SNP Priorities
Simon has been writing over at his blog about the fact that we are now one year on from the election of the SNP (minority) government, and what the have and have not achieved.
I must say, I have to disagree with some of his priorities…
Scrapping the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL)—this was a great idea. Flying should be a last resort for people who have to travel to far flung parts of the globe. Therefore we should not make it easier to get to airports. It was also an exceptionally complicated and contrived way to get a rail link into the airport—by tunnelling under the live runway. While, as a civil engineer, this would be a very exciting project, as a taxpayer, I know that it would be very expensive! The other reason for scrapping EARL, which I forgot to add, is that the tram network is to be extended to the airport (in about the same sort of timescale). This will give relatively quick access from the terminal to Edinburgh, and it’s railway stations (South Gyle, Haymarket & Waverly). Not quite as convenient perhaps, but is that convenience worth half a billion pounds?
Nor should we dual the A9. The reason it is such an accident prone road is that people drive at silly speeds along it and there is too much freight on the roads. Instead the government should be committing to reversing the cuts made by Dr Beeching, and dualling the Perth to Inverness railway. This would enable more, and faster, passenger services connecting the highlands with the rest of Scotland, Britain, and Europe.
They should also force more freight onto the railways. This would have the added benefit of freeing up the roads for people who have to drive.
I am ambivalent about scrapping the Forth Road Bridge toll. On one hand, it is a critical piece of national infrastructure, and should be free to use. On the other hand, it is a critical piece of national infrastructure, and needs major repairs or replacement, and hence money, which is no longer being collected via the tolls.
This entry was posted on Friday 2nd May 2008 in Engineering, Politics and tagged A9, Engineering, Forth Bridge, Highland, Politics, Railway. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.
While I accept your environmental points about EARL and the A9, I would argue that we need all routes – rail, road and air – open and fully active. This will strengthen our economy and give the rest of the world better access to Scotland and the Highlands, and vice-versa.
Of course the railways should be better, significantly better, to the extent that they are the preferred route not just environmentally but economically (price and time). But that doesn’t mean that other
routes shouldn’t be available too where necessary.
Incidentally, there’s no word wrap in your comment boxes :)
Comment by Simon — 3-May-2008 @ 19:36
Given that there is a limited budget available, it should be focused on the most sustainable routes, which I would argue is the railway line between Perth and Inverness. By moving passenger and freight traffic from the A9 to the railway, it also improves the A9. Dualling the A9 does not improve the railway network.
The tram link to the airport is also the most cost-effective solution to that transport need.
(Fixed the text wrapping issue – there was a text wrap, but your browser was to narrow. I have amended the theme code so that the textarea now fills the available space.)
Comment by Donald — 4-May-2008 @ 11:44
Didn’t understand your last comment!
I see where you’re coming from about shifting stuff from the road to the rail. But for a major road artery it should be dual carriageway as most of the rest of the country is. Even with less traffic, it’s a dangerous road.
The tramlink may be cost-effective, but you still have to change, and couldn’t travel, for instance, from Glasgow or Inverness to Embra airport without having to change somewhere or go into the city centre and out.
Comment by Simon — 4-May-2008 @ 20:25