the groove in a tram rail is approximately 45mm wide this would only seem to be a potential hazard for specialist cycles with narrow ‘racing’ tyres. The risks of cyclists skidding are recognised

and special advice as to how cyclists should cross tramlines is now included in the Highway Code. In laying out designated cycleways the need to ensure that the cycleway crosses the tramway at as near to 90 degrees as possible is recognised and special provision for this – and for special road markings is recognised.

3.16 It is notable that the London Borough of Croydon – which has all of the

street running sections of Tramlink within its boundaries – has some of the lowest cycle accident figures in London. In 2000 and 2001 – the first two years of Tramlink operations – it had the lowest cycle accident figures of any London Borough.

3.17 Pedestrians are at very little risk from tram rails, pedestrian crossings

are usually laid out to cross the tramway at 90 degrees to the rails and all moving parts of tram turnouts (‘points’) are located away from pedestrian areas.

Risks from overhead line support columns 3.18 It is recognised that overhead line support columns are frequently more

robust than street lighting columns. A motorist driving into a column may therefore be at potentially greater risk of damage to their motor vehicle or injury to themselves than if they were to collide with a street lighting column. This risk is recognised and is ‘designed out’ of the system as far as is possible by placing columns at the rear of footways, where they are protected by a normal highway kerb and by the width of the footway. Where columns are relatively close to the carriageway they may be protected by special upstands or built up kerbs to deflect road vehicles.

4 Conclusion 4.1 There is no evidence that the introduction of a tramway in Edinburgh,

using electric traction at in the range 550 V dc to 1500 V dc will create any significant accident risk. There is very little evidence that other parts of the tramway infrastructure will add significant accident risks to other road users.




SCOTT MCINTOSH Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Property Values - Croydon TramLink 4. Property Values - Nottingham Express Transit 5. Property Values - Dublin 6. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses the effect of the introduction of tramways on

residential property values, based on the results of independent research into the effects of the three most recent tramways in the British Isles; Croydon, Nottingham and Dublin, Eire.

3. Croydon Tramlink 3.1 The South London Partnership is a voluntary forum which promotes the

interests of the south London sub-region. 3.2 The South London Partnership (SLP) comprises 15 partners, including;

• the London boroughs of: Bromley, Croydon, Merton, Richmond,

Sutton, Wandsworth, the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

• Business Link for London • London South - Learning & Skills Council, • South London Council of Chambers of Commerce, • Kingston University, • the SW London Health Authority.

3.3 SLP is Chaired by Joanna Simons, Chief Executive London Borough of Sutton.

3.4 The SLP reports that the effect that trams have on image and perception of an area make the schemes important for generating growth and investment. Trams generate civic pride and facilitate urban renewal. They provide an image of dynamism and efficiency that is key to attracting outside investment. Trams can raise the profile of the entire area, attracting higher rents, new developments and private sector investment. Marginal businesses dislodged by construction are replaced with dynamic enterprises.

3.5 The success of Croydon Tramlink in raising the profile of the area in this way is shown by the greater increases in property prices in wards along the route (Figure 1). The Report prepared by Colin Buchanan and Partners (an independent transport consultancy) on behalf of the South London Partnership found, by reference to Her Majesty’s Land Registry residential transaction data, that in Croydon property prices have risen by 4% more in wards served by the tram than those that are not, while in the other Boroughs served there has been no discernible difference.

3.6 The price of property in Croydon on the Tramlink line was found to have risen faster than that off-line both during construction and after opening.

Figure 1: Property prices in Croydon wards

3.7 It is to be noted that property prices in the area served by Tramlink

were slightly lower than the general level of prices at the beginning of the survey (this possibly reflects poorer accessibility and higher motor car congestion in these areas), but that they were higher post-Tramlink.

3.8 This study also found that Estate Agents used Tramlink as part of their marketing. The estate agents interviewed suggested that properties located close to public transport nodes did attract a premium, with rail the highest, followed by the tram, while few felt that bus routes added value. These premiums were noticeable up to 20 minutes journey time from stations by foot.

Tramlink Impact Study The independent Tramlink Impact Study, undertaken for Transport for London, included a questionnaire survey of local Estate Agents to gain their opinions of the effect of Tramlink on property values, their responses were mainly anecdotal, however, most respondents considered Tramlink to have had a beneficial effect on property values.

"Easy access from Wimbledon to East Croydon has created much greater interest in the area. The new tram has seen prices increase by about 10% above the national trend". Ingletons, Mitcham

"It has made a difference. Demand for the area has gone up and prices have

risen by up to 10%. … people can get to East Croydon in about 5-6 minutes. This will add considerably to the attraction of this part of Croydon". Benson and Partners, Addiscombe

4. Nottingham Express Transit

4.1 Even before Nottingham Express Transit opened, there were

discernable regeneration impacts in the city. During 2003 six months before the scheme was due to open, local Estate Agents were reporting an upturn in the market specifically in those areas through which the tram now runs. Nottingham estate agents have been using proximity to the tram as a selling point. Letting agents now have a regular advert in the Nottingham Evening Post ‘Homes for Rent’ supplement with a box stating “All properties within 10 minutes walk of a tram stop are marked with a NET logo.’ As this has been shown to have a beneficial effect on values and the ability to market property

5. Dublin 5.1 The Dublin – LUAS tramway scheme was opened in 2004 and consists

of sections of new street running, new green field alignment and sections built upon abandoned railway alignments.

5.2 The LUAS ‘Green’ Line runs for the majority of its route along an old railway corridor through the south of the city. The line, which runs through a relatively prosperous area of the city, is similar in many respects to the Roseburn Corridor. Housing along the route is mixed but comprises a mix of large single occupancy Georgian terraces and detached houses, 20th century semi detached properties and some new build apartments and town houses.

5.3 The route is partly on brick built retained embankment 5-6m high, part deep cutting and on or two short sections it runs at grade. Gardens backing onto the line range in length from nothing to 40m. It is believed that the majority of properties in the area are owner occupied.

http://www.bacit.org/www.belvoirlettings.com

Dublin green Line

The LUAS Effect - Positive Influence on prices confirmed - Extract

from Douglas Newman Good, Market Analysis 2004 - 2005 www.dng.ie

5.4 An analysis of property price increases along the two Luas lines to

Tallaght and Sandyford confirms that those properties within a five minute walk of a Luas station have seen higher increases in value than other comparable properties with no immediate access to the tram system. Price changes between January 2002 during the early stages of the construction work and January 2005 were analysed for a wide selection of different property types. In Dublin 24 properties close to a Luas station increased on average by 54% between January 2002 and January 2005 whilst the average increase was 37% in areas not within easy walking distance of a station, a differential of 17%. Closer to the city centre in the Dublin 8 area the difference was even more marked with properties close to the Luas seeing an average increase of 65% compared to a 45% increase for properties with no immediate access to the tram system. In South County Dublin on the Sandyford Luas Line there was a differential of 15%, with properties within 5 minutes walk of the line increasing by 70% on average whilst those properties with no immediate pedestrian access rising in value by 55% on average. The figures suggest that over the course of the construction period and during the first few months of Luas opening, the system has added a premium of between 15% and 20% to property values, depending on location.

http://www.dng.ie/

Article from Sunday Business Post, Sunday, July 04, 2004 http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost - Luas `effect' driving house

prices By Gillian Nelis. 5.5 Less than a week after it began running, the Luas light rail system is

already having an impact on the Dublin property market. Estate agents are reporting an increase in enquiries about property along the St Stephen's Green-Sandyford line, and expect the service to have a similar effect on prices to the Dart in the 1980s.

5.6 Louise O'Reilly of Sherry FitzGerald in Dundrum believes that the Luas

is contributing to a higher than average rate of capital appreciation in the Dublin 14 and 16 areas. We anticipate that, by the end of the year, second-hand house prices throughout Dublin will have risen by around 10 per cent,'' she said. But in Dundrum that figure is likely to be 15 per cent.

5.7 There is an amazing buzz around the place now that the Luas is finally

up and running - people are extremely impressed with it and with the standard of service. This time last year, three-bedroom semi-detached houses in the Broadford and Ballaly areas of Dundrum were selling for €330,000.

5.8 According to O'Reilly, prices in Broadford have now risen to €380,000

and to €400,000 in Ballaly. `In Woodpark, you are now looking at paying around £420,000 for a three-bed semi,'' she said. `This time last year, we would have been quoting between €360,000 and €370,000 for that type of house.''

5.9 The Luas is also significantly boosting property prices in parts of Dublin

8 and Dublin 12, according to Stephen O'Grady of Lowe and Associates in Rathmines. `The arrival of the Luas has meant that people are looking at places which, ten years ago, they simply would not have considered,'' he said.``There is an expectation that Luas is going to have a very positive impact on areas such as Rialto, Drimnagh and Inchicore, and prices in these areas are performing very well as a result.''

5.10 According to O'Grady, small one-bedroom cottages in Rialto are now

selling for between €180,000 and €190,000, figures, which he said, would previously have been unattainable. ``This type of unit is very popular with investors who know that the Luas is likely to boost values and should make their property easier to rent out,'' he said.

5.11 HOK Residential is currently quoting over €254,000 for a 55-square-

metre two-bedroom house at 114 Rialto Cottages. The property is around the corner from the Rialto Luas stop. On Mourne Road in Drimnagh, Stephen O'Grady recently sold a two-bedroom house in very poor condition for €231,500. ``Prices on Mourne Road have really given a jump, and now range between €225,000 and €300,000,

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/07/04/story683553368.asp

depending on the condition of the house and whether it has been extended,'' he said.

6. Conclusion 6.1 Independent evaluation of the effects of tramway system introduction in

Croydon, Nottingham and Dublin indicates that such developments have had a beneficial effect upon house prices. There is no reason to believe that Edinburgh should be any different to these other successful cities.




SCOTT MCINTOSH Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Emergency vehicles 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Emergency vehicles

(i) Existing access points to be retained (ii) Access available at all times (iii) Links with tram control and protocols 3. Emergency vehicles 3.1 The objectors seek reassurance that Emergency vehicles will not be

hindered by the tramway works. This point is addressed by section 5 of the CoCP. The beginning of the section states that “The Contractor shall submit to tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police and the Emergency Services a statement setting out the proposed measures (including specified traffic routes) to be taken with respect to traffic and highway safety for the duration of the contract, for approval before the relevant work commences.”

3.2 Section 5.2 of the CoCP requires that “Before breaking up, closing or

otherwise interfering with any street or footpath to which the public has access, the Contractor shall make such arrangements with The City of Edinburgh Council as may be reasonably necessary to cause as little interference with the traffic in that street or footpath during the construction works as shall be reasonably practicable.” Additionally “Wherever the Edinburgh Tram works interfere with the existing public or private roads or other ways over which there is a public or private right of way for any traffic, the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary. The standard of construction and lighting shall be suitable in all respects for the class or classes of traffic using the existing ways and the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way unless otherwise agreed with The City of Edinburgh Council or the owner of the private road.

3.3 Diversion routes shall; be constructed in advance of any interference

with the existing ways, be kept as short as reasonably practicable and be maintained to provide adequately for the traffic flows and volume.”

3.4 These requirements should set the objectors’ minds at rest as to the continued ability of the Emergency Services to access areas affected by the tramway works, however for the avoidance of all doubt the promoters also require in section 5.11 of the CoCP that “Routes for emergency service vehicles and personnel to gain access to work sites, the construction corridor and neighbouring sites along the route shall be agreed with the emergency services and The City of Edinburgh Council prior to the start of construction.”

4. Conclusion 4.1 The promoter recognises that the construction of a tramway in an

already built up area will cause some temporary disruption, but it is their contention that the requirements in the CoCP and the active involvement of the emergency services in the production of

diversionary routes will reduce disruption and risk to negligible proportions.

Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 9 May 2005



SCOTT MCINTOSH Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Slip streaming 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott




2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:- Slip streaming

(i) Current research (ii) Experiences from elsewhere 3. Slip streaming 3.1 The objectors are querying the safety of trams running at, or near, their

design speed in close proximity to the walkway/cycleway. They particularly object that wind-buffeting effects from trams passing close to cyclists could cause the risk that cyclists will be knocked from their cycles.

3.2 It is the promoter’s contention that tramways are an extremely safe

mode of transport, providing safety for the passengers and for pedestrians. The House of Commons Select Committee on Transport ststed in their Report ‘Integrated Transport – the Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in Britain’ 2005

‘Safety 16. Light rail is extremely safe. There were three fatal accidents in 2002-03, no major injury accidents and only seven minor injury accidents.2 It is the mode with the lowest comparative accident rate per billion passenger kilometres travelled.’

3.3 Furthermore the Passenger Transport Executives Group Report ‘What

light rail can do for cities’ 2005 gives the following data on accidents.

The wind turbulence effect of trams

General

3.4 A vehicle moving through air will create a number of wind effects, many of these effects are minor and the principal effects experienced by people or structures located close to a moving vehicle are;

• a pressure wave which spreads out from the front of the vehicle.

This is caused by the displacement of air as the vehicle moves forward and is experienced by objects and persons close to the passing vehicle as a positive pressure – i.e. it tends to blow objects AWAY from the passing vehicle

• a pressure wave at the rear of the vehicle. This is caused by the air being drawn in to replace the space ‘carved’ by the vehicle as it passes through the air and is experienced by objects and persons close to the [passing vehicle as a negative pressure – i.e. it tends to draw objects TOWARDS the area immediately to the rear of the passing vehicle.

3.5 Both these effects are dependent upon the speed of the vehicle, its

cross-sectional area and the shape of the vehicle;

• A slow moving vehicle will have a small effect and a fast vehicle a much larger effect. The aerodynamic loads increase with the square of the speed – hence the need for careful front-end design on High Speed trains [i.e. speeds over 160kmh] and aircraft.

• A vehicle with a large cross sectional area and a flat front will have a much larger effect than a vehicle with a smaller cross sectional area and a more streamlined front – hence the shaped and curved front ends adopted by most modern rail vehicles.

3.6 European aerodynamicists are working with the leading rail vehicle

manufacturers to establish maximum air-flow figures for various types of rail vehicle and to recommend safe limits in the vicinity of structures and people. Although the Europe-wide deliberations have not been concluded it is likely that for heavy rail trains the limiting windload would be;

• 17meters per second [m/s] at a passenger platform for a 100kmh

passing freight train • 15 m/s at the platform for a 200kmh passing passenger train.

3.7 Trams will move at far lower speeds [trams have a maximum design

speed of 80kmh] and they will have a cross sectional area of less than 50% of a high speed passenger train. The aerodynamic assessment is that a tram will only generate wind speeds of 3-5 m/s, which is more than 200% below the proposed European safety limits.

4. Conclusion

4.1 A pedestrian standing close to a tram moving at the trams maximum

speed will experience very small wind turbulence effects and these effects will not cause any discomfort or danger to the pedestrian. This conclusion is supported by practical day-to-day experience across Europe, where pedestrians walk and cycle close to tramways with no discomfort or danger.

Croydon Walkway/Cycleway/Bridleway alongside tramway

Croydon Walkway alongside tramway

Grenoble, France Cycleway alongside segregated tramway

Kenosha, USA Walkway/Cycleway alongside tramway Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005



TIM BLOWER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Ground Conditions 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Tim Blower and I am an Associate with Mott MacDonald

Cambridge. I am a Chartered Civil Engineer and a Chartered Geologist and have recently become a Specialist in Land Condition, a qualification administered by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. I have over 23 years' work experience in the field of ground engineering, much of it associated with transportation schemes. I have been an Associate at Mott MacDonald for over eight years, during which time I have managed the company's ground engineering (geotechnical and contaminated land) input into light rail schemes in Manchester, Nottingham, and Liverpool, and have had significant inputs into the light rail and rapid transportation schemes in Edinburgh, Luton, and Leigh/Wigan.

1.2 I have been involved in the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 (ETL1) since 2002,

and my role has been as review engineer for the geotechnical and contaminated land aspects of the project.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses Ground conditions (i) Existing conditions (ii) Outline of future geotechnical works

3. Ground Conditions Existing conditions

3.1 Examination of the ground conditions along the route of a proposed

transportation scheme such as this is a key step in identifying the potential risk factors that may affect the scheme's design, construction, operation and maintenance.

3.2 Prior to the Parliamentary Bill submission to support the capital cost analysis of the Parliamentary route, investigations into the ground conditions along the route were undertaken. In accordance with the relevant standards and best practice guidance, these investigations have been undertaken in a phased approach, as described below.

3.3 The first stage was a desk study, or "Preliminary Investigation" as

defined in BS10175:2001. This was completed in February 2003 and helped to identify areas where significant ground features were present.

3.4 Following this, an intrusive ground investigation was undertaken, along the lines of an "Exploratory Investigation" as defined in BS10175:2001, and bearing in mind those significant ground features identified in the desk study.

3.5 Generally, the fieldwork comprised cable percussive boreholes, window sampler holes, dynamic probing and machine excavated trial pits, and it was undertaken in accordance with BS5930: Code of Practice for Site Investigations.

3.6 Along the Roseburn corridor, a total of 8 no. window sampler boreholes and 16 no. cable percussion boreholes were carried out between Russell Road and Ferry Road. In addition 8 no. hand dug trial pits were excavated at existing structures to establish the level of the structural foundations.

3.7 The results of the Preliminary and Exploratory Investigations have been used to inform the development of the ETL1 scheme outline design for planning purposes.

Outline of future geotechnical works 3.8 A more extensive programme of site investigation, defined as the "Main

Investigation" and "Supplementary Investigation" in BS10175:2001, will be undertaken as part of the detail design process. This will provide the necessary geotechnical design parameters and monitoring data to be used in the development of final engineering solutions.

3.9 Monitoring of groundwater levels should be undertaken over a prolonged period of time during these more detailed stages of site

investigation. A series of piezometers will be installed along the corridor and an ongoing programme of groundwater monitoring will be undertaken in order to establish the pattern of groundwater fluctuations. This exercise will assist in the development of suitable drainage measures for the temporary and permanent works.

3.10 In line with the Promoter’s commitment to retain as much vegetation in the corridor as possible, the detailed geotechnical design will focus on the application of remedial and low impact solutions such as soil nailing, low retaining structures and slope drainage in order to improve slope stability, rather than complete regrading.

4. Conclusion 4.1 The ground conditions along the corridor have been investigated in a

preliminary investigation (desk study), and an exploratory investigation involving boreholes, trial pits and monitoring.

4.2 Further investigations will be required before the geotechnical designs for the scheme can be finalised.

4.3 The provision of new and/or refurbished positive drainage of the major earthworks and tramline track will serve to enhance the stability of the earthworks along the corridor.

4.4 By careful design, the need for major re-grading works which would affect the existing vegetation will be minimised.

Tim Blower Associate Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT 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 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. 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.



GARY TURNER Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Access to garages at Garscube Terrace 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 Access to garages at Garscube Terrace (i) Existing access routes being retained (ii) Provision during construction 3. Access to garages at Garscube Terrace

Existing access routes being retained 31 The entrance to the lane at the rear Garscube Terrace has been

included within the Limits of Deviation shown on the Parliamentary Plans as plot 236. The purpose of these limits is to permit works to be undertaken to St Georges School bridge, should such works be required. The plot also allows works to be undertaken to tie in any road level differences to the adjacent highway following any potential bridge works. The Promoter does not intend to purchase or permanently stop up this access as part of the works and is prepared to give an undertaking to this effect if required.

3.2 The exact form of any structural alterations to this bridge will be established during the detailed design process.

Provision during construction

3.3 The residents are also concerned that access will be impacted upon by the construction works for the tram.

3.4 Disruption during construction works, including the issue of accesses to

properties and businesses, including footways, is addressed by the promoter by the establishment of suitable Codes and contractual requirements. The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter's contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP].

3.5 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects,

particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham and planned for Liverpool (the CoCP for Merseytram (Liverpool) was considered during the Public Inquiry of the Merseytram Draft Order deposited under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. The inspector subsequently reported that the draft order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State subsequently followed the inspectors advice).

3.6 The CoCP has been subject to rigorous appraisal by all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, the Consultants and professional advisors to the scheme.

3.7 The CoCP requires that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.8 The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian

access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

3.9 Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

3.10 Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

3.11 All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)]

3.12 At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

3.13 The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.14 Additionally s. 4.4 (b) requires the setting up of a complaints Hotline to ensure that any problems are quickly attended to [ s. 2.3].

3.15 My colleague Scott McIntosh can provide further information on measures taken to address potential impacts during construction, if required.

3.16 Compliance with the CoCP will be a requirement of the construction

contracts 4. Conclusion 4.1 The promoter is prepared to give an undertaking that the land will not

be permanently acquired. 4.2 The Promoter does not intend to permanently stop up access and is

prepared to give an undertaking to that effect. 4.2 It is believed that the measures in the CoCP, taken as a package, will

reduce interference to an absolute minimum and will enable access during construction to be maintained at all times, as far as is

reasonably practical, and arrangements will be made in consultation with the residents concerned.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005



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 cycleway/walkway 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 cycleway/walkway 3. Loss of cycleway/walkway 3.1 The promoter has given an assurance that a continuous

cycleway/footway will be maintained throughout the corridor during tram operations. This will be constructed to provide a 3m surfaced

width over most of its length. Localised narrowing will be required in order to fit the tramway through some of the bridges and this matter is currently under discussion with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) in order to achieve an acceptable arrangement at these locations that will maximise the width of the cycleway/footway. In general it is worthy of note that of the 3 kilometres of corridor under consideration only 4 bridges locations require to be developed in this way.

4. Conclusion

4.1 A continuous surfaced walkway/cycleway will be provided throughout

the Roseburn Corridor during tram operations. 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

Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Remove steps to water of Leith at Coltbridge 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 Remove steps to water of Leith at Coltbridge (i) Steps to be maintained or reinstated 3. Remove steps to Water of Leith at Coltbridge

3.1 Steps to be maintained or reinstated

There is concern that the access steps to the Waters of Leith at Coltbridge Viaduct will be removed as part of the construction works for the proposed tram scheme. The promoter wishes it to be known that the steps will not be removed. It will be necessary to carry out minor realignment or modification to the top of the existing steps to the Water of Leith to accommodate the widened tramway. It will not be necessary to remove the steps completely and a full flight of steps will continue to give access to the Waters of Leith following the tram works.

4. Conclusion

4.1 It will be necessary to carry out minor realignment or modification to the

top of the existing steps to the Water of Leith to accommodate the widened tramway. It will not be necessary to remove the steps completely and a full flight of steps will continue to give access to the Waters of Leith following the tram works.




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



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.


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN 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

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

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

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.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/rspg/index.htm



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;

• 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 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 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] 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. 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]

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.

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 Urban Wildlife Site (UWS). Badger (a protected species) are

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


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 Various severance, access and amenity issues associated with the cycleway/walkway

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 Probable contaminated land at the former petrol station


Fully segregated alignment removes scope for road vehicle – tram conflict

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

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. 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.

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 certain 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.

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 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.


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT 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: Option 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




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): • 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

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

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).

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.

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

4.5. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the comparative appraisal of the former rail corridor

against the Crewe Road option.

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.


• 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.


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT LES BUCKMAN

Contents

1. Witness Summary 2. Outline of Evidence 3. Road Traffic Model 4. Highway Benefits 1. WITNESS SUMMARY 1.1. I am Les Buckman and I am a consultant Transport Planner. I have a BSc in Civil




2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE 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 Turnbull. 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.



PROF BRIAN M EVANS Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Setting the Context – production of the Design Manual 4. Effects on the World Heritage Site

4.1 Setting the Context – Edinburgh’s world-renowned status 4.2 A very specific set of challenges 4.3 Achieving an appropriate Urban Fit

5. Conclusion 1. Resume 1.1 I am Prof Brian M Evans MSc, BSc (Hons), Dip URP, MRTPI, FCSD

I am a Chartered Town Planner, Chartered Designer, and a Partner of Gillespies - Urban Designers, Landscape Architects and Architects. The Practice has extensive experience of modern tram systems in UK in particular Nottingham.

1.2 I was Gillespies Project Manager/Director for award winning public realm strategies and projects in Glasgow, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Middlesbrough and I am the Gillespies Project Director for ongoing work on the Capital Streets Programme of public realm improvement within the World Heritage Site in Edinburgh. I have contributed to projects in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Italy and Russia.

1.3 I have experience with light rapid transit projects including a study of

European Tram Systems and a study of the integration of the extended tram system & new development opportunities in Gothenburg. I led the team that produced the Draft Design Manual (11th March 2004) on behalf of tie, working closely with the City of Edinburgh Council (City Development Department), Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust.

1.4 Qualifications • Partner Gillespies – 25 years experience of urban design & landscape

planning • Master of Science – Urban Design • Postgraduate Diploma – Urban & Regional Planning • Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute • Fellow of the Chartered Society of Designers

• Professor of Urban Design, School of Architecture, Chalmers University,

Gothenburg 1998-2004 • Evidence to public inquiry under Planning, Ancient Monument & Electricity

legislation • Adviser to CABE (Commission for Architecture & The Built Environment)

on the production of Design Codes for design quality in new development, Member of CABE Enabling Panel

• Deputy Chair: Architecture & Design Scotland. • Founder Member: the Academy for Urbanism

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses

(i) Effect on the World Heritage Site

(ii) Visual Impact of OLE 3. Setting the Context – production of the Design Manual 3.1 The proposals for the tram system have been subjected to very careful

scrutiny through the STAG and EIA processes with every effort made to minimise potential intrusion of the tram system.

3.2 Edinburgh is a very special place in respect of its architectural and cultural

heritage – World Heritage Site, conservation areas, listed buildings etc. 3.3 In order to ensure that effects are minimised and indeed that the system

makes a positive contribution to these special qualities, it is necessary to design the system before it is engineered, constructed and then operated.

3.4 Hence tie had the foresight to commission the production of a Design Manual

which • First- sets out the issues of design, townscape and environment which

must be addressed through sensitive design; • Second - identifies design principles which can address these issues and

which the planning authority can use to evaluate the emerging design; • Third - sets out guidelines which can be used to apply the design

principles in the development of the system and which can be used in partnership with third parties to ensure wider integration (e.g. in wider public realm/development projects beyond the scope of the tram system); and

• Fourth - sets out requirements which mandate the contractor & operator to detailed requirements for the design of the system and of the immediate area for which it is responsible.

3.5 The Draft Design Manual, 11 March 2004, has been refined and updated by

the planning authority. I have not been involved in this process.

4. Effects on the World Heritage Site 4.1 Setting the Context – Edinburgh’s world-renowned status

(With reference to Draft Design Manual, P5, PART ONE: Strategic Aspirations)

Edinburgh is a prosperous European capital city which enjoys an international

reputation as one of the continent’s most attractive cities. The Draft Design Manual acknowledges that the townscape of central Edinburgh has long been recognised as a work of art in its own right and one of the UK’s principal heritage assets. It is a UNESCO designated World Heritage Site, renowned for its unique architectural heritage.

The Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design published in August 2003 by The City of Edinburgh Council City Development Department: Planning and Strategy describes the Georgian New Town as constituting “the most extensive example of a Romantic Classical city in the world. The juxtaposition of the Old and New Towns across a landscaped divide creates a capital city of world renown.”

The Standards clearly set out the Council’s aspirations for a creative and innovative approach to new development which draws on and interprets the city’s past.

They succinctly describes Edinburgh’s character as stemming ”from the relationship between its natural and built form, the configuration of buildings and city structure, the composition of historic buildings and tenement setting and the contrast between planned and organic, enclosure and openness”

The value of the city’s heritage is reflected in the fact that one third of the city has conservation area status.

4.2 A very specific set of Challenges

(With reference to Draft Design Manual, P29, PART TWO: Design Parameters, Urban Fit)

Edinburgh’s World Heritage status presents a very specific set of challenges. Achieving an appropriate design solution that respects the integrity of

Edinburgh’s townscape is of critical importance. The proposed tram must take cognisance of the built heritage, in particular the setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments and their contribution to the overall townscape or landscape. This includes the visual impact of the proposed tram route upon views both of (or towards) and from listed buildings and designed landscapes and gardens.

It is paramount, therefore, that the distinctive character of the city is respected.

Only the southern sections of the Roseburn Corridor i.e. broadly from its

junction with Queensferry Road to Haymarket Terrace are within the World Heritage Site. In this location the proposed tram will run entirely on segregated alignment on the former railway solum.

4.3 Achieving an appropriate Fit One of the key impacts of the proposed tram system will be visual. This is of

particular relevance in the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area which do not have the physical capacity to incorporate dramatic change. In this particular location, the context of a residential area and former railway corridor present a differing set of criteria for consideration than those associated with the urban areas within the World Heritage Site. Greater natural screening is afforded by the more vegetated character of these areas.

Alignment (With reference to Draft Design Manual, P27, PART TWO: Design Parameters, Alignment)

Visual intrusion will be minimised by ensuring that the alignment of the tram

route follows existing urban form and complements the use of the public realm.

An appropriate suburban fit will be achieved by addressing the existing

volume of space in a holistic way, respecting the overall form and coherence of the places affected.

The detailed alignment of the tram line has to be a balance between many

different and sometimes conflicting pressures and constraints: engineering, environmental, aesthetic, financial and operational. The final alignment will require to provide an equitable balance between these matters. A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan has been prepared on behalf of the promoter by ERM.

4.4 Reducing the visual impact of OLE Overhead Line Equipment (OLE)

(With reference to Draft Design Manual, P105, PART TWO: Design Parameters, OLE)

The aspiration set out in the Design Manual is to mitigate potential visual intrusion by reducing clutter in the public realm. This is achieved by ensuing that the number of OLE poles is kept to the minimum necessary. The same principle applies to the Roseburn Corridor. The key to minimising visual intrusion from OLE is to turn careful design which ensures it is positioned well to relate to key views, landmarks and historic buildings. Within the Roseburn Corridor advantage will be taken of the natural screening effect afforded by the surrounding vegetation in adjacent gardens. Integration of OLE with the landscape can be achieved more effectively in an area where it is viewed against a back cloth or through a foreground of natural planting rather than being seen against the skyline. The localised positioning, final height and spacing of the OLE poles will be considered in relation to their specific context at the detailed design stage.

The promoter undertakes to consult with the objector prior as part of the detailed design and construction processes. In this particular context the visual benefit of using shorter support columns needs to be balanced against the requirement for reduced spacing.

4.5 Maximising the benefit of screening from existing vegetation The design ethos in the Roseburn Corridor is to retain the existing vegetation where feasible, using new planting to enhance that retained therefore maintaining the visual perception of a green corridor strongly associated with this location. In the short term, the 5-10 years immediately following construction, the visual impact of the tram will have a negative effect until the new planting in the corridor begins to reach maturity. The ensure both immediate impact and long term establish the detailed design specification will allow for the planting of a range of species in a variety of sizes. Smaller whip and feathered stock will provide the long term framework whilst heavy standard and specimens will provide immediate impact and scale in the short term. Natural vegetation will provide a filtered screening of the tram infrastructure whilst additional screening elements such as acoustic barriers and fencing, appropriate to their context, will also be considered where appropriate.

5. Conclusion 5.1 The Draft Design Manual sets out the way in which good design can help

make a positive contribution to Edinburgh’s public realm mitigating the visual intrusion of the proposed tram system on the World Heritage Site, Conservation Area and Listed Buildings at both the strategic and detailed level.

In accordance with Prior Approvals, the promoter undertakes to consult with

the appropriate statutory consultees and the objector as part of the detailed design and construction processes.

Brian Evans Partner Gillespies llp 4 July 2005


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT AILEEN GRANT PRECOGNITION : Issue: Selection of Route along the Roseburn Corridor 1. Introduction 1.1 I am Aileen Grant, Principal Planner in Planning and Strategy within the

City Development Department of Edinburgh City Council. I am a qualified planner, with a Diploma in Town & Regional Planning and am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have been in my current post since July 2002. Prior to this I was Principal in charge of the Central Edinburgh Development Quality Team (1998-2002) and Initiatives Manager for Edinburgh North (1996-1998). I have more than 30 years’ experience of working in planning, the majority of these gained within Edinburgh City.

1.2 I took on the role of co-ordinating a planning response to the emerging

Tram proposals for Tram Lines 1 and 2 early in 2003. This role requires me to liaise closely with various colleagues in Planning and Strategy, identifying planning issues to be considered and addressed, putting relevant matters before the Planning Committee. I have extensive knowledge of development control issues gained from 12 years’ direct experience of processing planning applications and leading development control teams. I also have experience of leading multi-disciplinary teams, bringing engineering and landscape considerations together with planning and regeneration issues, as well as experience of drafting various local plans, and supplementary planning guidance. I attended the Tram Study Visits for representatives of the Planning Committee in October 2003 when we viewed Tram systems in Strasbourg, Montpellier and Lyon and discussed with officials in these cities the planning, design and transport issues relating to the introduction of a new tramline into a historic city centre. I also subsequently attended a trip to Nottingham after the Tram Line had opened there in May 2004 and have discussed planning and design issues experienced by that city with a key planning officer there on several occasions.

1.3 The role of Planning Authority in considering Tram proposals was

distinct from that of Council as promoter of the Project. The view of the Planning Committee as the local planning authority was considered to be of importance in establishing the Council’s position on a range of

matters. A series of reports was placed before the Planning Committee. On 7th August 2003 a report presented the emerging tram proposals and gave the first opportunity for Planning Committee to respond to these providing a formal planning response to the consultation on these proposals. A second report to the October Planning Committee reported back on the outcome of the consultation exercise and tie’s responses, and a third report to Planning Committee on 27th November 2003 presented tie’s proposals for Lines 1 and 2 as were to be put forward to Scottish Parliament, seeking to address earlier points raised by Planning Committee and eliciting a final comment by Planning Committee to Council prior to formal submission of the proposals to the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The scope of my evidence covers the following aspects. • Input and decision-making of the Planning Committee on this issue

2.2 My role is to represent the interests of Council as Planning Authority.

That role is in responding to proposals presented by tie and considering the planning implications. I have not been directly involved in negotiations with objectors; neither am I am dealing with the reasons behind tie’s choice of routing in particular locations.

3. Planning Background 3.1 The statutory Development Plan for the Roseburn/Telford Area

comprises the approved Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 (2004) the adoped North West Edinburgh Local plan (1992) (as supplementaed by the draft West Edinburgh Local Plan), and the adopted Central Edinburgh Local Plan (1996). The Structure Plan identifies the North Edinburgh Tram Loop as one of the “Key Transport Investment Proposals to be safeguarded pending decisions by stakeholders on Implementation” (Table 5.1). A footnote to this Table states that both the route and ancillary facilities require safeguarding. Paragraph 5.10 states that “The construction of a tram system is crucial to the success of the development strategy.” and Policy TRAN1 states that “local plans should safeguard land for the transport proposals identified in Table 5.1…”

3.2 The Roseburn Corridor is identified in the North West Edinburgh Local

Plan as a transport safeguard. Policy T2 states “Disused railway land from Queensferry Road to Davidson’s Mains, Granton and Newhaven, defined ‘walkway/cycleways’ on the Proposals Map, will be safeguarded for possible future highways or light rail proposals. The Proposals Map shows the Roseburn Corridor as one of these routes. Paragraph 5.7 of the local plan provides some additional background regarding this policy. “The disused railway lines in this local plan area, north of the Queensferry Road, which have been acquired by Lothian

Regional Council to hold in reserve for possible highway purposes are identified on the Proposals Map as ‘walkway/cycleway’, reflecting their current use…Their safeguarding gives the Regional Council the possibility of building new access road towards Granton and Leith should the growth of traffic flows, especially commercial traffic, require it. This is especially important in view of the efforts being made to attract industry to Granton and the private proposals to infill Wardie Bay for a variety of purposes. Proposals for the development of the Edinburgh Metro may affect the local plan area in the longer term, although it is unlikely that they will fall within the timescale of the present Local Plan. The District Council accepts that their safeguarding is prudent; meanwhile they can be used as walkways and cycleways.” This Local Plan also identified a number of areas of nature conservation interest to be protected from “potentially damaging development” (Policy E11) but the Roseburn Corridor was not one of these. However, the text in paragraph 6.21 talked about the disused railway lines forming “parts of a city-wide network of green corridors which link sites of particular interest and allow wildlife the freedom of movement within the urban area.” In other words, this Local Plan recognises the value of these corridors to nature conservation, but does not include a policy to protect them as such. Rather the policy is for the development of these corridors for transport purposes – either as a road or, in the longer term as public transport facilty.

3.3 The Draft West Edinburgh Local Plan was published in 2001. Although

it will not be progressed beyond the current draft stage, it will be taken forward through preparation of a new Edinburgh City Local Plan and it still has a role as a material consideration in determining planning applications. It shows the Roseburn/Telford corridor as both north-south LRT safeguard (TRA4) and an urban wildlife corridor. Policy T6 “Public Transport Proposals” states “Land required for the implementation of the following public transport proposals will be reserved for these purposes and development likely to prejudice their implementation will not be allowed. The Council will seek contributions towards their implementation from developers likely to benefit from these proposals.” The supporting text in paragraph 8.22 makes reference to the provision of a high quality public transport link to access the Granton Waterfront areas “to enable this to achieve its full economic and employment potential.” Policy GE11 of the Plan relates to Nature Conservation – Urban Wildlife Sites. This states “Development within or affecting Urban Wildlife Sites or RIGS sites will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the development to enhance or safeguard the nature conservation value of the site.” Hence the question of the design and implementation of mitigation measures is particularly important.

3.4 To the south, the corridor runs through Central Edinburgh Local Plan

area, and Policy T4 from that plan makes it clear that the route will be “protected for the possible construction of a light rapid transit (LRT)

system.” Paragraph 9.29 contains the relevant supporting text, describing a network of LRT routes, with the former railway line between Roseburn and Ferry Road linking two other routes. This Plan also shows the corridor covered with a nature conservation policy – Policy GE7 which states that these sites “will be protected from potentially damaging development”. Policy GE8 – Nature Conservation – Development Impact - is also relevant as it states that “Where development proposals are acceptable they should include features that will mitigate their effects upon wildlife and its habitat, including the creation of new habitats where appropriate.”

3.5 These various safeguards were flagged up in Property Enquiry

Certificates as a “Road Proposal” for all properties within 50 m of the corridor. An example of this is provided.

4. Planning Committee consideration of this issue 4.1 This issue first came to the attention of the Planning Committee in

August 2003. At that time Committee noted the following with regard to the Western General Hospital Option

“While benefits would still result from a segregated tram route along the route

of the current cycleway, it is clear that a route connecting with the Western General Hospital would help to reduce car travel associated with a major traffic generator within the city. It is a key feature of both planning and transport policy that major facilities and developments are close to high density public transport services. However, the route detailed in the plans runs along the western (Telford Road) edge of the hospital site (i.e. not the main focus of activity), and also along Groathill Avenue, which although primarily residential in character, carries a high volume of traffic to the Craigleith Retail Park. Neither route serves the retail park. Planning objectives and policy would support serving one of these key traffic generators, and if connection with the hospital is not possible, despite the importance of achieving this, then consideration should be given to creating a connection with the retail park.”

4.2 This report also noted “The North West Edinburgh Local Plan identifies

the former railway lines as routes defined as walkways/cycleways to be safeguarded for possible highways or light rail proposals (Policy T2). These include the route running parallel to and north of Ferry Road, and the route running from Queensferry Road north to Granton Harbour. This latter route has already been partially developed as a new road - in the stretch between Ferry Road and West Granton Road. This incorporates a land reservation for a tram route.

4.3 The Planning Committee reviewed the outcome of the consultation

exercise in October and noted the following “Telford Road or Railway Corridor

“The consultation responses favoured Telford Road. Some of the weighting, however, is the result of a number of petitions and actions by cycle groups. There was strong support for the railway corridor as a means of segregating trams from traffic and lessening congestion in the Telford Road area. Following further analysis tie is recommending the railway corridor as the preferred option due to:

• improved operations and running time;

• segregation from other traffic and additional safety factors;

• conversion of disused rail is more cost-effective;

• no cycleways will be lost – these will be reinstated as part of the construction process. This was the main factor for influencing choice of Option B – the railway corridor option.

4.4 “Given these factors, and that the railway corridor option is in line with the safeguarded route in the adopted local plan, the Department is minded to accept tie's position. However, in view of the strength of public opinion, tie is requested to carry out further consultation with local people to discuss how their concerns can be addressed through design and mitigation measures.”

4.5 Committee agreed with the recommendation to advise tie that further

consultation should be undertaken in the Telford/Drylaw area to discuss with local people how the design of the tram route along the railway corridor could take account of local concerns. This position was reiterated in November when Committee noted the following.

• “Telford/Drylaw area local concerns - Response from the public

within the zone of influence of the route options favoured the former railway solum along the Roseburn corridor. When taking into account all parties, the majority were in favour of Telford Road, particularly because of the proximity to the Western General Hospital and the responses of cycle groups, who are concerned that there may be an adverse effect on the cycleway if the former railway solum was used for the tram route. Notwithstanding, there was strong support for the former railway solum as a means of segregating trams from traffic and lessening congestion in the Telford Road area. tie has recommended to the Council that the former railway solum should be adopted as the preferred route option. The Planning Committee requested further consultation to discuss with local people how the design of the tram route along the railway corridor could take account of local concerns. This has taken place (11 November), and has resulted in a requirement

for further information/analysis to be produced on both options, plus an additional option via Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South. The Council report on 13 November noted “It is the view of Council officials that the weight of evidence for and against both options is finely balanced. A report concerning this will be presented to Planning Committee on the 27 November after further analysis and consideration by tie and Council officials.” This report will form part of the input to the report to Council on 11 December.

• Comment : No planning objection was raised in respect of the route running along the former railway line. This is safeguarded for such a purpose in the North West Edinburgh Local Plan. In the absence of a further report from tie, no additional comment can be made. This issue will be considered by Council and the Head of Planning will provide input to that process.”

4.6 When Council considered the matter on 12th December 2003, the Head

of Planning input was provided through an Appendix attached to the Council report. “Appendix C : Outstanding Planning Matters for Head of Planning Approval” includes the following text under “Other General Points”. “Planning and Strategy raised a number of other points in relation to the Plans and the Environmental Statements. These concern the Roseburn Corridor, Haymarket, West End to Princes Street. Tie has made a number of adjustments in the light of these comments, reducing the impacts of the proposed works and improving the proposed mitigation measures.” On this basis, these matters were considered to be sufficiently resolved for a sign-off at that stage in the process. The matter of detailed design is one to be considered more fully at the subsequent prior approval stage. Although it is tempting to try and wrap these details up at this stage, this would be inappropriate. The terms of the Environmental Statements and the Draft Design Manual should confirm the strategic design approach. The details will be developed in accordance with these provisions.

5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1The Roseburn Corridor is shown in the Council’s statutory Development

Plans as a route safeguarded for transport purposes. The policy guidance in the adopted North West Edinburgh Local Plan, and the adopted Central Edinburgh Local Plan indicates that the former railway corridor is safeguarded for future transportation purposes. On this basis the proposed route is in accordance with the development plan.

5.2 This status underlay the Planning Committee’s decision not to object to

the proposal for Tram Line 1 to run along the corridor. The Planning Authority had to respond to tie’s proposals and given the policy safeguards, there was no planning objection to the principle of the tram along this corridor.

5.3 There are also issues relating to wildlife conservation, but only the adopted Central Edinburgh Local Plan contains a policy which seeks to protect nature conservation value in this corridor. The question of detailed design of the corridor remains to be addressed at Prior Approval stage. Implementation of the Tram proposals will include the implementation of mitigation measures such as replanting and minimisation of impact on wildlife, flora and fauna.



ANDREW OLDFIELD Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Route selection including WGH 4. Conclusions 1. Resume

1.1 I am Andrew J Oldfield. I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald

and Project Manager for the Technical Consultants, commissioned to examine the technical aspects of the project. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have been involved in transportation and infrastructure projects in Scotland over the past 20 years including: Edinburgh Tram Line 1, Glasgow Cross Rail Link; Glasgow airport Rail Link; Edinburgh Tram, Strathclyde Tram Draft Provisional Order and major infrastructure projects including trunk roads; motorway improvements; ports; harbours; reservoirs and power stations.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses Route selection including WGH Specific route option on Pennywell Road 3. Route selection including WGH 3.1 Route selection optioneering and appraisals Waterfront Edinburgh Limited (WEL) is a joint venture company between the City of Edinburgh Council and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian. WEL formed a Steering Group in 2000 comprising representatives of a large number of key local businesses, who supported an initiative to improve the public transport links connecting the Waterfront development area with Haymarket station and the City Edinburgh Rapid Transit Solution (the NERTS

Study) in January 2001. That study concluded that the objectives of the steering group would be served best by a complete “Northern Loop” serving the City Centre, Haymarket, Granton, Newhaven and Leith, and that the preferred route for the western section of the loop should run along the Roseburn corridor from Ferry Road to Balbirnie Place, with stops at Crewe Toll, Craigleith and Ravelston. As part of the NERTS study and appraisal of route options was undertaken. The process employed in the identification of these route options is noted below.

• Route options identified by inspection of OS mapping information to establish the principal route corridors and associated connections;

• Walkover survey to establish if the route options were worthy of further

consideration in the NERTS appraisal process; and

• Photographic survey to assist in the NERTS appraisal process and illustrate the benefits and disbenefits associated with each option.

The proposed route served the increasing transport needs of the major development area at Granton and the residential areas in Craigleith and Roseburn would also benefit, not only by the provision of improved transport facilities, but also by reducing the potential growth in through traffic in their area. The route via the former Roseburn Railway Corridor also afforded the opportunity to continue the route via Haymarket with the opportunity to create a major transport interchange between heavy the rail suburban services, tram services on Line 2, the bus network and taxis. The tram lines and this new interchange would increase the opportunities for existing residents of North Edinburgh to access a wider jobs market in the new developments and at the Gyle, Edinburgh Park and the Airport. It would also expand significantly the potential catchment areas for businesses and developments in the Waterfront and North Edinburgh.

3.2 Stages of development of the scheme On our appointment following completion of the NERTS study, several stages of the route option identification and analysis were undertaken to determine the best route for a high quality public transport link from the new developments in North Edinburgh to Haymarket and the City Centre.

Our first task was to review the findings of NERTS and confirm the preferred route. The results were reported in our Work Package 1 report in December 2002. This confirmed the route via the former rail corridor as the preferred route but recognised that it might be possible to deviate from the former railway via Telford Road to better serve the Western General Hospital.

More detailed alignment options for the section at the Western General

Hospital were examined and reported in May 2003 (the Review of Telford Road Options report). This recommended further consultation on the options.

Consultations were carried out over the summer and an updated

Telford Road options report was issued in September 2003 to include the results of the consultations for consideration by CEC.

Finally following consideration by CEC a number of further options for

this section of the route were examined in response to additional options suggested by consultees. The “Craigleith Options” report was prepared in November 2003 and considered by Council in December.

At this point CEC concluded that the former railway corridor should

taken forward within the Bill.

3.3 Work Package 1; December 2002 The Work Package 1 work included the review of possible route options between Granton and the City Centre and a further evaluation of the options using a link sifting process and option assessment. The process is illustrated, below in figure 4.1. The identification and evaluation process followed broadly the principles of the draft STAG process, my colleague Mr Eyles. Mr Eyles will provide evidence on he criteria used and the application of the STAG methodology. The full analysis of the sifting process is presented in Appendix A of the Work Package 1 report. This presents a commentary and the results of the scoring for each link under consideration.

Identification of Link

Options

Appraisal of Link Options

Sifting of Link Options

LIN

K S

IFTI

NG

Review connectivity & identify Loop Options

Develop and complete STAG –type appraisal tables to assess Loop

Options

Option Selection

STA

G

Figure 1

3.3.1 Identification of Links The process adopted for NERTS was revised.

3.3.2 Appraisal of Link Options In all, about 25 possible links were examined for the western leg of the route. All such links (other than via - the former rail corridor) involved on-street tramway giving rise to additional traffic interfaces, which will be addressed by my colleague Mr Turnbull. Also typically, the more difficult or circuitous alignment geometry on-street generated increases in journey times and costs.

In places, these street running links cover more challenging topography and require tie-in to existing adjacent property and buildings in such a way as to dictate onerous alignment geometry which is both operationally undesirable and potentially unfeasible. In terms of Environmental impacts the off-street link options (using the former railway corridor) general impacts of natural heritage. Whilst the on-street options generated impacts upon the built heritage.

3.3.3 Connectivity and Route Options The process yielded two “Loop Options” one incorporating the former railway corridor as part of the scheme and the other via Crewe Road. The option via Crewe Road follows a route (northwards) via Randolph Crescent, Orchard Brae, and along Crewe Road to Crewe Toll, passing the East entrance of the Western General Hospital. It was proposed that a stop would be located at the Hospital entrance. The Crewe Road option follows a different route corridor (along Crewe Road) up to about 1 km to the east of the former Railway corridor. It was identified during the NERTS and Work Package 1 assessments. A detailed analysis of the option is presented in the Work Package1 report. The analysis was undertaken for the entire Northern Loop, assuming first the preferred route was followed throughout and then reassessed following the Crewe Road option. In summary, the following key points emerged: Economics: Transport modelling indicated over 20% greater passenger use of the proposed Northern Loop following the Roseburn Railway Corridor alignment, compared with the Northern Loop incorporating the Crewe Road alignment. Accessibility: The population living within 800m of the proposed Northern Loop incorporating the Roseburn Railway Corridor alignment is 30% larger than that living within 800m of the Northern Loop incorporating the Crewe Road alignment. Integration: The Northern Loop incorporating the Crewe Road – Queensferry Road – Queensferry Street alignment does not achieve the important potential interchange at Haymarket.

3.3.4 Sub-option

In addition to the main options evaluated during WP1 a further sub-option was identified deriving from the former rail corridor via Telford Road covering the western General Hospital (West Gate), further examination of this sub-option was recommended.

3.4 The Telford Road Report and Study (Revision B) For Consultation; May 2003

This study considered the alternative route, running on street along Groathill Avenue and Telford Road, identified during Work Package 1 (WP1) Study. This alternative was intended as a potential means of taking the alignment closer to the Western General Hospital. The Telford Road alternative leaves the WP1 preferred route at the Craigleith stop and runs along South Groathill Avenue, Groathill Avenue and Telford Road. A stop is located on street at the rear of the Western General Hospital. The route leaves Telford Road just south of Crewe Toll where it swings west through the Fire Training Centre car park to rejoin the former railway at Ferry Road. From here, it continues along the former railway to the West Granton stop. Both options are illustrated on figure 1,below. The option was described in the Telford Road Report and Study (Revision B), which was prepared and issued for the consideration by tie in May 2003. The report firstly examined the sub-options available for running along Telford Road and concluded that the best alignment would be to run along the east side of Groathill Avenue and then centrally along the Telford Road in segregated lanes, leaving the kerb side lanes for buses and general traffic. The principal advantages of these alternative alignments within Telford Road were that they provided improved visibility, security and access, particularly to the Western General Hospital and to adjacent business. The report then compared this Telford Road route to the route along Roseburn Railway Corridor by evaluating both options against STAG objectives. The key issues relating to the Telford Road were identified as follows:

• Improved visibility, security and accessibility (especially to Western General Hospital) is provided on Telford Road.

• A section of shared running with traffic is required on Telford Road and

it is a longer route than the railway corridor, resulting in longer journey times, more traffic conflict and a requirement for more junction modifications.

• The Telford Road option required land take and localised loss of

parking and servicing.

• The Telford Road option was more expensive due to greater numbers of public utilities and longer route length.

Figure 2. Plan showing RRC option [blue] and Telford Avenue option [red]

The report examined the sub-options available for running along Telford Road and established the best alignment within the carriageway. The report then compared this Telford Road route to the route along the former railway by evaluating both against STAG objectives and sub-objectives. The stop location on the railway corridor (just south of Ferry Road) was less accessible than the corresponding stop on Telford Road. However the railway corridor was found to be superior operationally – one minute less runtime and no interface from road traffic – and is also £9 million cheaper to construct. On the basis of the superior operational performance, reduced capital cost and lesser impact on general traffic it was concluded that the preferred route should remain along the former railway. A strong technical argument therefore existed for the use of the former rail corridor. However, since access to the Western General Hospital had already been identified as an opportunity to improve accessibility it was also recommended that the Telford Road option should be taken forward for consultation in order to gauge the weight of this issue.

3.5 Public Consultation (14th May to 10th July 2003) A formal public consultation was undertaken during June and July 2003; this sought the views of the public about the above options. My colleague Mr Cross will provide evidence on the consultation process and outputs. Further consultations continued to take place after the formal public consultation had closed. This led to the evaluation of further options at the request of local residents. Mr Murray will provide evidence, on behalf of the promoter with respect to the outcome of the formal and informal consultations.

3.6 Review of Telford Road Options – September 2003 In September 2003 the Telford Road Report and Study (Revision B) was updated to Revision C “Review of Telford Road Options” to incorporate the CEC findings and conclusions from the public consultation.

3.7 Craigleith Options Summary Report – November 2003 (19/11/03 and 29/11/03)

Through additional consultation , further options were identified, running via Crewe Road (Option C1 and C2) which would provide further improved access to the Western General Hospital and other local business. The options are illustrated on figure 3, below. These additional options were assessed, for completeness and consistency, together with the previously identified route options along the ROseburn Corridor (option A) and on Telford Road (option B). The outputs from the assessment are presented in detail in the Craigleith Options Summary report. They are summarised, here in the following tables. A STAG assessment of the merits of the RRC, Telford Road and Craigleith Drive options was carried out and a Report issued in November 2003. Patronage figures were specifically requested by CEC for the Craigleith Drive alignment, these figures indicated an overall loss in patronage in 2011. A small gain in patronage in 2006 is offset by the costs associated with operating costs ad additional vehicles due to the longer route length.

Figure 3. Plan showing the RRC option [blue], the Telford Road Option [red]

and theCrewe Road-Craigleith Road option [black]

3.8 Alignment Plans (P5 Issue) – November 2003 (28/11/03) The P5 issue of the Alignment Plans was distributed on 28 November 2003 showing the RRC alignment as the selected route to be included in the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 Bill Submission.

3.9 The STAG 2 Appraisal – November 2003 A detailed evaluation of the case for the scheme was carried out during June to November 2003. This included an evaluation of two potential routes between Granton and the City Centre, one via the former Roseburn Railway Corridor and the other via Telford Road. The appraisal followed STAG, which appraises the scheme against both the local planning objectives as set out in the Local Transport Strategy and the Government five national objectives transport, which are:

• Environment

• Safety

• Economy

• Integration

• Accessibility & Social Inclusion

3.10 Reporting The reports on the above Engineering studies were issued to tie for consideration by the promoter and ultimately, the documents listed below formed the submission upon which the City of Edinburgh Council made their resolution prior to deposit of the draft Bill in December 2003.

• The Work Package 1 Report

• Craigleith Options Summary Report

• The Telford Road Report (Revision C)

• The STAG 2 Appraisal Report

All figures are based upon the section of the route from the hotel overbridge to Ferry Road junction (Crewe Toll stop). The figures in this report for the Former Railway Corridor and Telford Road have therefore been adjusted from previous work, which studied a longer route length.

Summary of Key Issues for Route Comparison STAG

Objectives STAG

Sub-objective Former Railway

Corridor Option A Telford Road

Corridor Option B

Crewe Road Option C

Best Outcome

Permanent Landtake

No land-take required

Land-take required

Land-take required. Significant if segregated running on Craigleith Road is achieved.

A

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.

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.

A

Implementability Appraisal

Technical Feasibility


No issues with parking/servicing

Significant impacts on parking/servicing

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

A

STAG Objectives

STAG Sub-objective

Former Railway Corridor Option A

Telford Road Corridor Option

B

Crewe Road Option C

Best Outcome

STAG Objectives

STAG Sub-objective

Former RailwayCorridor Option A


B

Crewe Road Option C

Best Outcome

Structures/ Earthworks

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

More structural and earthworks required Enhanced track bed required on shared running sections

Long length of enhanced track bed required on shared running sections

C

PU Issues Minimal PU relocations

Significant PU relocations

Significant PU relocations

A

Operational Feasibility

Run Time 2 m 24 s 4 m 06s1 5 m 20s (likely to be significantly increased further due to traffic interface)

A

Operational Issues Fewer risks operationally

Significantly greater operational issues Unpredictability on shared running sections Full priority at

Significantly greater operational issues Unpredictability on shared running sections Full priority at junctions unlikely to

A

1 Note that in the original planning paper, the run times for options B and C were transposed in error in the final STAG table. The appraisal was carried out on the runtimes indicated here. The body text in the planning paper reflects the correct runtimes.

STAG Objectives

STAG Sub-objective



B

Crewe Road Option C

Best Outcome

junctions unlikely to be achieved

be achieved

Environment Noise and Vibration

Potential noise impacts introduced

Less noise impacts

Fewer effects than Option A but extended over a longer length than Telford Road

B

Biodiversity Possible affects on small areas of habitat although migration possible

Less effects than Option A

Less effects than Option A

B/C

Economy TEE Capital Cost £8million £15.9million £30.5million A Safety Accidents Minimal risk of

accidents Greater risk of accidents

Greater risk of accidents

A

Safety Security Isolated stop location could lead to vandalism and crime

Better visibility and security

Better visibility and security

Accessibility BaseAccessibility

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

Good access to the tram system from the adjacent residential area and the Western General Hopital, BAE Police College and

STAG Objectives

STAG Sub-objective



B

Crewe Road Option C

Best Outcome

retail park

4 Route on Pennywell Road Several route options to access the Pennywell area were investigated during the early stages of the study. These included: 1. Telford Road – Crewe Toll – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 2. Former Railway Corridor – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 3. Former Railway Corridor – Telford Road – Groathill Road North –

Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 4. Former Railway Corridor – Groathill Road South - Telford Road –

Groathill Road North – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 5. Corstorphine Road – Murrayfield Road – Ravelston Dykes Road –

Strachan Road – Telford Road – Groathill Road North – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road

Each of these options can re-connect with the proposed route via either West Granton Road or Marine Drive and the new Second Site development roads. Only the first two options were taken forward for further investigation as the third and fourth options exhibited technical difficulties associated with significant level differences, which would have required substantial earthworks and road realignment with potentially greater impacts on property and/or land acquisition.

The fifth option was discounted due to the problems associated with the significantly longer route, which include increased capital and operating costs, increased journey times, reduced through patronage and reduced revenue. The economic performance of this option would be further eroded by the anticipated low levels of on-line patronage due to passing through relatively sparsely populated areas of high car ownership.

In relation to the first two options which access Pennywell Road from the Crewe Toll area via Ferry Road, in broad terms, either of these options would add materially to the capital and operating costs of the scheme (due to an increased route length of around 1.5km), with a pro-rata capital cost of around £15-£20m and an annual increase in operating costs £0.5m p.a. The increased run times (around 3-4 minutes) would reduce the attractiveness of the system to through trips, notably between Granton and Haymarket/City Centre and hence reduce the ability to reduce the growth in private motor car trips.

With evident additional costs, there would need to be material benefits to compensate. Inspection of the transport model shows that the Pilton area has slightly higher demand than West Pilton. The additional route length to West Pilton would probably have to include an additional stop. This stop would provide an additional opportunity to attract demand.

However, on balance, no significant difference in patronage between these routes and the proposed route is evident.

In summary therefore, the West Pilton option via Pennywell Road would incur significant additional costs and reduce demand and benefits to through trips but would not, however, attract sufficient demand to compensate. This supports the elimination of this option during the option sifting process.

5 Conclusion

There have been numerous stages in the review of the route options for the section of the route between Haymarket and the City Centre. The technical assessment suggests that the former railway corridor is the preferred solution offering:

Shorter and more reliable run times; Lower capital and operating costs; Comparable levels of passenger use.

Short run times (or passenger journey times) are a critical factor for the success of the scheme for a number of reasons:

Short journey times are key to attracting passenger. One of the stated

objectives of the scheme is to attract passengers who would otherwise travel by car. They are unlikely to do so unless they can travel more quickly by tram.

Longer journey times may require additional vehicles in order to

maintain service frequency (this adds considerable capital and operating cost).

Longer journey times are also likely to increase power consumption

and operating costs (depending upon the nature of the alignment and the speed profile).

My colleague Mr Eyles will provide more evidence on the significance of tram-times.

The West Gate of the Western General Hospital lies within approximately 350m of the nearest tram stop. ETL1 will form part of an integrated transport network with through ticketing from one model to another. Passengers wishing to access the WGH from ETL1 services can also change at Crewe Toll from where 20 buses ph run past the eastern entrance to the WGH. (which can potentially be augmented by dedicated feeder buses) while delivering greater service reliability. The former Roseburn railway corridor had been reserved for a transport corridor since 1978. It’s use as walking and cycle way is recorded to have been established as an interim use (my colleague

Karen Raymond will give evidence on the history of it’s reservation). The route is geometrically and spatially suitable for use as a tram road. Whilst this segregated right of way offers some potential for operating at speeds that are higher than on the local highways [up to 70kmh as opposed to 50kmh] it is the freedom from congestion delays that allow this section of the route to offer attractive and reliable journey times. This high quality of service means that the section of route from Granton via the Roseburn Railway Corridor to the City Centre is expected to carry the highest passenger loading for the scheme, particularly during the a.m. peak. This time and quality advantage is crucial if we are to persuade the residents in the new waterfront developments to use public transport, rather than the private car. Failure to provide such an alternative will lead to even greater congestion on the Edinburgh road network as the new developments fill with residents.

The former Roseburn railway corridor provides a relatively direct route, segregated from other traffic, thus affording attractive journey times and service reliability. For this reason other schemes in the UK and Ireland also make similar use of former railway lines including: Newcastle, where declining railway services were rejuvenated by their conversion to Metro and their extension into the City centre. Manchester, where the Bury and Altrincham lines have experienced a doubling in patronage since they were converted into light rail lines and linked by a surface route across the City centre. The line to Eccles has further increased ridership and acted as a catalyst for major redevelopment projects in the former Salford docklands area. Birmingham, where the former Birmingham – Wolverhampton railway line was converted into a tramway, with major landscape improvements and interchanges offering integrated services with local bus services. Croydon, where the conversion of the Wimbledon line to tramway and its linking to the busy Croydon central area has resulted in 800% increase in ridership. The line to the south east of Croydon uses a mixture of former railway alignment and new construction to serve the formerly socially disadvantaged area of New Addington. This has improved access to the jobs market for local residents and lead to a significant reduction in unemployment. The most deprived ward along the route, Fieldway, has witnessed the greatest reductions in unemployment: down by over 35% relative to wards not served by Tram link. Nottingham, uses a mixture of former railway alignments for much of Line 1, future extension will use railway alignments that have stood disused for close on 40 years.

Dublin Line B (Green Line) has brought back into use a former railway line closed in 1959. This runs through residential areas of southeast Dublin that suffer from traffic congestion problems. The tramway is already exceeding its ridership targets.

Andrew Oldfield Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005



ARCHIE RINTOUL 1 QUALIFICATIONS 1.1 I am Archibald Brown Rintoul, a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors (RICS). I am also a Member of the RICS Scotland Valuation Faculty Board.

1.2 I am at present the District Valuer in charge of Scotland South East Valuation

Office with overall responsibility for all valuations and property advice provided by a team of 12 Valuers, plus Technical and Support Staff, covering an area extending from the Scottish Borders to the south, to Perthshire in the north and Stirlingshire to the west.

1.3 I have 30 years experience in valuation, working in Edinburgh for most of the

last 17 years. I have been involved in Compensation and Compulsory Purchase throughout the whole of my working life, much of my work in the early years involving acquisitions of houses and businesses as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of large areas of Glasgow. I have continued this work throughout my career, much of my recent experience being in acquisitions for Road Schemes on behalf of the Scottish Executive and Local Authorities. I have also appeared as Expert Witness at Lands Tribunal and other Hearings.

1.4 I have provided consultancy advice on the Edinburgh Tramline 1 and 2 (ETL

1 and ETL 2) projects since 2003. 2 EVIDENCE 2.1 My evidence covers the principles underlying the ascertainment of

compensation to claimants affected by the scheme which are: 2.1.1 In cases where land is acquired, compensation is payable for the

value of the subjects acquired, reduction in value of any contiguous or adjacent subjects owned by the claimant, and compensation for disturbance, including items such as removals, loss of profits (in the case of a business) and any other loss directly attributable to the scheme, all in terms of the Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.

2.1.2 In cases where no land is required, compensation is payable for reduction in value caused by the physical factors associated with the scheme, in terms of Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended.

Archie Rintoul District Valuer 4 July 2005


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT ANDY COATES Issues covered by this Statement 1. Impacts on wildlife and habitats and measures to mitigate these 2. Development of the Badger Mitigation Plan

1.1 My name is Andrew Coates. I am a Principal Consultant at Environmental Resources Management (ERM) where I have responsibility for ecological surveys, assessment and management, and Environmental Impact Assessment studies. I hold two degrees, a BSc (Hons) in Zoology (1987) from Aberdeen University and an MSc in Environmental Technology (1988) from Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London. I am a Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and I am licensed from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) to ring birds.

1.2 My experience includes ecological and other environmental impact assessments of a wide range of transport and other linear developments including road, rail, airports, water and oil and gas pipelines. In particular I assessed the ecological impacts of the proposed South Hampshire Rapid Transit Scheme (SHRT) as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Approximately 5km of the SHRT route corridor was along a disused railway corridor. The scheme was approved by the Secretary of State, following a Public Inquiry at which I presented ecological evidence. I have also advised developers on the ornithological issues of proposals which affect Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds.

1.3 My evidence responds to concerns expressed by residents of the Roseburn Corridor (Area C) regarding the impacts on the wildlife and habitats of the corridor and ways to mitigate them (Issue 1) and the development of the Badger Mitigation (Issue 2).

1.4 Whilst I refer to aspects of policy and law within my evidence, as these are relevant to ecology and the protection of habitats and species, I should note that I am not a lawyer.

ISSUE 1 IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITATS AND MEASURES TO MITIGATE THESE

1.5 The Roseburn Corridor is designated in the Urban Nature Conservation Strategy [ASC1] as an Urban Wildlife Site, a linear feature which allows the

passage of wildlife between other, often larger areas of habitats. Many transport corridors act as wildlife corridors, a feature recognised in the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan [ASC2] which records wildlife corridors as including “the network of transport corridors and paths including disused railways, main roads, live railways and their adjacent land”.

1.6 In practice the wildlife corridor is wider than the boundaries of the former railway line and the designated Urban Wildlife Site, and the numerous gardens of adjacent properties and surrounding open space are important in the functioning of the wildlife corridor along Roseburn.

1.7 The embankments and cutting slopes of the corridor have developed habitats which are typical of those which develop on former railway corridors including young woodland and scrub, with coarse neutral grassland and tall ruderal 1 species in more open areas including close to the existing pathway/cycletrack. These habitats support a range of predominantly common fauna species. Two protected species were recorded along the corridor, badger and pipistrelle bats. No roost sites for pipistrelle bats were recorded. Buildings such as houses are known to be the most favoured roost sites for pipistrelle bats, and it is likely that bats foraging along the corridor will be roosting in adjacent buildings rather than in trees. This was confirmed by a survey undertaken during the Environmental Impact Assessment, which indicated that there was no roosting within the corridor itself. Further details of the habitats and species which occur along the Roseburn Corridor are contained in the ES.

1.8 Further surveys have been undertaken since the submission of the ES to assist with the development of the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) and the Badger Mitigation Plan (BMP). These include surveys to map the habitat types along the corridor in more detail, surveys to map the location and condition of trees along the corridor that may be affected by the works, surveys to identify breeding bird species using the corridor, surveys of badger sett locations and territorial boundaries of the social groups of badgers along the corridor using bait marking. The surveys have been undertaken using recognised survey methods which are in accordance with current good practice.

1.9 A key feature of the ETL1 design is that it will maintain the function of the Roseburn Corridor as a wildlife corridor. The Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan identifies the North Edinburgh Cyclepath as a valuable resource and proposes measures to maintain its diversity. It specifically suggests that disturbance to bank vegetation and wildlife during construction of Tramline One should be kept to the minimum and that appropriate reinstatement and planting be undertaken for people and wildlife. In accordance with the policy set out in the Plan, the design has sought to minimise the disturbance to vegetation and the wildlife it supports.

1.10 The Promoter’s ongoing commitment to this process is set out in the LHMP. Approximately 80% of the habitat along the corridor of the former railway line (1) Fast growing weedy species that colonise empty ground.

will be retained and, the adjacent gardens and open space which also support its function will not be directly affected by the proposals.

1.11 It is important to note that the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan refers to active transport corridors, including disused and live railways, as being part of the current network of wildlife corridors in the local area. This concurs with my own experience of heavy and light rail transport corridors and personal experience of living adjacent to an operating railway line. There is, therefore, every reason to predict that, the Roseburn Corridor will continue to act as a wildlife corridor with ETL1 in operation.

1.12 As the design of ETL1 progresses to the detailed stage, further refinements to the mitigation design will be developed, and detailed method statements drawn up which will cover the installation / implementation of these measures.

ISSUE 2 IMPACTS TO BADGERS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BADGER MITIGATION PLAN

1.13 Badger populations along the Roseburn Corridor appear to be thriving, with the numbers of setts having increased over the last decade. Survey work undertaken for ETL1 has identified two social groups of badgers using setts along the Roseburn Corridor. A third social group occupies a main sett east of the Roseburn Corridor but their range extends into the Roseburn Corridor. Overlaps in the ranges of Social Groups 1 and 3 were recorded by the surveys, and were considered to be as a result of males seeking females. This concurs with the findings of previous studies, which have found extensive movements of sub-urban badgers between social groups. It is not unusual for urban badgers to occupy less well defined territories than their rural counterparts. The groups along the Roseburn Corridor continue to open new outlying setts with the recent surveys in March 2005 identifying five new outlying setts within the range of Social Group 1 and one within the range of Social Group 2.

1.14 Much of the identified movement occurs along the upper slopes of the cuttings or the base of embankments at the edge of the Roseburn Corridor. Similarly the majority of the new outlying setts have been created in these areas.

1.15 None of the main setts identified will be directly affected by the works. Up to three outlying setts may to be lost as a result of the proposals. The findings of the reverse bait marking study have shown that the social group of badgers which use these outlying setts have a number of other setts available within their territory. The closure of these outlying setts is, therefore, not considered likely to have a detrimental effect on this social group. No setts will be lost from the territories of the other two social groups recorded.

1.16 The main impact of the ETL1 proposals on badgers during the construction works will be from disturbance to two of the social groups. The combination of abundant sett availability elsewhere within their ranges, the phasing of the construction works and erection of temporary fencing during construction will ensure that such disturbance is kept to a minimum. In addition an artificial sett will be created to provide a refuge for badgers whose main sett lies closest to

the construction works. This sett will continue to be available in the long term in addition to their main sett which will be retained. A location for an artificial sett along the corridor has been identified and agreed with SNH and ELBG.

1.17 The ETL1 proposals will have minimal effect on the foraging territory of the social groups along the corridor, much of which appears to lie outwith the confines of the corridor. This concurs with the findings of other studies of sub-urban badgers which have shown that gardens and open spaces with mown grass provide preferred foraging areas. The overall losses of habitat from within the territories of each of the two social groups of badgers are 0.4ha and 0.5ha respectively, or 25% and 28% of their foraging areas within the corridor. These losses will however, comprise only 0.8% and 1% respectively of the likely total foraging areas of each group, which evidence from elsewhere suggests that this would typically be about 50 hectares.

1.18 It is widely recognised that significant effects on badgers are only likely to occur when the loss from a group’s foraging habitat exceeds 25% [ASC3]. Clearly the loss of badger foraging habitat along the Roseburn Corridor from ETL1 will be very much lower than this and significant effects are therefore unlikely.

1.19 Construction works in the vicinity of main setts will be programmed outside the breeding season (which is classed as 30th November to 1st July for licensing) to minimise the risk of disturbance, and works will be programmed progressively along the route to minimise exclusion from foraging areas at any one time.

1.20 The Badger Mitigation Plan (BMP) is intended to ultimately provide the same level of detail of mitigation measures that SNH would expect to receive with an application for a licence under the Protection of Badgers Act. It will:

• describe badger resources and activity within the Corridor; • detail measures to be taken during construction to protect badgers from

disturbance which may include: o exclusion from setts likely to suffer significant disturbance, o provision of an alternative artificial sett at a suitable location, o restrictions on working times to protect badgers during their

breeding season, o restrictions on working hours to minimise disturbance during hours

when badgers are active, o advance provision of badger routes via tunnels and possibly

bridges, o fencing and other measures to protect badgers from dangers

associated with the construction works including escape routes in the event badgers become trapped within the works,

o early planting to improve foraging resources in parts of the corridor not affected by the works,

o speed restrictions on construction vehicles moving near setts,

o design and supervision, and where necessary the undertaking of, these works by a professional with suitable qualifications for work with badgers;

• detail measures to be taken over the long term to protect badgers during operation of the tram which may include: o continued provision of the artificial sett; o provision of longitudinal and lateral crossing points using tunnels

and possibly bridges where necessary to allow badgers continued access across and along the length of the corridor;

o fencing to minimise the risk of badger casualties on the tramroad and to discourage badgers from increased use of public roads to access foraging;

o planting to screen areas and improve foraging resources along the corridor;

o design and supervision of these works by a professional with suitable qualifications for work with badgers;

o a plan for maintenance of the measures; o monitoring of the badger communities along the Corridor after

opening of the tram, and reporting of the results to SNH.

1.21 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will apply, and the Promoter will be required to obtain licences before undertaking works in the vicinity of setts. This will provide a mechanism for enforcement of the BMP. SNH has confirmed that they are content with the approach to mitigating the effects on badgers along the Roseburn Corridor. List of Documents ASC1 – City of Edinburgh Council (1992) Urban Nature Conservation Strategy. CEC (hard copy) ASC2 – The Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership (2004) The Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (2004 – 2009). EBP. (hard copy) ASC3 Appeal Decision APP/E6840/A/00/1052150 Proposed Residential Development at the Ruffets, Chepstow, Gwent.


LEAD OBJECTORS: 30 – JOHN AND WENDY BARKESS 96 – GARSCUBE TERRACE RESIDENTS 174 – KATHY AND LES KINGSTONE 180 – RICHARD VANHAGAN PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT BARRY CROSS ROSEBURN / WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 I am Barry Cross. Until April 2005 I was the Transport Planning

Manager with the City of Edinburgh Council. Since April 2005 I have been the Project Development Director with tie ltd, an “arms’ length” company wholly owned by the City of Edinburgh Council. tie has been commissioned by the Council to develop and implement the Edinburgh Tram Project.

1.2 I have a BSc in Civil Engineering from the University of Salford and an

MSc in Transportation Engineering from the University of Leeds. 1.3 I have been closely involved with the development of the Tram Project

in Edinburgh since its inception. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The railway route from Roseburn to Crewe Toll was closed to

passenger services in 1962 and to goods services in 1967/8. The land was bought as part of a package of routes by the City of Edinburgh Council’s predecessor, Lothian Regional Council. It has been safeguarded, first for a new road, and then for light rapid transit, since 1978.

2.2 In the 1980s Lothian Regional Council developed a two line Light Rapid

Transit proposal, branded as ‘Edinburgh Metro’. It was proposed that the East-West Metro line should run off-street from Haymarket to Crewe Toll along the disused railway route from Roseburn through Ravelston, Craigleith and Drylaw. The Metro proposals failed to progress beyond the design and public consultation stages because of the high capital cost and affordability consequent upon the extensive tunnelling elsewhere on the project.

2.3 In 1997 the City Council was approached by New Edinburgh Tramways

(NETCo) with a proposal for a fully funded tramway between Haymarket and Newhaven via Leith Walk and Leith. The proposed tramway would, it was claimed, require no public subsidy, either for construction or operation. In 1999 the company added the section from

Haymarket to Newhaven, via Roseburn, the disused railway route and Granton. The Council and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian worked with NETCo in commissioning a comprehensive appraisal from DTZ Pieda. DTZ Pieda led a team which also included Booz Allen Hamilton, Babties (Consulting Engineers), and Sheppherd and Wedderburn (Solicitors). Although the review concluded that “the project is one which the team fully endorses” the capital costs and revenue projections were considered to be unsound. As a result the Council could not support the NETCo proposal.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TODAY’S TRAM PROJECT 3.1 In the 1990s proposals began to emerge for very significant

redevelopment of swathes of the City’s Waterfront, extending from Granton in the west to Leith in the east. This redevelopment would take place on brown-field sites vacated by obsolescent gas works, oil depots and dock and marine activities. The new developments would potentially generate many times the traffic levels of the land uses they would replace.

3.2 A number of Transport Studies were undertaken by Consultants acting

for the Council. These concluded that the traffic generated by these new developments could only be accommodated if rigorous traffic reduction targets were met. This reflects the relatively poor road network in North Edinburgh, especially the lack of direct radial routes linking North Edinburgh to the City Centre.

3.3 In 2000 a consortium, headed by Waterfront Edinburgh Limited, took

the initiative in addressing the transport deficiencies of the wider Waterfront area. The members of the consortium were; • Waterfront Edinburgh Limited • Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian • Forth Ports plc • Lattice Property • United Wire • National Museums of Scotland • Edinburgh’s Telford College • Deutsche Bank • BAE Systems • Lothian University Hospital Trust • Miller Ventures Limited • Mary Erskine/Stewart’s Melville College • St George’s School for Girls • City of Edinburgh Council • Lothian Buses

3.4 Waterfront Edinburgh, on behalf of the consortium, commissioned a

consultancy team to establish (inter alia) the economics of a comprehensive public transport solution connecting the Waterfront with the City Centre, considering all practicable modes of transport, and

combinations of modes. The study was later extended to consider the route from the City Centre to Leith and finally the complete loop, with the addition of the link from Granton to Leith.

3.5 The consultancy team comprised; • Andersen • Steer Davies Gleave • Mott MacDonald supported by a number of specialist sub-consultants.

3.6 The Study concluded that the preferred option was a tramway loop with

the alignment of the western side of the loop being the disused railway corridor from Roseburn to Granton.

3.7 The Study Report was used as the basis for a submission to the

Scottish Executive for funding from the Public Transport Fund to allow the proposal to be taken forward to a submission to Parliament. The appraisal within the Report had been conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the, yet to be published, consultation draft of the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG). The approach had been discussed with the Scottish Executive during the development of the bid.

3.8 The Scottish Executive assessed the bid and the Council was awarded

£6.5m to allow the proposal for Tram Line 1 to be taken forward. 3.9 In 2002 tie was set up by the City of Edinburgh Council, on the

encouragement of Wendy Alexander MSP, the then Transport Minister. tie was charged with taking forward the tram project.

3.10 In December 2002 Mott MacDonald was commissioned by tie to review

possible route options between Granton and the City Centre and to evaluate the options using a “link sifting” process, based upon the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) 1 process.

3.11 In March 2003 the Scottish Executive announced funding of £375m

towards the construction of the Edinburgh tram network. 3.12 The Council and tie were mindful that, although all the analysis,

including STAG, indicated that the railway corridor provided the “best” route for the tram, the Western General Hospital was a significant destination and more should be done to see whether it could be served more directly.

3.13 tie therefore commissioned a further piece of work on an alternative

route using Groathill Avenue and Telford Road which would take the tram closer to the hospital. The report then compared this Telford Road route with the route along the disused railway by evaluating both options against STAG objectives.

3.14 tie included the Telford Road option in the consultation material. Between May and July 2003 tie consulted (inter alia) on the proposed alignment of Tram Line 1.

4.0 ROUTE OPTIONS AT THE WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL 4.1 During the course of the development of the project a number of routes

have been assessed as alternatives to the railway corridor option. For ease of reference these are now compared.

4.2 The Railway Corridor Option using the disused railway alignment

would be amongst the most efficient sections of Tram Line 1. • The route is direct and has none of the twists and turns of the North

Edinburgh bus network • The alignment has no small radius curves to restrict speeds,

reflecting its heavy rail origins. • The line, again reflecting its former use, has no significant

gradients. • Speeds would generally be higher because the tram would not be

mixing with general traffic and would not be subject to congestion. (Tram drivers would of course have to take account of pedestrians and cyclists)

• There would be no badly parked cars and lorries to delay the tram. These factors would result in excellent timetable reliability.

4.3 The railway corridor has been in existence since the 19th century.

Indeed much of the land use and community patterns have developed around it. The introduction of the tram would therefore involve almost no increase in community severance.

4.4 For thirty years the disused railway corridor has been continuously

safeguarded for a new road or, more recently, for light rail use. The likelihood of the route’s conversion to road or light rail should therefore have been taken into account by all those residents who have bought or developed property in the meantime.

4.5 At the moment, although the footpath/cycleway is lit at night, there is a

perceived risk and little use is made of the route during the hours of darkness. The introduction of trams on the route would therefore have potential benefits. The frequent trams would be in direct radio contact with the tram control room which would be manned continuously - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The tram stops would be well lit and would have CCTV and ‘Help Points’. The new footpath/cycleway would be lit. As a result the introduction of trams would deter anti-social activity and increase security.

4.6 The Crewe Road South Option leaves the preferred route in the City

Centre and runs via Queensferry Street and Queensferry Road before turning north along Orchard Brae and Crewe Road South to Crewe Toll. This option passes the Western General Hospital site but does not pass Haymarket and so misses the important interchange there.

Transport modelling indicated over 20% greater passenger use of the proposed Tram Line 1 loop following the disused railway alignment, compared with the loop incorporating the Crewe Road alignment. This increased patronage is a reflection, in part, that the population living within 800m of the proposed loop is 30% larger than that living within 800m of the loop incorporating this Crewe Road South route.

4.7 The Telford Road Option runs along the railway corridor but leaves the preferred route at Craigleith and runs along South Groathill Avenue, Groathill Avenue and Telford Road. A stop would be located on street at the rear of the Western General Hospital site. The route leaves Telford Road just south of Crewe Toll where it swings west to rejoin the former railway at Ferry Road. From here, it continues along the former railway.

4.8 The Craigleith Road Option leaves the preferred route at Craigleith with one of two variant layouts. It then runs east along Craigleith Road and north along Crewe Road South, past the road access into the Western General Hospital, to Crewe Toll. It rejoins the preferred route at Ferry Road.

5.0 WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL 5.1 The hospital comprises a number of buildings across a large campus,

located in the area bounded by Telford Road to the west and Crewe Road South in the east. The main buildings are generally in the centre of the site and are accessed from a loop road off Crewe Road South. There are no formal pedestrian routes through the site; to move across the site on foot requires zigzagging through and around buildings and car parks. No option will give a tram stop at the main hospital buildings.

5.2 The walking distances and times from tram stops on the options, to the

main entrance of the Anne Ferguson Building are; • Railway Corridor Option 700m 8min 00sec • Telford Road Option 385m 4min 30sec • Craigleith Road Option 280m 3min 00sec These are shown on diagram 1 (WGH 1).

5.3 There are nearly 4000 staff on site (including University staff). They,

like patients and visitors, are drawn from a very wide area of Edinburgh and further afield. In the modelled year, 2026, the hospital generates between 1100 and 1250 2-way public transport trips per day. Given the much more comprehensive geographic spread of the bus network many of these trips will continue to be made by bus.

6.0 COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 6.1 The additional Craigleith Road Option was assessed, for completeness

and consistency, together with the previously identified route options along the Railway Corridor and on Telford Road. The outputs from the

assessment are presented in detail in the Craigleith Options Summary report. Further work has since been undertaken to refine these. The lengths and journey times for the options are summarised here;

• Railway Corridor Option 1480m 2min 20sec • Telford Road Option 670m 4min 40sec • Craigleith Road Option 2810m 8min 30sec

6.2 While the tram stop would be closest to the main hospital entrance with the options using Crewe Road South, the Crewe Road South Option would generate only 83% of the passengers carried on the Railway Corridor Option; no doubt partly a consequence of the catchment’s population being only 77% of that of the Railway Corridor Option. Notwithstanding these issues the loss of the interchange at Haymarket alone means that the Crewe Road South option would be a poor choice.

6.3 While the Craigleith Road Option gives a tram stop as close to the

main entrance as is practically possible, it does so at very significant cost in terms of performance. The increase in route length (nearly 1.5km), lower line speeds, increase in journey time and a deterioration in reliability, would result in a reduction in attractiveness and reduction in overall passengers carried. In particular it should be noted that this option takes the route through two of the busiest road junctions in this part of the City; Queensferry Road/Craigleith Road and Crewe Toll. These are junctions where there is very little scope for giving the quality of tram priority that would be needed. Indeed the City Council has recently investigated what improvements could be made to assist buses through Crewe Toll and could find no reasonable solution, despite having finance available.

6.4 This option would require an increase in tram fleet size and an increase

in capital cost of over £20m. It would also have increased running costs. Patronage would drop by 420,000 trips per year in 2011.

6.5 The difference between the Railway Corridor Option and the Telford

Road Option is less marked than the comparison with either of the other two options. The benefits of the Railway Corridor Option are still clear though.

6.6 Firstly the slightly longer route (200m), lower line speeds and delays

resulting from the interface with general traffic, especially at the three sets of traffic signals, will give similar disbenefits to the Craigleith Road Option, but to a lesser degree.

6.7 Secondly, this option has a capital cost nearly double that of the railway

corridor. This results from the longer route, higher costs of trackwork and overhead line equipment, expensive relocation and protection of utilities apparatus and associated roadworks.

6.8 Patronage would be 190,000 per year lower for this option than for the

Railway Corridor Option. 6.9 When the public consultation was carried out in 2003 535 (38%)

respondees favoured the Railway Corridor option and 715 (50%) preferred the Telford Road Option. Almost all of those who favoured Telford Road did so because of the desire to serve the Western General Hospital.

6.10 Although half (50%) of those people responding to the route option

question preferred the Telford Road Option there was a significant minority (38%) who preferred the Railway Corridor Option. Whereas the Council adopted the preference of respondees in the choice between Princes Street (66%) and George Street (27%) it did not do so here because of these other factors.

6.11 Finally, although there are residents alongside the section of the

railway route that would be bypassed with this option, there are many residents along the roads the tram would travel along instead. Some residents of Groathill Avenue would exchange a tram line along the railway route at the bottom of their back garden for one along the road at their front door. Moving the route closer to the hospital also moves it away from Drylaw, a community that has been supportive of the introduction of the tram.

7.0 BUS LINK TO THE HOSPITAL 7.1 To provide access to the hospital from the tram network an interchange

will be constructed at the Crewe Toll tram stop. The interchange layout is shown in diagram 2 and the ease of interchange can be seen.

7.2 A frequent bus will link the interchange with the hospital. The bus will

operate via Ferry Road and Crewe Road South and will enter the hospital campus using the one way hospital access road. The bus will use the hospital bus stop, 100m from the main door of the Anne Ferguson Building. The route of the bus is shown on diagram 3.

7.3 The bus will operate as least as frequently as the tram to ensure that

interchange is as smooth and easy as possible. 8.0 SUMMARY 8.1 Extensive work has been undertaken to assess the route choices

available in the vicinity of the Western General Hospital. 8.2 Taking into account all factors it is considered that the Railway Corridor

Option provides the best route for Tram Line 1. 8.3 Diverting the line along the Telford Road Option costs £8m more to

build, more to run, and results in a net reduction of around 190,000 trips per year.

8.4 Using the Craigleith Road Option costs £20m more to build, much more

to run, and would result in a net loss of 420,000 trips per year. 8.5 The benefits to hospital trips are more than offset by the loss of other

passengers. 8.6 The layout of the hospital is complex, reflecting its piecemeal evolution

since its origins as the Craigleith Hospital and Poorhouse in 1868. Access routes within and through the site are poor.

8.7 The hospital’s main entrance is in the centre of the site. 8.8 No route can give a tram stop location closer than 280m from the main

entrance; much further away than the existing hospital bus stops. 8.9 To provide the best possible access to the hospital a frequent shuttle

bus will be provided from the Crewe Toll tram stop right into the hospital site, to within 100m, or 1 minute’s walk of the main entrance.

8.10 This integrated approach would also link east-west bus services along

Ferry Road with the hospital, the lack of which has been a long-standing difficulty.

8.11 To assist those who choose to walk from the tram, the stop nearest the

hospital has been moved further north so that the walk from the tram stop will be as easy and convenient as possible. A pedestrian crossing will be provided across Telford Road.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 Reviewing all the factors it is considered that the Railway Corridor

Option is the best route for the line as a whole and that the provision of a frequent bus link between the Western General Hospital and the Crewe Toll tram stop will provide the best integrated transport solution for staff, patients and visitors.

Diagram 1 Walking Routes to the Western General Hospital

Diagram 2 Crewe Toll Interchange

Diagram 3 Bus Link to the Western General Hospital

THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

TRANSPORT INITIATIVES EDINBURGH

PROPOSED EDINBURGH TRAM LINE 1

WITNESS STATEMENT

OBJECTORS 008, 015, 019, 021, 027, 028, 030, 031, 033, 039, 041, 050, 051, 053, 055, 058, 060, 061, 064, 065, 066, 068, 075, 078, 079, 080, 081, 084, 089, 098, 099, 101, 106, 107, 117, 119, 120, 124, 125, 136, 142, 143, 145, 150, 153, 155, 157, 160, 162, 173, 174, 180, 188, 189,

203, 205, 206, 213 (GROUP Roseburn ISSUE 7)

Dick Dapré

Transport Planner

Steer Davies Gleave

1 July 2005

1

CONTENTS

1. WITNESS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 2

2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE........................................................................................................ 2

3. DESIGN GUIDANCE ............................................................................................................... 2

4. ASSUMED OPERATING SPEED............................................................................................ 3

5. SAFETY .................................................................................................................................. 4

6. PRECEDENTS ........................................................................................................................ 5

7. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 8

2

1. WITNESS SUMMARY

1.1. I am Dick Dapré and I am a consultant Transport Planner. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering and an MSc in Transport from Imperial College London. I am an Associate 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 more than sixteen years. Previously I worked for Scott Wilson (Kirkpatrick) for ten years.

1.2. I have acted as adviser on operational and service planning issues for the work undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave on Edinburgh Tram Line 1.

2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

2.1. The evidence presented here relates to the operation of trams on the section of route between Crewe Toll and Balbirnie Place where the tramway alignment is paralleled by a shared footway and cycleway. It explains how the tramway will operate on this section and the guidance under which the design and operating assumptions have been prepared, and addresses the issues of speed and safety on this section of route.

2.2. Further evidence will be presented on related issues by my colleagues as follows:

• Scott McIntosh: electrical safety and electromagnetic radiation

• Andy Coates and Stephen Mitchell: environmental issues

• Jim Harries: operational experiences

• Gary Turner: layout and operation of the footway/cycleway itself

3. DESIGN GUIDANCE

3.1. Standards for the design and operation of tramways in the UK are contained in Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2 Section G (RSPG2G), published by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI). The engineering design and operational principles for Edinburgh Tram Line 1 have been established in accordance with this guidance, and discussions have been held with HMRI throughout the development of the project. The design in the Roseburn corridor has been discussed as part of this process and the parallel operation of the

3

tramway and footway/cycleway has been approved in principle. A letter of no objection was issued by HMRI to the City of Edinburgh Council on 14 January 2004, stating “I confirm that HM Railway Inspectorate has no objection to the concept of the scheme for Edinburgh Tram Line 1 as described in the documents submitted with the letter”. This covers the proposal for parallel operation of the tram and footway/cycleway in the Roseburn corridor.

3.2. In respect of speed limits, the HMRI guidance states:

244 The maximum permitted speed of a tram on a carriageway shared with other road traffic may be the same as, or lower, but should not be higher than that for other traffic.

245 The maximum permitted speed of a tram on a segregated on-street section may be higher than that for other road traffic provided that the presence of the tramway is clearly indicated to other road users. The higher speed should be agreed with the Police, the Highway Authority and the Inspectorate. A traffic regulation order may be required.

3.3. Where trams run parallel to, but separated from, other traffic it is therefore permissible under certain circumstances for a speed limit higher than the general traffic speed limit to be applied. The main area of concern in such cases is that drivers of road vehicles may be encouraged to ‘race’ a tram, or may unwittingly exceed the road speed limit by driving at the same speed as a tram. However, providing the layout and signing make it obvious that the tramway is parallel to, and separate from, the carriageway, this concern can be addressed.

3.4. Where there is no carriageway parallel to the tramway, the concern regarding vehicle speeds does not apply, and there is no reason under the guidance to restrict tram speeds to the speeds of other roads in the area that are not adjacent to the tramway.

4. ASSUMED OPERATING SPEED

4.1. For operational analysis such as forecasting of run times for input to the STAG appraisal, a maximum speed of 70 km/h (approximately 43.5 mph) has been assumed for this section.

4.2. The maximum speed that can be physically achieved will be governed by the curvature of the alignment and the capability of the vehicles. The curvature in the Roseburn corridor is such that 80 km/h (50 mph) operation is technically possible, although at several locations it may be necessary to impose a lower limit because of curvature. This will depend on the final detailed design of the track alignment.

4.3. Contrary to statements elsewhere, speeds in excess of this figure (e.g. 60 mph) are not proposed.

4

4.4. The vehicle for the Edinburgh Tram system has not yet been selected, but typically the maximum speed of low floor trams on the market is either 70 km/h or 80 km/h, with the former figure being more commonly quoted by suppliers.

4.5. Depending on the selected vehicle, therefore, the actual maximum permissible speed could be either 70 km/h or 80 km/h in the final scheme. Either would satisfy the requirements of HMRI guidance.

4.6. The speed of trams is strictly controlled and, as on railways, driver training is thorough and drivers exceeding speed limits face disciplinary action. This contrasts with enforcement of road traffic speeds which is much less rigorous and where a certain degree of speeding is almost considered inevitable. In terms of actual speeds, therefore, a tramway is not equivalent to a road with the same speed limit.

4.7. My colleague Mr Harries will present further evidence on this subject.

5. SAFETY

5.1. The design of the tramway in the Roseburn corridor satisfies the relevant design guidance, which has safety as a primary aim. The introduction to RSPG2G states:

“Application of this guidance should provide a sufficient level of safety for approval to be given by the Inspectorate, provided that it has been demonstrated that the use of the guidance is wholly applicable to the works, plant or equipment.”

5.2. The layout in the Roseburn corridor could be seen as analogous in some ways to a footway/cycleway alongside a road carriageway. However, there are major differences that result from the nature of tramways compared with roads, and a much higher level of safety can be expected with the proposed design, for a number of reasons:

• There is a distinct difference between the footway/cycleway and the tramway in terms of surfacing, levels and appearance. Physical separation is still under discussion as part of the detailed design process, but barriers may provide further emphasis of the boundary.

• At all points where at-grade crossing of the tracks is necessary, specially designated facilities are provided, where visibility can be guaranteed, with suitable barriers and chicanes to ensure safety. With trams operating every 7½ minutes in each direction, this results in a completely different environment from a typical urban street, where vehicular flows are higher, property, footways and side roads on both sides result in dispersed pedestrian crossing movements, and visibility is restricted by parked vehicles and street furniture.

5

• Trams have a precise trajectory (the “swept path”) and on segregated alignments the design standards ensure that safe margins are provided between moving trams and users of the parallel facilities – i.e. the trams remain well within their designated area.

• There is virtually no danger of a tram entering the area provided for pedestrians and cyclists – for this to happen it would have to derail, which is almost unknown on plain track of this type.

5.3. It is common for footways and cycleways to be located adjacent to carriageways with speed limits of 50 mph or even higher, without any physical separation or protection for pedestrians and cyclists. The layout proposed for the tram in the Roseburn corridor provides far higher safety standards.

5.4. Some examples of parallel operation are given in the next section.

6. PRECEDENTS

6.1. The most obvious example of a similar application of a parallel tramway and footway/cycleway is the section of Midland Metro between the Hawthorns and Black Lake in West Bromwich. Tram speeds on this section are up to 70 km/h and parts of the cycleway/footway are immediately adjacent to the track with no separation.

6.2. I understand from Centro (the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive) that this section of route has operated safely since it opened in 1999, and no significant incidents have occurred.

6.3. Some features are shown in the illustrations below.

6

FIGURE 1: DUDLEY STREET STOP - FOOTWAY/CYCLEWAY (LEFT) PASSING UNDER BRIDGE SEPARATED FROM TRAM TRACKS BY BOLLARDS

FIGURE 2: FOOTWAY/CYCLEWAY ALONGSIDE TRAM TRACKS WITH NO BARRIER

7

FIGURE 3: DESIGNATED CROSSING POINT

6.4. Croydon Tramlink also includes examples of parallel operation. In the one illustrated, low barriers provide separation between the tramway and pedestrians and cyclists.

8

FIGURE 4: CROYDON TRAMLINK, LLOYD PARK

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1. The section of route in question has been designed in accordance with the guidance published by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate and has been discussed with HMRI throughout the development process. The method of operation has been put before HMRI and approved in principle under the “Letter of No Objection” dated 14 January 2004.

7.2. The operation of trams at speeds of up to 80 km/h parallel to the footway/cycleway is not analogous to a road with a similar speed limit and can be expected to be considerably safer, and there is no reason to apply urban road speed limits.

7.3. There are precedents for this type of operation in the UK and to my knowledge no safety problems have arisen.