WITNESS STATEMENT Group 42 L1 – 023 CGM CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Group 3 L2 – 07 CGM CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Andrew J Oldfield

Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Route selection optioneering and appraisals 4. Response to four options proposed by CGM 5. 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.

1.2 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 optioneering and appraisals

Routes considered Stop location – to provide effective interchange with other public

transport services including heavy rail services from Scotland’s third largest rail station

Network Rail proposals – proposals presented significant technical difficulty for Tram alignment Response to four options proposed by CGM

2.2 The Parliamentary Plan Sheet No 22 [P42/1] indicates the plots nr 285,

286 & 291 are to be permanently acquired for the authorised works. The owners of the building City Point are concerned that this impacts on their ability to let the property. They suggest alternative options in order to improve the impact of the scheme upon the property.

3 Route selection optioneering and appraisals

Routes considered 3.1 The proposed alignment offers the opportunity for a stop to be located

adjacent to Haymarket Terrace providing good interchange with bus, taxi and more importantly heavy rail via Haymarket Station. Haymarket Station is the 3rd busiest station in Scotland. The interchange between light and heavy rail at this location provides a major benefit in terms of public transport and our demand model predicts that almost 800 passengers would board the tram at Haymarket in the am peak hour (more than at any other stop on the scheme).

3.2 This interchange also provides an important link between North

Edinburgh and West Edinburgh linking areas of social deprivation in North Edinburgh with new labour markets in West Edinburgh. The report by Oscar Faber in 2000 [P42/2] identified the need to improve this link between North and West Edinburgh.

3.3 Between July 2001 and June 2002, a feasibility study for a North

Edinburgh public transport solution was carried out. This resulted in the report entitled “Feasibility Study for a North Edinburgh Rapid Transit Solution.” (North Edinburgh feasibility study) [P42/3] The study considered several alignment options in the Haymarket area. At this time the choice of alignment was constrained by the proximity of the Caledonian Ale House to the existing station. Therefore all of the Northern Loop options under consideration used Haymarket Terrace. In addition at this time the Citypoint building had not been built. The resulting preferred alignment from the North Edinburgh feasibility study is shown in Figure 1.1. [P42/4]

3.4 In the period between the North Edinburgh feasibility study and the

Work Package one [P42/5] assessment for Edinburgh Tram Line One, the Citypoint building was under construction, making the previous alignment (Figure 1.1) infeasible. In light of this in October 2002, the Work Package one assessment identified two options to be carried forward:

1. Use of a viaduct through Haymarket Station car park which would involve the demolition of the Caledonian Ale House. The alignment passes to the south of Verity House on the reserved public transport corridor (Option 1, see Figure 1.3) [P42/6].

2. A modified form of the North Edinburgh feasibility study alignment to accommodate the new Citypoint building but making use of Haymarket Terrace rather than demolishing the Caledonian Ale House (Option 2, Figure 1.4).[P42/7]

3.5 Option 1 was preferred as it provided a better stop location for modal integration with the Heavy Rail Station and buses, greater segregation from highway traffic and made best use of the reserved public transport corridor (shown in Figure 1.2) [P42/8].

3.6 At this stage, Option 1 was clearly the preferred alignment for the reasons stated above and hence a formal STAG type assessment was not deemed necessary.

3.7 Part way through the public consultation process in June 2003, Network Rail’s consultants issued details of the Haymarket Station heavy rail bay platform proposals that are required to support the Waverley Station redevelopment. The proposals involve the construction of an additional platform and associated infrastructure to the north of the existing platforms and within the existing Station car park. [P42/9] These proposals conflicted with the preferred tram alignment (Option 1) at the location of the Station car park and the eastern end of the reserved public transport corridor. (see also section 5)

3.8 Considerable work was carried out to try and accommodate the tram with the heavy rail proposals as the selected tram alignment, Option 1, was clearly preferable. However the only technical solution would be to extend the viaduct structure carrying the tramroad over the new bay platform resulting in the tram passing in close proximity to Verity House at first floor level. This solution also had increased cost implications to the tram scheme as a result of the extended structure and increased Network Rail interface.

3.9 A subsequent review of tram route options in the Haymarket area was carried out. A hybrid version of Option 2 was promoted showing a segregated alignment to the north of Haymarket Station car park to provide a good level of interchange with the heavy rail. The western section of Figure 1.1 was then re-adopted in conjunction with the revised alignment adjacent to Haymarket Terrace.

3.10 At the same time, in July 2003, the route alignment, including the hybrid Option 2, was frozen to allow modelling and appraisal work for the STAG2 submission to be carried out. Option 3 was again identified as a possible option for consideration. This appraisal was ongoing through to final STAG2 submission in November 2003. In December 2003, the alignment was reported to the City of Edinburgh Council for approval [P42/10] at which time alignment plans were publicly available. The Parliamentary Bill was lodged in January 2004 and the 60 day objection period commenced on 29 January 2004. Consultation with objectors has been ongoing from April 2004.

3.11 In November 2004, following consultations with objectors to the

scheme, a further assessment of options in the Haymarket area was undertaken. Both CGM (Edinburgh) Limited and Haymarket Yards Limited included four suggested route options (objector options) within their objections (Figure 1.6) [P42/11]. Objector Option 1 reflects the

original route alignment selection of a viaduct through the Station car park (Option 1) and was therefore not considered any further. Objector Options 2 and 3 both involve crossing of the heavy rail infrastructure and therefore have difficulties associated with capital costs, increased Network Rail interface and disruption to tram and heavy rail during construction and maintenance. (see Murray Lees witness statement). Objector Option 4 shows an alignment making use of Haymarket Yards in a modified version of the study Option 3. The principle difference between this Option and the study Option 3 is the use of a segregated tramstop and track within the Station car park rather than the use of Haymarket Yards.

3.12 Based on the potential merits of Objector option 4 a detailed geometric assessment of the Parliamentary alignment, and the alternative of using Haymarket Yards, was carried out. From this study it was possible to develop an alignment, using Haymarket Yards that provided fewer geometric constraints and makes more effective use of the reserved public transport corridor.

3.13 It was concluded that this option had similar merits to the Parliamentary Alignment. Further comment is made in section 6.

4 Stop location

4.1 The proposed alignment offers the opportunity for a stop to be located

between Haymarket Terrace and Rosebery House providing good interchange with bus, taxi and more importantly heavy rail via Haymarket Station. Haymarket Station is the 3rd busiest station in Scotland. The interchange between light and heavy rail at this location provides a major benefit in terms of public transport.

4.2 This interchange also provides an important link between North Edinburgh and West Edinburgh linking areas of social deprivation in North Edinburgh with new labour markets in West Edinburgh. The report prepared by Oscar Faber in 2000 [P42/2] identified the need to improve this link between North Edinburgh and the City Centre and West Edinburgh.

4.3 Significantly for potential lessees of City Point the new tram stop will be

located within 50 metres from the front door offering further potential benefits for public transport.

5 Network Rail proposals

5.1 As noted in section 3.1 Network Rail are undertaking engineering

works at Haymarket Station that conflict with the preferred alignment for ETL1 in the Haymarket area. The works are part of the Haymarket and Waverly Station upgrades. Apart from the improvements at Haymarket Station itself Haymarket station will be heavily utilised to turn around services prevented from travelling through to Waverly Station during the heavy rail works at Waverly. To accommodate the

increased train movements at Haymarket Network Rail are constructing a bay platform tying in with the existing northern platform and taking part of the land to the south of the Network Rail car park.

5.2 It is the bay platform proposals at Haymarket Station that require the

ETL1 alignment to be revised. This revision is to prevent the conflict of having to undertake tram engineering works over live heavy rail infrastructure.

6. Response to four options proposed by CGM 6.1 City Point Option One is essentially is the same as the alignment

indicated during the formal public consultation. The consultation yielded a response from Network Rail that indicated future plans for bay platforms at Haymarket which conflicted with the proposed alignment as shown on the attached plan. This conflict meant that an elevated structure would be required to be constructed across the south frontage of Verity House within approximately 1 metre of the windows. The elevated structure is required to clear the new bay platform and turnback facility being provided at Haymarket Station by Network Rail. The new facility is being implemented by Network Rail to enable Haymarket Station to cope with the additional heavy rail traffic whilst engineering works are undertaken at Waverly Station.

6.2 City Point Option One provides a means of avoiding City Point,

however, it requires the major elevated structure described above. Construction of this structure will have a major adverse impact on the operation of the heavy rail infrastructure at a time when its operations are being increased due to the partial closure of services running through to Waverly Station.

6.3 It is also considered that this option will create a more significant environmental impact on Verity House, its owners and occupiers. It will also impact on the operation and maintenance of Verity House. On balance this is likely to have a greater effect on the ability of the owners of Verity House to lease the building in the future than the current Parliamentary alignment will have on Citypoint. City Point Option Two

6.4 City Point Option Two also requires an elevated structure which

includes a long highly skewed spanning bridge or viaduct structure crossing the entire width of the existing railway alignment and solum. This presents additional potential conflict with existing heavy rail infrastructure in terms of the location of bridge or viaduct supports or piers and presents significant engineering challenge which is likely to give rise to a very substantial and complex structure. (See Murray Lees witness statement)

6.5 The structure is likely to be very large creating additional visual intrusion and introducing a requirement for railway safety measures.

6.6 The structure is likely to be considerably more expensive than the

currently proposed solution. It does not offer a convenient stop location by comparison with the preferred option at this important interchange. There is insufficient room within Distillery Lane to make provision for a tram stop therefore making it necessary to construct above the existing heavy rail alignment in order to make provision for the transport interchange at this key location.

6.7 There are also concerns regarding the access to/from properties

accessed from Distillery Lane. The new structure would need to be elevated above the level of the existing Distillery Lane in order to clear the heavy railway infrastructure. (See Murray Lees witness statement).

City Point Option Three

6.8 City Point Option Three has all of the disadvantages of Options 1 & 2

and is likely to have greater costs.

City Point Option Four 6.9 City Point Option Four has the greatest similarity to the Parliamentary

Alignment and is potentially the most attractive of all the alternative options supplied by City Point. It offers the same opportunity to locate the tram stop conveniently for interchange with bus, taxi and heavy rail.

6.10 City Point Option Four is also of a similar length and cost to the

proposed Parliamentary Alignment. However, a greater proportion of option four is on-street, giving rise to greater interface with traffic which is less desirable although it is recognised that this can be managed through traffic management. My colleague Mr Turnbull will provide further detail on this if required.

7 Conclusion 7.1 The proposed option of serving Haymarket Station via a stop adjacent

to Haymarket Terrace is the preferred option in terms of tram operation, cost and local impacts.

7.2 It is recognised that the route alignment from Haymarket Terrace through to the end of Haymarket Yards has two potential options, one as described in the Bill submission known as the Parliamentary Alignment and one as proposed by CGM (objector option 4).

7.3 Both options have recognisable advantages, the objector option 4 has less impact on CGM and is therefore favoured by them. The Parliamentary Alignment increases the amount of segregated tram alignment in Haymarket Yards and is therefore perceived at the most

beneficial to the tram scheme. The promoter recognises that this final selection is finely balanced.

Andrew J Oldfield Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 18 May 2005

WITNESS STATEMENT

Group 42 L1 – 023 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited

Group 3 L2 – 07 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited

Stuart Turnbull Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Highway and Traffic Requirements – General Approach 4. Highway and Traffic Requirements – Haymarket 5 Alternative Alignments Proposed by CGM ltd 6. 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 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.

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 in the Haymarket area. 2.2 My colleague Mr Oldfield will present evidence on the route selection

and the associated land requirements in the vicinity of Haymarket. He

will also comment on the alternative alignment options as presented by CGM ltd in the letter of objection to the scheme. My evidence will cover the highway and traffic requirements associated with both of these aspects.

3. Highway and Traffic Requirements – General Approach 3.1 A significant proportion of the route of Edinburgh Tram Line One

(ETL1) would run on-street, through the centre of Edinburgh. Therefore of critical importance to the successful delivery of the project is the need to develop a solution that could accommodate the tram while maintaining adequate provision for the other road users, and the environment. This issue will be at the forefront of the further scheme development process, should the Parliamentary Bill receive Royal Assent. Nevertheless it was necessary prior to lodging the Parliamentary Bill to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Edinburgh Council that engineering solutions existed that operated in a robust manner.

3.2 In the City of Edinburgh Council Committee Report of 13 November

2003 [P42/12] it was stated:

“The results of this design process has enabled the Council to conclude that workable layouts for all junctions have been achieved which accommodate the tram, other public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. In many cases the layouts that have been generated require further design work and refinement however the Council is satisfied that acceptable solutions will be achieved.” “Considerable effort has been spent on achieving a satisfactory solution to the operation of trams, buses and pedestrian facilities on a significant number of locations throughout the city including Princes Street. The preferred design makes provision for trams and buses to share road space with segregated tram and bus stopping facilities and minimises the impact on adjacent footways”.

3.3 The responsibility for developing appropriate junction configurations

has fallen, principally to a team of specialist traffic engineers within the Line One team of which I was a member. Working closely with other members of the ETL1 team and officials of the City of Edinburgh Council, a systematic approach to addressing the areas of concern was developed. The principles of this approach were:

• establishment of the Traffic Interface Working Group; • identification of areas to consider; • development of auditable process for design development,

assessment and review; and • preparation of preliminary junction layouts, which form part of the

supporting alignment plans submitted with the Parliamentary Bill and part of the STAG assessment [P42/13].

3.4 The establishment of a Traffic Interface Working Group was a key element in ensuring that suitably robust designs could be developed at this stage in the process. The Interface Group consisted of members of the design team, officials from tie ltd and various individuals from within the City of Edinburgh Council.

3.5 Throughout the scheme development process a hierarchical approach

to developing appropriate junction solutions was established. Firstly, where appropriate taking into consideration all other relevant issues, physical segregation from other road users was incorporated. If this was not possible, a solution that combined trams with other forms of public transport became the preferred solution, with a full level of priority afforded to the tram. Where neither segregation nor full priority could be achieved the design process attempted to balance the needs of all road users to ensure the maximum operational performance of the network. It was recognised that different layouts would be appropriate at different locations throughout the city. In summary , during the design process the objectives considered as being critical were:

• providing the tram with an appropriate level of priority through the

junction; • providing adequate access for pedestrians; and • ensuring the junction would continue to operate satisfactorily to

avoid excess queuing. 3.6 The work undertaken in the development of the junction layouts was

reported in the Traffic Interface Report (November 2003) [P42/14] and the layouts themselves were incorporated within the supporting alignment plans submitted with the Parliamentary Bill.

4 Highway and Traffic Requirements – Haymarket 4.1 During the stage one assessment of ETL1 two principal options were

considered in respect of Haymarket Junction, one involved running on Haymarket Terrace to the junction of Haymarket Yards and one involved segregated running to the south of Haymarket Yards. Other witnesses will address the various aspects of this initial assessment but in traffic terms the main consideration was the extent of on-street running on Haymarket Terrace and the impact this would have on buses and other road users. This section of Haymarket Terrace immediately to the west of Haymarket Station contains two bus stops and a variety of small retail and business outlets. Due to the limited road width (circa 11.5m), the need for parking and servicing and the volume of pedestrian movements, I considered that, in traffic terms, the preferred option was the one that provided the greatest level of segregation, as shown in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1 extract from Mott MacDonald Drawing 20311\edin\0501/p5

4.2 Other witnesses will explain how, through the consultation process,

further refinements of the route through the Haymarket Yards have been made. Nonetheless the traffic related benefits of running to the south of Haymarket Terrace remains.

4.3 Once the principle of routing the tram via Haymarket Yards as opposed

to on-street running on Haymarket Terrace was established detailed consideration of the operation of Haymarket junction was undertaken. A total of 13 different configurations of Haymarket junction were developed. These layouts considered combinations of a number of various alternative tram alignments and configurations of the road network, including, but not limited to:

• tram running on north kerbside through West Maitland Street,

Clifton Terrace, and Haymarket Terrace; • tram running westbound on south kerbside through West Maitland

Street, Clifton Terrace and Haymarket Terrace and eastbound on north kerbside;

• two way operation of West Maitland Street to all traffic; • two way operation of Morrison Street and Torphichen Place to all

traffic; • centre running of tram through West Maitland Street, Clifton

Terrace and Haymarket Terrace; • banning of right turn from Morrison Street to West Maitland Street • contra flow bus lane westbound on West Maitland Street; and

• segregated bus lane westbound from Morrison Street to Dalry Road;

4.4 Within these tests combinations of one and two lane provision for

various movements was also considered. The needs of pedestrians and cyclists in this area were also a critical consideration within the design process.

4.5 These layouts were initially reviewed by the internal design team and

then presented to the Traffic Interface Working Group for comment. During the design process it became clear that in order to meet the objectives outlined in paragraph 3.4 above a number of core physical requirements were identified, including:

• the provision of two way operation Morrison Street for all traffic; • the introduction of segregated centre running of tram through West

Maitland Street and Clifton Terrace; • the introduction of a westbound bus lane on West Maitland Street;

and • maintaining two lanes operating eastbound on Haymarket

Terrace/Clifton Terrace; 4.6 Throughout the development of the ETL1 alignment proprietary

technical software has been used to assess various junction configurations. Annex 1 [P42/15] presents a summary of the various programs used and outlines the particular context in which one is preferred over the others. In this locality the TRANSYT program has been used. Detailed junction modelling has demonstrated that the proposed junction arrangement could accommodate the tram without adversely impacting on other road users.

4.7 The conclusion of this work was that the appropriate layout, based on

the information available at that time, that would meet the objectives of the design process was that as presented in Mott MacDonald Drawing number 20311\EDIN\0555\P5, an extract of which is shown in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2 extract from Mott MacDonald Drawing 20311\edin\0555/p5 4.8 Under the preferred option there would be fewer conflicts with road

traffic in the vicinity of Haymarket Station as the junction will be redesigned in such a manner that the tram would leave the carriageway immediate west of the existing taxi rank with minimal impact on the operation of Haymarket Terrace.

5 Alternative Alignments Proposed by CGM ltd 5.1 CGM Ltd has proposed 4 alternative alignments for Line One tram in

the vicinity of Haymarket, as shown in Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1: Alignment options raised in objections by CGM (Edinburgh) Limited and Haymarket Yards Limited

5.2 In traffic terms the most important factors relating to these alignments

are the extent of segregated running and the interaction with other road users. In broad terms all options seek to maintain segregated running through the Haymarket Yards and therefore limit the impact on other road users. However there are some differences in the detailed alignment that I would like to address:

• Option 1- This option would, in traffic terms, provide the opportunity

to achieve a significant level of segregation in the vicinity of Haymarket Station. It would also impact less on the access arrangements to car parks on Haymarket Yards, particularly Rosebery House and City Point;

• Option 2 – This option would provide significantly less opportunity to

integrate with heavy rail at Haymarket. The tram alignment through the Haymarket junction would also impact on the operation of the junction as it would not be possible to achieve the tram segregation and necessary lanes for general traffic at the northern end of Dalry Road. It would also be necessary to install an additional set of traffic lights to control the access to and egress from Distillery Lane.

• Option 3 – In traffic terms this option would achieve the greatest

level of segregation at Haymarket of the 4 options proposed by Haymarket Yards ltd. It would also enable integration with heavy rail at Haymarket.

• Option 4 – The option would, in traffic terms, have similar benefits

to Option 1 in terms of the integration with heavy rail. It would however have a potentially greater impact on the access to the car parks at the northern section of Haymarket Yards. However detailed junction modelling has demonstrated that it would be possible to design a signalised junction of Haymarket Yards/Haymarket Terrace that could accommodate trams without adversely impacting on other road users.

6 Conclusions 6.1 I believe that in traffic terms the most appropriate route of the tram

through the Haymarket area is one that runs on a segregated alignment to the west of Haymarket Station. I also believe that the design and assessment work undertaken to date has demonstrated the principle of a solution that best meets the needs of all road users.

6.2 In terms of the solutions proposed by CGM ltd I believe that all options,

other than option 3 would provide opportunities for integration at Haymarket Station and would operate within the principles of the preferred layout for Haymarket Junction.

6.3 It should always be borne in mind that the satisfactory integration of the tram line and the existing road network is but one of the factors in route selection.

Stuart Turnbull Divisional Director Jacobs Babtie 18 May 2005

WITNESS STATEMENT Group 42 L1 – 023 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Group 3 L2 – 07 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Murray J D Lees Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Route Selection 4. Conclusion 1. Resume 1.1 I am Murray J D Lees. I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald

responsible for bridge engineering for their North West Division. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of both the Institution of Civil Engineers and Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have 22 years experience in Civil Engineering in the UK.

1.2 I have considerable experience of tram schemes; in Manchester I

prepared the structures report for the TWA submission for the Ashton under Lyne extension, was design project manager for the construction of the Phase 2 extension to Eccles and Project Manager for the provision of Technical Advice to GMPTE during the development of Phase 3. In Liverpool I have overseen the development of structural solutions for the planning phase and the completion of detailed design for advance works. Feasibility and preliminary design of structure has been completed under my direction for NET and I have also completed detailed design for LRT System 2 in Kuala Lumpur.

1.3 The projects that I have been involved with also include highway and heavy rail schemes. Within the West Coast Route Modernisation I was Responsible Engineer for the Civils works on the South Manchester Alliance.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses the alternative route options proposed by

CGM (Edinburgh) Limited and sets out the engineering and structural issues that they raise. Issues with respect to Route Selection Optioneering and Appraisals have been addressed separately by my colleague Mr. Andrew Oldfield.

2.2 The owners of the building City Point, CGM (Edinburgh) Limited, are

concerned that the proposed Tram alignment impacts on their ability to

let the property. They suggest alternative options in order to improve the impact of the scheme upon the property.

2.3 The evidence below describes the possible engineering issues that

would result from the route alternatives they have proposed 3. Route Selection

Expert opinion with respect to the required structures for the four options proposed by CGM

Introduction

3.1 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited (CGM) have proposed 4 Route Options that

they consider have a less adverse impact on City Point and its associated car parking than the Parliamentary Alignment. These are shown in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: Alignment options raised in objections by CGM (Edinburgh) Limited

City Point Option One 3.2 City Point Option One is essentially the same as the alignment

indicated during the formal public consultation and has been addressed separately by my colleague Mr. Andrew Oldfield.

3.3 While the City Point Option One does provide a means of avoiding City Point it also results in the need for an elevated structure, some 6 metres in height to clear the heavy rail OLE, to be constructed across the south frontage of Verity House. This structure, crossing over a proposed Network Rail bay platform, would pass within approximately 1 metre of the windows of Verity House providing an environmental impact with respect to noise and light.

3.4 The structure itself could be constructed with either steel or concrete forming the main structural members. Concrete construction would give greater mass to the structure and consequently less noise from the operational Tram when compared to Steel construction. Both structural forms would cause substantial disruption both during the construction of the structure and during the operation of the Tram system.

3.5 The provision of any structure is expensive. It is considered that a viable alternative route is available that does not require a structure over the Network Rail bay platform thereby avoiding the additional cost and disruption of building over a main line railway. City Point Option Two

3.6 City Point Option Two routes the proposed tram line away from Haymarket Terrace down Dalry Road and over the existing railway bridge. The alignment then runs at an elevated height along the route of Distillery Lane before crossing over four operational heavy rail main lines in addition to the proposed bay platform track alignment. A number of significant structural issues arise from this alignment.

3.7 The alignment on Dalry Road would cross the existing Network Rail tracks at Haymarket Station on an existing bridge. The bridge would need to be assessed to carry this new load and may require strengthening or replacement. Any works to the existing structure would need to be agreed with Network Rail and programmed around the operation of the main line to Waverly Station. The costs associated with these activities would be hugely in excess of those required by the Parliamentary Alignment that does not require a crossing of the heavy rail infrastructure.

3.8 A new signal controlled junction would be required at the junction of Dalry Road and Distillery Lane to control the movement of highway and

Tram traffic. After the junction the tram alignment would need to diverge vertically from the alignment of the existing Distillery Lane to maintain the Tram at a high level to cross back over the heavy rail lines. This may cause problems with access to and from properties on the existing Distillery Lane. The change in level may also cause an adverse visual intrusion.

3.9 Having been maintained at high level, City Point Option Two crosses back over the Network Rail lines at a significant skew. The structure required would need to be designed and constructed with ongoing Network Rail consultation. The new bridge would almost certainly require the construction of support structures on Network Rail land with these foundation elements constructed between operational lines.

3.10 The potential safety and commercial implications of this are considerable. All of the construction works up to and including the construction of the bridge deck would need to be completed within possessions of the line (possessions are where the rail activities are suspended so that engineering works can be undertaken). Possessions are expensive, due to the compensation payments that have to be made to the train operator for loss of service to its customers, and have a significant operational impact on the railway network if they overrun.

3.11 The siting of the foundations and the underside of the deck to the new bridge may have an impact on the line of sight to signals in the area. This would not be acceptable to Network Rail who would either reject the proposal or require that the necessary resignalling was completed at the expense of the promoter prior to the construction of the tram works.

3.12 Other physical clashes may also occur with the existing railway infrastructure; for example the new foundations may clash with existing drainage, cable runs or other signs. These issues would be less significant but would require a solution to be designed and installed at additional cost. Additionally they may also increase the need for line possessions and hence further increase train operator compensation.

3.13 A further issue arising from the City Point Option Two alignment is the potential impact of the tram’s direct current (DC) power source on the Network Rail signalling system. This is a complex issue and if further information is required I would refer to evidence from my colleague, Malcolm Anderson, given in relation to Network Rail’s concerns on the matter. Checks would need to be completed in consultation with Network Rail to ensure that the system in place is DC immune.

3.14 Having crossed back over the Network Rail lines a final bridging structure or ramp would be required to bring City Point Option Two back down to the level of the heavy rail lines on the route to Murrayfield. City Point Option Three

3.15 The alignment of City Point Option Three runs from Haymarket over the top of the existing Haymarket station on a very long elevated structure. While it does not have the disadvantages associated with Daryl Road and Distillery Lane exhibited by Option Two, it does exhibit the other issues raised in Section 3.3 and increased disadvantages where it runs over the line of the station and station footbridge.

3.16 To clear the station footbridge the bridge carrying City Point Option Three would need to be at a considerable height and would have a consequential visual impact. The bridge also would run directly over a considerable length of Haymarket Station’s platforms reducing the amount of available natural light and increasing the noise levels.

3.17 The suggested alignment is at a very narrow skew angle to the heavy rail tracks. This would result in a long structure and increase the issues associated with providing foundations within Network Rail land without adversely affecting their infrastructure.

3.18 Ramps to the new bridge would be required at both ends. On the West side the ramp would be close to the South side of Verity House at a level in excess of 5 metres above the existing ground level. The environmental impact of this could be the subject of evidence from my colleague Steve Mitchell if required. City Point Option Four

3.19 City Point Option Four does not present any structural issues.

3.20 The alignment is similar to the Parliamentary Alignment although interfaces with highway traffic would be greater due to the greater proportion of on street running. My colleague Mr Turnbull will provide further evidence on this issue if required.

4. Conclusion

4.1 In light of the selection process, and the unsuitability of the options proposed by CGM requiring large structures and the absence of any further alternatives to serve Haymarket Station other than adjacent to

Haymarket Terrace, the Parliamentary Alignment is the preferred option.

Murray Lees Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 18 May 2005

WITNESS STATEMENT Group 42 L1 –23 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Group3 L2 –07 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited 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 – to maximise integration with heavy rail services as well as Tram segregation, whilst minimising impacts on Network Rail proposed developments.

3. Alignment Considerations (General) 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 been 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 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 [P42/16] 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. [P42/17]

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 available 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 Given that Haymarket Station is the third largest rail station (by

patronage) in Scotland the principal aim of the promoter in the Haymarket area was to maximise integration of tram with heavy rail services as well as achieving the greatest extent of tram segregation, whilst minimising impacts on Network Rail proposed developments.

4.2 Network Rail have advised the promoter that in order to redevelop Waverley Station it is critical to establish additional platform capacity at Haymarket Station to terminate particular services at Haymarket to allow trackwork improvements at Waverley to proceed. Network Rail have provided details of their proposals to the promoter which would establish a new single track and associated platform in the area between the existing operational rail land and both Verity House (to the west) and the Station car park (to the east). The emergence of these proposals through the development of the ETL1 project, meant that the candidate tram route alignment which ran to the south of Verity House and through the Station car park became beset with significant technical difficulties that resulted in this alignment being discounted in favour of an alignment in the Station car park to the north of Rosebery House. The stop platforms associated with this revised (parliamentary) alignment offer an excellent opportunity to develop an effective transport interchange.

4.3 I can confirm that the parliamentary alignment meets all the technical

criteria detailed earlier in this statement. 4.4 With reference to the four alignments options identified by the objector,

none of these options have been subject to detailed geometric design although Option 4 is very similar to the parliamentary alignment. 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 include;

impact on existing heavy rail infrastructure and operations (Options 2 & 3);

impact on planned heavy rail infrastructure and operations (Options

1 & 3);

significant elevated structures (Options 1, 2 & 3) (reference should be made to my colleague Murray Lees witness statement for further details);

visual impacts (Options 1, 2 & 3);

poor transport interchange opportunity (Options 2 & 3); and

excessive capital costs (Options 1, 2 & 3).

4.5 In my professional opinion, of the four options proposed by the objector

only Option 4 would merit consideration.

Mark M Bain Senior Engineer Mott MacDonald 18 May 2005

WITNESS STATEMENT Group 42 ETL1 – 23 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Group 3 ETL2 – 7 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited

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 alignment selection for the Haymarket

section of the 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 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 The capital cost estimates for the alignment alternatives have been

compiled on an elemental basis to enable comparisons and appraisal to be fully considered.

3.2 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

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

base point. 4. Conclusions 4.1 The result of the comparison of capital costs for the route options

considered identifies the proposed option as the most economical and preferred option.

Neil Harper Associate Brian Hannaby & Associates 18 May 2005

WITNESS STATEMENT GROUP 42 L1 – 23 CMG (EDINBURGH) LTD GROUP 3 L2 – 07 CMG (EDINBURGH) LTD STEVE MITCHELL

1 Resume

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.

2 Scope of Evidence

2.1 CMG’s letter of objection does not specify environmental issues of concern to them. However, concerns over noise and vibration have been raised in discussions with the promoter.

2.2 My evidence therefore addresses: • Noise and vibration effects during construction and operation of the

tramway.

3 Noise and Vibration Effects During Construction

3.1 The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) [P42/18] contains measures to control noise and vibration during the works. It limits hours of working, sets noise and vibration limits and requires a series of measures to be used to control noise and vibration at source through good house keeping and good environmental management practices.

3.2 The control measures in the CoCP will be enforced through the main contract to construct the tram.

3.3 CoCPs are a tried and tested means of enforcing noise and vibration (and other) control measures on construction projects of this type. I have assisted in the development of CoCPs on 8 UK light rail/tram systems in recent years. They are effective in setting minimum standards for contractors, in ensuring that local authorities are given adequate information with which to ensure appropriate levels of control on site, and making sure that those who may be affected by the works are forewarned, which in itself is a useful mitigation measure.

3.4 The ES [P42/19] predicts significant noise impacts at buildings in this area during construction in the absence of mitigation. Vibration impacts are not predicted. The extent of noise mitigation in this particular area will depend on the details of the contractor’s works, but even with mitigation some noise disturbance is expected over limited periods of the construction programme. It is also relevant that the ambient noise levels in this area are high, so to some extent the building users are accustomed to high noise levels outside the building. In addition, it is a modern building with a good standard of noise insulation against external noise. So, whilst I would expect some effect on office workers within the building during the noisiest construction periods, I would not expect this to be unacceptable.

3.5 The vast majority of the works will not give rise to perceptible vibration in the City Point building, but on occasions vibration may be perceptible. However, given the type of works planned, their separation of the building, and the building type, I do not expect vibration to give rise to significant disturbance to office workers.

4 Effect on the Building Operation Due to Noise and Vibration During Operation of the Tram

4.1 City Point is in close proximity to the tram route. However, it is a modern building with a good standard of noise insulation against external noise. It is located in an already noisy environment, as recent surveys in the area have shown. I have carried out a detailed analysis of potential noise intrusion into Rosebery House, the office block opposite City Point, and concluded that tram noise will not significantly elevate noise levels in offices, so will not have an unacceptable effect on its users. Although I have not completed an equivalent analysis or City Point, I would expect a similar conclusion.

4.2 Ground vibration will be controlled by a resilient trackform past City Point so that there will not be adverse affects on users of the building. Steve Mitchell Principal Consultant Environmental Resources Management Ltd 18 May 2005

WITNESS STATEMENT Group 42 L1 – 023 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Group 3 L2 – 07 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Scott McIntosh Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Disruption to car parking during construction 4. Building fixings 5. 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 The evidence addresses

Disruption to car parking during construction

Building, operations and maintenance

(ii) Building fixings (iii) Working close to the tramway

3. Disruption to car parking during construction 3.1 The Petitioners are objecting to the provisions in the Bill on the grounds

that ‘there would be disruption to the availability of the car parking over several months during the construction of the tram line which would have to be reflected in the…….return on our client’s investment’ [Objection letter CGM/3/7 – JRR/Ks of 15 March 2004 para 4].

3.2 The issue of the provision of adequate replacement car parking before

any of the existing car parking is taken for the tramway construction works is the subject of a side agreement being negotiated between the promoters and the petitioner. It is expected that an acceptable agreement will be in place before tramway works commence.

3.3 Disruption during construction works, including the issue of accesses

to car parks and 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]. [P42/18]

3.4 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 by during the Public Inquiry of the Merseytram Draft Order deposited under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure).

3.5 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.

3.6 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.

3.7 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’.

3.8 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’

3.9 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.

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

3.11 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]

3.12 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].

3.13 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].

3.14 It is our contention that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum and will enable businesses such as CGM (Edinburgh) Limited to continue operating efficiently during the tramway works.

4. Buildings, operations and maintenance

Building fixings 4.1 The promoter has issued an advisory Note [P42/20], explaining in

general terms the effects of attaching support fixings for the overhead line equipment for the tramway to buildings along the route. The note is accompanied by illustrations showing the fixings in relation to buildings in Croydon, Dublin and Orleans. The use of building fixings is well precedented, having been in use by tramway and trolleybus systems across the World for over a century. It is the promoter’s contention that there is ample evidence to show that the use of building fixings will neither damage the building, nor will it interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the building by its owners or tenants.

Operational effects of tramway overhead equipment in proximity to buildings

4.2 The promoter has issued an advisory Note [P42/21], setting out policy

covering the safety and operational requirements for work on buildings adjacent to the overhead line equipment for the tramway. Each tramway currently in operation in the UK has set its own policy in relation to these matters, the policy adopted by tie has been informed by experience elsewhere in the UK and seeks to balance a commitment to safety with the requirement not to unduly obstruct the ability of frontagers to maintain their buildings. It is the promoter’s contention that the policy set out will meet these objectives.

5. Conclusion 5.1 It is contended that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce

interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum and will enable businesses such as CGM (Edinburgh) Limited to continue operating efficiently during the tramway works.

5.2 It is further contended that the specific worries raised by the petitioner

in relation to building fixings are unfounded. The construction of the Edinburgh Tram will not unduly increase the risks to CGM (Edinburgh) Limited, or tenants of their property and will only have a small effect upon the difficulty and cost of maintaining their property.

5.3 The promoter is seeking powers to construct the Edinburgh Tram in the

belief that the system will have a beneficial effect on a range of issues, including the commercial performance of businesses such as CGM (Edinburgh) Limited. It is the promoter’s contention that there is evidence from similar tram schemes carried out elsewhere in the UK to demonstrate the real business benefits that will accrue to property companies such as CGM (Edinburgh) Limited.

Scott McIntosh Technical Expert Mott MacDonald 18 May 2005

WITNESS SUMMARY EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE ONE) GROUP 42 CGM (EDINBURGH) LIMITED 1.0 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. 2.0 EVIDENCE 2.1 My evidence primarily covers the principles underlying the

ascertainment of compensation to claimants affected by the scheme. This encompasses:

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.

WITNESS STATEMENT Group 42 L1 – 23 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Group 3 L2 – 7 CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Kevin Murray Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Disruption to car parking during construction 4. Conclusion 1. Resume 1.1 I am Kevin A Murray. I am a Project Manager with tie ltd assigned to

project manage the development of Edinburgh Tram Line One. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have around 14 years experience in civil engineering, all of which has been spent in the management, development and implementation of transportation projects including the Jubilee Line Extension, Crossrail, Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Thameslink 2000.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses

(i) Disruption to car parking during construction 3. Disruption to car parking during construction 3.1 With reference to Parliamentary Plan Sheet No 22 for Edinburgh Tram

Line One Bill the objector has expressed concern with regard to plot numbers 285, 286 and 291 and Parliamentary Plan Sheet No.4 for Edinburgh Tram Line Two Bill with regard to plot numbers 42, 44 and 45 which the objector owns in part or in full.

3.2 Since the lodging of the Edinburgh Tram Line Bills in January 2004, the route alignment through Haymarket Yards has been the subject of extensive discussions with CGM Edinburgh Limited who are a key property owner in the area. These discussions have focused on agreeing a manner in providing the proposed tram works whilst maintaining the operations of the building and car park. A draft side agreement is in the final stages of negotiation on the aspects of concern around the car park.

3.3 The proposed tram route through Haymarket Yards passes to the rear

of the Citypoint building and through the 35 space Citypoint car park.

The Citypoint building is solely owned by CGM Edinburgh Limited, is part tenanted and is in the process of being sold. It is believed that the sale will transfer the entire ownership of the Citypoint building and car park away from CGM Edinburgh Limited. However the west end of the car park site is believed to be retained by CGM Edinburgh Limited.

3.4 A key concern to CGM Edinburgh Limited as potential sellers, the

future owner, and the existing tenant has been the potential disruption to car parking during construction of the tram. Fundamental to this concern has been the continued availability of 35 car parking spaces throughout the construction of the tram works in a location convenient to the building. At this stage in the development of the tram project the construction methodology for the works has not been established and the need to maintain flexibility has been important to tie limited to ensure workable and cost-effective construction sequences and methods can be developed.

3.5 Discussions between tie limited and CGM Edinburgh Limited have

concluded that alternative temporary areas for 35 car parking spaces can be found within the Haymarket Yards area or a certain proximity to the Citypoint building. This includes the split provision of spaces across a number of smaller areas and for a number of time periods as the tram works may potentially be implemented in a number of stages. A useful fall-back option for tie limited for the use of the Morrison Street car park has been rejected by CGM Edinburgh Limited as being too far from the Citypoint building. Some of the potential sites are outwith the Limits of Deviation and would require planning applications for temporary use as car parking which has been generally tested with the Planning Authority who have confirmed this is likely to be acceptable.

4. Conclusion 4.1 The promoter is willing to enter into agreement that temporary

alternative car parking for 35 car park spaces will be provided at all times throughout the construction of the tram works affecting the Citypoint building car park.

4.2 In detail, the promoter shall use all reasonable endeavours to provide a

temporary alternative 35 car parking site or sites within the Haymarket Yards area bounded by Balbirnie Place, Haymarket Station, Haymarket Terrace and the Haymarket railway lines. This will be for the exclusive unrestricted use by the owner and the tenants of the Citypoint building. In the event that the promoter cannot reasonably provide such temporary site within Haymarket Yards then the promoter will provide such a site or sites outwith Haymarket Yards but within an area north of the existing railway and within a 250m radius of the Citypoint building, excluding for the avoidance of doubt the Morrison Street Car Park and any other car park located to the South of the Edinburgh to Glasgow railway line.

4.3 This forms the basis of the draft side agreement between the promoter and the objector which is in the final stages of negotiation on the aspects of concern around the car park.

Kevin Murray Project Manager tie ltd 18 May 2005

Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill

Group 42/Group 3 - CGM (Edinburgh) Limited Document list for the promoter

P42/1 Parliamentary Plan Sheet 22 P42/2 Oscar Faber Report 2000 P42/3 North Edinburgh Rapid Transit Solution P42/4 Figure 1.1 P42/5 Work Package 1 Assessment P42/6 Figure 1.3 P42/7 Figure 1.4 P42/8 Figure 1.2 P42/9 Network Rail redevelopment proposals P42/10 The City of Edinburgh Council Committee Report, 11 December 2003 P42/11 Figure 1.6 P42/12 The City of Edinburgh Council Committee Report, 13 November 2003 P42/13 Parliamentary Plans and Sections P42/14 Traffic Interface Report P42/15 Annex 1 P42/16 Railway Safety Principles and Guidance (RSPG) Part 2 Section G P42/17 STAG Appraisal Report (Revision H) September 2004 P42/18 Draft Code of Construction Practice P42/19 Environmental Statement P42/20 Advisory Note on Attachments P42/21 Advisory Note on the Electrical Safety Zone