 He Depending. I welcome everyone to the 12th meeting in 2015 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. Everyone present is reminded to switch off mobile phones as they can affect the broadcasting system. As meetings papers are provided in digital format, you may see tablets being used during the meeting. No apologies have been received although Meri Faes has given notice that she may arrive late. Her first agenda item is for the committee to continue to take evidence on access to major urban railways. I welcome George Mayer, director of the confederation of passenger transport Scotland. Nathan Kaczmarski, senior communications officer at Cycling Scotland. Tony Kenmew of the Scottish Taxi Federation. Last but not least, John Lodder, national director at Sustrans. Alec Johnson is going to kick off our questions this morning. Thank you very much, convener. Could I begin by asking how would your organisations characterise the accessibility of Scotland's major railway stations? Oh, feel free. Well, if you don't mind then, good morning members and convener. I've been confering with our colleagues at Scottish Accessible Transport and we've been discussing in particular over the last couple of days access to Waverly station. So if you don't mind me holding the floor for a couple of minutes, I've actually had a look over the website this morning just to make sure that my information is completely current and for a couple of minutes I'll walk you through if I may my experience of attempting to engage with a taxi from the capital's main train station. So if you access the website for Edinburgh Waverly station, disabled access in particular is a very prominent link on the front page of the website and that's commendable. If you follow that link and request assistance, you're then presented with 10 different phone numbers that it's possible to ring or text to obtain assistance when you arrive at the train station. At the foot of those phone numbers, where I think things are beginning to go wrong, there's a note that says, if you need help around the station, speak to a member of staff or go to East Coast reception next to the taxi rank. So that's the first spot, the deliberate mistake. There is no longer a taxi rank in Waverly station. So following on from there, on the same page, there's a link to taxis and there's a note there that says the taxi rank is on Waverly bridge. The rank in the station has closed. So there's conflicting information immediately about how to get egress, presumably, because you're already in the station, or be dropped off by a taxi. Under the note that says that the taxi rank in the station has closed, it says, for more information, visit train taxi and there's a link to an organisation called train taxi who provide information. They ask you first of all, there's a little field that asks you to type in which train station you want information for and Waverly station doesn't exist. So I tried various combinations of Edinburgh, Waverly and Waverly, Edinburgh. Eventually I just tried Edinburgh and there are three stations listed, Edinburgh, Haymarket Edinburgh and Edinburgh Park. I clicked the link for Edinburgh and the title Edinburgh came up within brackets, also known as Edinburgh Waverly. So following that link, the wording there, there's a short paragraph that says, Edinburgh is a major station with taxis usually available on a rank. No, there aren't. Advanced booking is not normally necessary or even possible. That's an astonishing comment. Unless arriving early in the morning or late at night, operators who may accept bookings include central taxis, city cabs and radio cabs, that would come as news to radio cabs who ceased trading 15 years ago. So at the foot of that, and this is my final bit of evidence on this particular topic, all are some of the vehicles used by these operators are understood to be wheelchair accessible. In the case of central taxis and city cabs, they are licensed public taxis so they are entirely wheelchair accessible. That's one of their licensing conditions and it says, please check availability before travelling. In providing my evidence, I would put it to the members and the convener that without for knowledge of Waverly station and how it works in recent changes there, for a traveller arriving by taxi or attempting to leave by taxi, the information that's being provided is woefully contradictory, if that answers your question. It's certainly consistent with some of the things that we have previously. Do any of the rest of you have comments on accessibility to the major railway stations? I'm happy to pick up from a point of view of pedestrians and people using bicycles getting to stations, the main stations. In my evidence, I've referred throughout to the red line that is drawn around a station when it's being either upgraded or developed. I think that what that does is it creates a culture whereby the station that's being renovated, regenerated or indeed built inside the station is actually very, very good to move around in. The new one that he marked, the improved Waverly, is very, very good to move around in. However, because the red line that it seems to me network rail draws around a station when it's being developed focuses their attention inside the red line only, then what happens out with that red line makes it really quite difficult to get to stations because there seems to me to be a lack of communication between network rail and the local authority who are providing the road and the streetscape around the station. So, for example, it's quite difficult to get to Haymarket station simply because it's very busy. It's a busy area. There's a lot of people using it. It's been redeveloped to include a tram system now as well. In addition to that, despite being redeveloped in a very, very good station when you're inside it, the narrow pavements on the approach to it still remain, so it's very, very busy and congested at peak times. That does strike me as a lack of, if I can use the expression, just being joined up from the point of view that you develop a station at a considerable cost. You make it really good, but you don't improve the area for, say, a mile round it where you might walk, or three miles where you might get to it by bicycle. In addition to Haymarket, there have been all kinds of tensions around access for taxi ranks as well. The other issue that we found with Haymarket, which astonished me, was that we were unable to have a back door to access it from the Dalrai side of the line, which then meant that anyone approaching Haymarket from the west side of the rail line was still on the same narrow pavement that existed before the station was improved. There was a very easy option to create a back door into Haymarket, similar to the market street entrance at Waverley, from the distillery lane next to Haymarket station. That was never developed, and we were told consistently by Network Rail that this cannot be delivered. To the point of me backing away from that, because I was getting to the point where I felt that I was annoying Network Rail to the point where I could not go any further, and I did not want to, because we wanted to work in partnership with Network Rail, but I was getting to the point where I felt that I had done all that I could, so I had to withdraw from that. My final point—it is again about the red line that is drawn around the redeveloped stations—is that we fully support redeveloping the stations. They are really good when they are done, but one of the major concerns that we have with the proposals for Queen Street station, for example, is that, again, there does not seem to be an assessment done of how people walking, cycling and very probably bus and taxi too, are going to get to the station. I would imagine that the redeveloped Queen Street will be great when you are in it, but my worry is how do you get to it? Is there any change at all? The final example—I suppose that poor old Haymarket, but it needs to be cited—is that, despite being developed at a multimillion-pound development, which has given a very good concourse, there was no improvement to the cycle parking. Now, we have a name and a nationally agreed vision that 10 per cent of everyday trips will be by bicycle by 2020. I would have thought that we would have had an improved position with the ability to park more bicycles at Haymarket. In fact, that was not delivered as part of the scheme. We are now retrofitting an improved parking for bicycles in partnership with Network Rail and the City of Edinburgh Council, but we are doing that with money that we have had to find, as opposed to coming out of the Egypt budget, which is a huge budget. I would have thought that the £0.5 million that is being needed to help to build that new cycle parking could have been found from that budget rather than being found from other budgets and pieced together in a retrospective point of view. A lack of jointed upness is not a very good expression, but a lack of cohesion is caused by only looking at within the red line of the station and not at anything outside that red line. You mentioned Queen Street, and I was going to ask that question later on, mainly to Tony Kenmore, but it might be all those who want to answer it. Queen Street is excellent just now. In terms of taxis anyway, Queen Street is excellent. You get out, you get on your taxi and you get away. It does not seem to be any issues. What concerns do you have about the redeveloped Queen Street and what role have you had in making sure that the accessibility to taxis and other things are going to be of the same high standard as it is just now? I will be quick, as quick as I can be. We have put some real, quite profound concerns about the proposals for the redeveloped station. We initially gave a reply to Network Rail who was seeking through their consultation, and we submitted our ideas and concerns to them. Initially, the initial reaction was that we got a letter pretty much as anyone else would get a letter, so any constituent or any other member of the public. We had to do a bit more work to get a chance to meet Network Rail and to sit down with them, because we have some skills in this, and we are managing funds on behalf of the Government. We have some funding that we could have helped to provide for this area. We did get that meeting with Network Rail, but it was very hard. It was a hard one. Since then, I have continued to be quite worried about Queen Street, and I still am. For two reasons. One of them I have alluded to before is the red line. What is happening outside that red line seems to be the role of Glasgow City Council to sort it out somehow. There does not seem to be any way for Network Rail to work with the City Council to work together on planning how patrons will get to the station itself. That worries me, because it makes me think that it is already quite a busy area around the station. Will it remain very busy? If you are trying to get there on a bicycle, will the streets around it still remain busy? The second concern is that, in looking at the plans after a series of meetings, we were shown drawings. We understand why the interior of the station will be constrained because the platforms need to be extended, and we understand that. That makes the space available within the station to park bicycles limited, but there did not seem to be any real plan to provide any better or improved cycle parking at all around the stations. As I have put in my evidence, my big worry and what I have found a bit perplexing is that there is a proposal to have a short shopping mall under the multi-storey car park, which will be built next to the station, but there was no plan to use that as an area that you might have had at the type of bicycle park or hub that you would get in any other big city in northern Europe or, indeed, Leeds or London. That was very much earmarked for shopping and for retail, and it was under the control of a different part of Network Rail, and the two did not seem to be speaking together. I found that worrying and I still find it quite worrying. Where we are now is that we have had a series of meetings. We have shown on the drawings where we think that a cycle parking area could go, and we are now back at square one where we are going to start again, so we are going to start the whole process of looking at the drawings again with Network Rail. I remain worried about Queen Street. I come back to you. I have got questions to ask you later on, and at that point I will ask you the question about Queen Street. Are you okay with that? Can I just add that, as a trade association, we have had a great deal involved in the Queen Street redevelopment. It is not to say that operators in Glasgow have not been involved in relation to the site and bus stops and public transport. I know that we have recently been invited by SPT to participate in a transport integration forum that will include the current ScotRail franchise, as well as Network Rail. There may be opportunities through that forum to have detailed discussions on some of the issues that would concern the committee. David, you wanted to come in briefly. Thank you. Just a very brief question to Mr Kimbure. I have been advised that the reason that the taxis are out of Waverly and are above ground was through security advice from the UK Government and security services. Is that a myth or do you have any evidence that that is genuine advice? It is the type of station. Stations that are not as enclosed might not have the same advice. Otherwise, my concern would be that every time we have a station development, we have to take taxis outwith the concurs of the station. That is an excellent point. We were given the same story. Our understanding is that our unceremonious ejection from Waverly station was for security reasons. I have to commend the city council for its reaction to developing accommodation on the street. That is not just an issue at Waverly station. It ties in with Queen Street and Haymarket. The reasons that we were given for vehicles not being allowed into Waverly any more underground were security. However, very hard on the heels of that, we were also expelled if that is the right word from Haymarket train station in Edinburgh. We were not given any particular reason for that other than the lack of a drop-off area. If you are familiar with it, you can picture Haymarket station. The old entrance, which has a little off-road turn-in, was formerly the taxi stance. If taxis were overranked there, or if there were other vans and deliveries, or if there were an excess of people attempting to drop off, unfortunately, through the development of the Edinburgh tram, it would mean that any overranking or any excess vehicles would be causing an obstruction there. There was a combination of reasons why we left Haymarket. We are now across the street. That was a lack of space, a lack of a drop-off, particularly for people with special needs and the possibility of encroaching on tram tracks. Also, the cycle community has a special lane now, which takes them off the main thoroughfare into that drop-off area and back out in order to avoid crossing the tram lines at too shallow an angle and causing spills, which, unfortunately, is widely publicised, is still an issue. One point that I would like to make about this is that it is a highly emotive and confrontational subject for us being decanted from a train station. It has distinct benefits. It means that taxis are able to pick up the general public without paying anybody for the privilege. That is a big issue for us, where transport hubs take it upon themselves to have a permit system or a levy or a toll of some sort, where they charge us as a public transport provider for dropping off the general public and for picking them up again. Frankly, in most cases, we regard that as an abusive or dominant position. Unfortunately, most of the taxi community or small businessmen are independent and do not have the resources to combat it, but being out on the street can be a benefit. I am not necessarily in reply to that. I am merely perhaps put on the record convener that I personally do not have a problem if the reason for the taxi move was because of security advice. I understand having some spune to this building that clearly security services do not give you the specifics of that. However, I think that the police would confirm that security advice was given or not given, and I think that passengers and perhaps taxi industry would perhaps understand the reasons better if we were told generally that, yes, there was security advice given that you have to move out. That is perfectly understandable, but I think that there is genuine confusion, and I am sure that it may be that we contact the police just to get some confirmation that this happened in the case of Waverly and perhaps other stations as well. We were very conscious that the space that was formerly occupied by taxis was converted to an indoor market very quickly. It was converted into retail accommodation, and you can take from that what you will. Alex, you have been very patient, while other members have sought to hijack your own questions. I want to get the two other members of the panel in who have not had much opportunity. I want to know about your issues about accessibility, but we have also strayed into the next question already, and I would like to also know your views on the issues regarding the apparent lack of co-ordination that exists between local authorities, network, rail and transport providers. I think that Mr Lodd called it the red line issue, but I would particularly like to hear your views on that issue. Yes, in terms of your first—the second point, I will take first—in terms of co-ordination, John had touched upon the cycling action plan for Scotland. The shared vision of 10% of everyday journeys will be by bike, specific within both the original CAPS document as well as the refreshed version in 2013. There is specific reference to ScotRail network rail, rail integration, cycling and rail being key complementary journey modes. Also, in terms of the long-term vision for active travel in Scotland, it also talks about transport integration and actually provides a very good overview about what would make an accessible station in terms of information, in terms of parking, in terms of clear routes and things like that. I wanted to touch upon the opportunities there because for the CAPS, the cycling action plan for Scotland delivery form is made up of a range of stakeholders, including ScotRail, a value that has come along. In the most recent CAPS delivery form, they actually had a presentation that talked about the door-to-door journey. I'll touch upon that in a second, but I guess I wanted to note there is that there are plenty of opportunities within that for anyone involved in particularly for the Queen Street redevelopment and anything else that's actually being developed in terms of rail to get information of best practice because there is actually a lot out there. From cycle hire that's been put in place in Glasgow and Sterling to the Sterling cycle hub, which is identified as a pilot project, which has been successful thus far and could be a model for rolling out, to Abelio's own identification of cycle points and other various things that they would like to put in place at rail stations. That is all discussed at these forums and similar to what George noted, there are forums out there for best practice and examples like that to be explained and provided. Now in terms of access, as I just mentioned there, we'd like to focus on the door-to-door journey. So it's many of the stations identified specifically in the study that you're looking at here and the evidence that you're gathering and the surveys that you've undertaken are within a huge population, both in terms of people who live there but also work, but to understand what is needed in terms of access, it's important to understand the door-to-door journey. So what people are actually travelling to do? What is their destination? What is their origin? John's touched upon parking and things like that and Queen Street's a very good example in terms of what everyone in the cycling community and probably many other modes and other communities have fed back is that access is of course important. There is the ambition at the moment to put in improved cycle parking. There is the identification from Abellio, from other areas that it is possible to incorporate these into these mainline stations. They want to do it. There's the drive to do it that's been supported by cycling organisations. It's a very important thing to understand and make sure that people are able to make those door-to-door journeys. So when they arrive at a station they can store their bike and then they can carry on their onward journey. However in terms of the feedback on following the Queen Street, the responses from Network Rail, the responses on the back of that consultation as John has pointed out, it's not clear that that ambition is being taken on board. So as I mentioned there's plenty of opportunity there to identify good practice not only from the continent, from the experience, but also in Scotland itself through the Starling Cycle Hub and the cycle hire schemes that we have in place. Plus, as John mentioned, in Leeds in London there's already cycle parking and other integrated transport schemes that have been successful. I would concur with John's thoughts on this red line around the station. I think in many locations there are good practices in place and that may well be down to the local bus manager and the local station manager that they've worked jointly together and put things in place to help with bus information and bus stop locations and such like. I think there's a need for a more consistent approach in that. As an industry representative group, we are happy to engage with ScotRail and Abelio and National Rail to try and facilitate that. I think that it's an interesting point about security, because I would have thought that the security issue is one that should apply in all stations, yet, where I live in Aberdeen, the station taxi ronk is a pane of glass away for the main concourse. It's an interesting if it's good for one, surely it should be good for the other or otherwise. I recognise that there are things that the industry and the Network Rail and ScotRail need to work better on in providing information and facilities for public transport information. It's interesting that that taxi ronk in Aberdeen is also below street level, in much the same way as it used to be in Waverly. The final thing that I'd like to ask is that we've talked a lot about the lack of co-ordination, but do you think that Transport Scotland, as the major funder of both ScotRail and Network Rail, has been sufficiently clear in directing both organisations to maximise accessibility to stations? Do you think that they have a role? Yes, I do, I think that they have an important role to play. Whether it's a dictatorial role or one that advocates closer collaboration between the local authority, Network Rail, ScotRail and the bus industry, I think that they have a major role to play in that respect. Do you think that they've done anything or should they be doing something? My understanding is that they are doing something now. I may be wrong, but there will be a chief executive and then two directors, one for ScotRail and one for Network Rail, working together as a team. I think that that's a really, really good development. I think that it's tackling a culture where Network Rail pretty much did its stuff and ScotRail ran the trains on the infrastructure that Network Rail provided, but an awful lot of things fell between the cracks. I agree with George that Transport Scotland has a leadership role in ensuring that everyone works in a much more cohesive way. The transport community is quite a small community, really. We regularly give evidence to you, so you know that there's a fairly small band of key operators. There's bound to be a willingness to work together. I don't think that there's any indication that anybody wouldn't want to work together. You need to bring those people together and in a team effort. Particularly for me, it's that separation between the Network Rail and the local authority, as George has indicated. How do we bring those people closer together and really make that a much better experience for the patron getting to and from the station? I'm hopeful. I think that the appointment of Abellio could be a really good development. Is there a danger that we're at the stage now where, in the case of Waverley, the development has been completed in other areas where it's still to be completed? The plans at least have been finalised. Are we in a danger of having missed the boat a bit on that? I suppose we are, yes. That's my worry with Queen Street, is that the plans seem fairly well developed and we're retrofitting bits in now. That's a bit of a worry for me, yes. That would be my major worry, I think, would be around Queen Street station. The other thing that's a slight concern is an awful lot being hinged on Abellio to make those changes. I just hope that they get enough support to be able to make all the changes that they're indicating. There must be a huge amount of pressure on them to deliver the change, but that said, it's a hopeful sign that there will be a more cohesive team at the top. Can I return to the issue of access to Edinburgh Waverley station that we've already touched on this morning? The committee has heard previously evidence from Transform Scotland, Transport Focus and the Mobility and Access Committee that the closure of the vehicle access ramps at Edinburgh Waverley station has significantly worsened accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and that it has had a particular impact on access for older and disabled people. Do you have a view on that? The setup at Waverley station, I've tried it myself, working my way from one platform to the other. It's an excellent system of elevators, but it strikes me as something out of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the Great Glass Elevator. It is like solving a Rubik's Cube, trying to navigate your way from one part of the station to the other, up, along, down, along, up, along. I believe that the key concern for access from a taxi point of view is that, when we're dropping somebody off at the entrance, most wheelchair users understand that they need to make arrangements ahead of travelling in order to be met and assisted with luggage or access, whatever. They can still have a bit of a wait for somebody to appear to a system. An issue at the moment is that the best entrances for dropping off and collecting—the best one is Calton Road—but being dropped off there, a person is very isolated until somebody arrives to a system. There would be a burden on whoever is dropping them off there to wait perhaps an extended period of time. I've referred to the instructions on the website for how to get assistance, and even that's something of a maze to navigate your way through to find out who you should contact for assistance. I think that the distance of the entrances and exits—if you've seen, for example, at Waverly Steps on Princes Street, the elevator is around the back of the shopping centre—it's a fair distance from the road, so even getting there is an issue. Another problem is perhaps a problem with taxis being out on the street and the entrances being relatively small and mostly providing just an elevator to get you downstairs. There are no trolleys available, so when you have somebody elderly with a bit of luggage or you have somebody perhaps in a wheelchair who can't carry anything, finding a way to convey their luggage, it's not possible to leave a taxi, for example, anywhere in the vicinity while you go into the station, get a trolley, bring it back out, get them loaded up, get them into the station. There's nowhere to leave a vehicle, there's simply nowhere to park it, so I think that's an enormous issue. So the issues around older and disabled people being able to access taxi services but there's also an impact on your ability to provide that service? I'm thinking about taxi services really only from the point of view of providing a service to people who want to enter and leave the station. I'm leaving our commercial interests out of it, but I think that abandoning somebody on Market Street or in Calton Road or on Princes Street in a wheelchair with luggage or elderly people who need some sort of assistance, there's just nowhere for us to stop and wait and make sure that someone from the station engages with them. We have no control, no contact there at all. Can these temporary measures be improved or are you looking for the band to be revoked? What's your position? We don't need access for the vehicles into the station. I think that the key for us would be having a designated space for pick-up and drop-off. If everybody who required assistance went to Calton Road and there was a ready connection with somebody who could provide them with assistance, along with some trolleys, that would be a major step forward. With Network Rail not to try and find a solution to becoming a practice. What consultation did Network Rail engage in prior to imposing the ban on vehicles into the station? None whatsoever. You talked about the justification for the ban being issues around security, and my colleague Mr Stewart has already referred to that. You also seemed to imply that you thought that the real justification might have been about increasing the retail footprint within the station. Have you any evidence for that? That was an observation rather than an implication. Okay. Do you have anything else to go on by way of evidence to support that observation? No. Okay. That's very helpful. Does anyone else have anything specifically on taxis before we move on? Can I just point out—you've probably already heard this, if you have, just stop me—by closing that the vehicle access is from Market Street, it has meant that people using bicycles have to share a very narrow pavement with pedestrians. Sorry, convener. I'll allow you to elaborate a length on that point in just a moment. In terms of cyclist access being restricted because they're now having to share that narrow space in the north rampway in particular with pedestrians and tourists and others with small children, you have highlighted what appears to be a solution to that in your evidence to the committee. Do you want to say a little bit about that? To me, the barriers that are there at the moment look like they were put up in an absolute emergency. They're just a physical block. You have revamped security around the building here and you have some substantial bollards, but they're still permeable. You can get past them and I would have thought that it's perfectly possible to have bollards that can go up and down. That happens all over the place. It's very simple. It's a well-tested technology. There was a simple barrier that was there before, which may have had not been robust enough for the security measures that were needed, but it worked perfectly well. It was easy to just go by on your bicycle and it didn't mean that you were clattering people's shins with your pedal as you were apologising your way down into the station with your bicycle. It will be a 10-minute job for a junior engineer to design something quite simple that will work perfectly well. On that point, a similar question to what I asked Mr Kenmure, what discussions are you currently having with Network Rail in order to find a solution? I'm worn out with that, I'm afraid. We all tried over and over and over again and we're just nowhere. What do you think that says about Network Rail's approach to engaging with stakeholders on issues of mutual concern and issues that are very much in the public interest? Surprising from a public body. Okay, tell me a bit more. Well, I mean, I'm not being facetious. You would never expect an airport to make it that difficult to get in and out. I'm surprised that it's that difficult to get in and out of a railway station, a really busy station, where it's obvious that there's a narrow footway. It must be clear to the staff, to the management of Network Rail that that's a really poor visitor experience and a poor daily experience if you're commuting and you're using a bicycle or any kind of substantial luggage for that matter or a wheelchair. I'm really surprised that it's public money after all. I would have thought it could be used in a better way, a more welcoming way for people who are paying to use the train system. Okay, can I just ask the same question to you, Mr Lodder, Mr Mayor and Mr Kaczmarski in terms of consultation? What formal consultation was there with your organisation from Network Rail on the ban that was imposed on vehicle access? I'm happy to be corrected but none, but I'm happy to be corrected if there was. Certainly in my six years on this job, I've never met Network Rail, so none at all. Yeah, same with us, we haven't had any. So there's no formal consultation? Not with us, not with us. Right, okay. That's helpful, that is now on the record. And just finally in terms of vehicle access, the vehicle access ramps and vehicle access to the station. It's interesting, Mr Kenby, that you weren't looking for the ban to be lifted and for taxes to have access into the station. Is that the view of the other witnesses? Yep, I'd be delighted for the ban to be lifted as long as there's no permit system or levy or charge in some way, shape or form for allowing taxes to engage with the general public. So we'd be delighted to be in undercover and providing a service, no objection to being there, but of no particular desire to pay them £1,600 per year per taxi for the privilege. And how realistic is that? Remains to be seen. Right, okay. I mean, you have highlighted a possible solution which would involve taxes re-entering the station. How do you intend to take that issue forward? I'm not sure I understand the question, I apologise. Well, you said that it would be possible to reconfigure arrangements without taxes going back into the station. Now, how's that going to happen? What attempts are you making to engage with Network Rail in order to make that happen? At all stations presently, in its common place, all over the United Kingdom for taxis to be outside a train station at each entrance exit and forming a rank, generally there's some sort of cover, generally there's some sort of access to trolleys and generally there's reasonable signage. Those things are lacking at the moment, notably in Edinburgh. However, being on the street near the entrance isn't a huge issue in itself. Mr Lodder, what's your view on whether vehicles should be allowed back into the station? That's not the solution. Vehicles should be allowed back into the station for deliveries and bus operators to use it when there's an emergency and a line is closed. I've seen buses coming right down in. My personal observation is that the station is quieter, the ambience is maybe better now, the taxis aren't in and out, but I've taken on board everything Tony has said. If the taxi industry can work well and it's working for patrons, then I have no real firm view on whether the taxis should or shouldn't be in the station, but the observation remains that, because the two ramps at Market Street are so very difficult to access, more could be done to use them better than they are being used at the moment. The vehicle access ramp could be reopened for pedestrians and cyclists? That makes total sense to me. Dropping your ballard is quite an easy thing to do, and it happens all over the place, so I fail to see why it can't be done. Mr Mayer, I think that, except the point that Tony has made in general terms, I think getting people that struggle with the technology of lifts and elevators and various other things in a lot of facilities for luggage, there may be a need to think through the closer we can get people that struggle with these kind of things to the concourse, the better it is for them. If that can be done in a safe manner, then why not would be my question? Okay, and finally, Mr Kaczbarski. I think that it's just really to echo again sort of emphasise a point that if the priority is getting people who have disabilities or mobility aids or need to carry large things to get into the station, if they are comfortable, that's the first priority, so any changes need to take that into consideration first and foremost. Obviously, ideally, we'd like to get to overcome the issues that we have right now with just moving bicycles down, but priority is obviously making sure, as John said, that if the ambience in the area is preferable at the moment, then how do we ensure that access is granted but not at the detriment of other people that need that priority access? Right, so what are you actually saying? You're saying that we open the vehicle access ramps for everyone or just for cyclists or for cyclists and pedestrians? As John said, I think it makes sense to put pedestrians and cyclists, if we can, on that access ramp at the moment, but obviously to make sure that the access that's granted to anybody else that doesn't have access at the very moment doesn't necessarily impact adversely upon the other users. Okay. I think what I'm trying to say is that, at the moment, deliveries come in a truck down the ramp and there's no reason why that can't continue and still be used and accessible for people with bicycles and the footway widened because it's quite a big ramp, so there isn't any reason. I imagine that you still need to allow the Fire Brigade and Ambulance Service access to that, so it's all doable. Okay, we're going to move on. David has some questions. Thank you, convener. My questions are to Mr Muir, but obviously if any other members of the panel wish to intervene, please catch my or the community's eye. How does CPT work to improve integration of bus and rail services? CPT is an overseeing role to represent the industry in a number of forums. From the bus stakeholder group that the minister set up, some ones back to working with regional transport partnerships and local authorities were required, so we work across the full spectrum of national politics, local politics and regional politics, and other partners, such as MACS and other disabled groups, to try and get a solution to the many challenges that people are faced with in using the bus, so really we'll work with anybody to try and improve things as best we can. I know the answer to that, but how receptive are Network Rail and ScotRail to your suggestions? We haven't met yet with Ibello. We did early doors and indicated that we'd be happy to offer up our facilities to start discussions between the operators generally and Ibello, and by implication I suppose in the new arrangement Network Rail would come as part of that with the integrated approach that they have now. So we indicated that early doors, we haven't met them yet, I've been to some briefings, I understand that they have a fairly good approach to that kind of thing back in Holland and we are keen to pick up on that here in Scotland. You'll know that the committee carried out a survey on accessibility and I think it was one of the highest responses that any committee has had, so I'd like to thank all the work that's gone into this and all the people who have responded. Some of the concerns were probably obvious ones, accessibility to railway stations, there were real concerns that bus stops and routes could be located far from the local station. Can you explain why that is often the case? Probably historically, bus routes have been in place for a long time and it needs that kind of discussion that, for example, I mentioned earlier that SPT have set up a transport integration forum, City and River Council have done similarly. I think working through that kind of forum can highlight those issues and if there is a need to look at the location of bus stops then it can be done on a local basis and the bus company and the local station manager can try and work together and come up with a solution that addresses that problem. Very often, if you've got responses from customers at the bus stops in the wrong place, how easy is it to move a bus stop or to change a route? Well, it requires a registration process to go through. We certainly wouldn't get complaints coming to us, they would probably go to the local bus company or local authority. That's the kind of thing that you would see that partnership arrangement working best on and it harks back a wee bit to John's red line that you need to go beyond that and look at the journey to the bus stop to the railway station and identify if there are issues then, get people in the room and get on and try and fix it but it does need a process to go through. In terms of our registration change, which I think is best is 56 days, 70 days at worst, but it can be circumnavigated by, for example, the local authority supporting a short term registration. I'm a final question and Mr Kerrmure has already touched on this in his earlier contributions. Again in the survey there was complaints about the lack of information for onward journeys by bus, including timetables and real-time information at or near railway stations. How are your members working with Network Rail and ScotRail to address those issues? It's varied. In Aberdeen there's an electronic screen that you can tap into and it will tell you the nearby bus stops, the services that operate. I think there's a real-time link. That happens in Aberdeen but it's inconsistent across the stations in Scotland. The one thing that you can use is, in advance of your journey, you can go on and use Travel Line Scotland for example, or if you're travelling you have a smartphone and it doesn't have to be the most expensive smartphone in the world. You can tap into Travel Line Scotland and pick the bus stop that you want from the station. It will geographically show you the bus stops, it will tell you the services at the bus stops, if there's a real-time link it will tell you the real-time link. Travel Line Scotland in the absence of anything else is probably the best tool that you could suggest anybody to use. That is, if you like, good practice but clearly the people contacted us have said that their experience is that it doesn't happen in lots of areas or they can't access that. I think that it goes back to that issue of working closer together with Network Rail, ScotRail, local authorities and trying to get the best practices that are around in Scotland delivered in the different locations. But best practice in the absence of that is Travel Line Scotland. It works fantastically well. It covers rail, bus, ferries right across Scotland so you can link the journey up, you can get information in each of the different components. If you want to walk it will tell you walking. I'm not sure that it covers cycling but it's there, it works and it works extremely well. In answer to your earlier questions, I think that all the panellists were saying that they had very little communication with Network Rail. We are perhaps as much the blame for that as well. We should be pushing harder for that kind of discussions to be taking place. Any of the other panellists like to make any comments on any questions that I've raised? Just one, Mr Stewart. To be fair to First Group, they were very good in terms of signage for cycle routes at stations. I would like to acknowledge that they did a really good job for us and were very helpful. There are signs for the national cycle network where it's within a couple of miles of every station, particularly on the lines up to Aberdeen in Vanes. Do you credit there? They were very helpful and worked well with us. Anybody else like to contribute? A brief one, and I'm sure that Dave Stewart would agree with me in raising this point. It's more really just to get it on the record that I'm raising it. What Mr Mayer has described in theory is an excellent system, but I'm sure he would agree with me that it depends on a reasonable connectivity in terms of 2G, 3G. Those systems work and can work extremely well where you have that, but you mentioned that it works. It applies also to ferries. I would just point out and represent in the Highlands and Islands that most of our ferries in the Highlands and Islands operate in areas where there is very, very poor connectivity. Therefore, those excellent systems can really be of use to ferry users. I wonder if you would acknowledge that point. I'm certainly an IT expert, but I recognise the challenge that you've set up. I remember raising that in a meeting that I had with Highland Council who were looking to put in an electronic bidding process for tenders, and they said that, in that part of the world, there's probably better IT than some other parts of Scotland, because they've had early adoption of new technology. Certainly, working out for Scotland, travelling to a location to pick up a ferry, you would get a signal if you go into the coffees and shops. There are many, many places now that you can go and get wi-fi free. I'm sorry to... Sometimes what you're saying is true that you can, on occasion, get wi-fi. I often know that it's linked to a landline connection that itself has got very poor broadband. As more people use the devices, that gets effectively choked off. I would concede the point that Inverness itself is a reasonable connectivity, but thank you anyway. If the Domin, you have some questions. Can I go back to the question asked at Queen Street? We have excellent facilities there just now. After the redevelopment, how do you see that changing in terms of taxi access, and egress, I suppose, because more importantly very often is that for people coming off the train. Just now it's nice, you can go in, you can wait undercover and then get the taxi right there. How do you see that being affected? I conferred with our colleagues at Glasgow Taxes just yesterday, Mr Dornan, and they would agree with you that Queen Street station works very well. They are maybe a little unclear if any significant change to the current taxi arrangements is planned going forward, but as things stand at the moment, they are relaxed about that. The station is working well and we are not aware of any major changes for taxi provision. Your answer brings on another question right enough. You said that they are a bit unclear about how they are going to be affected. What sort of discussions have you had with the Network Rail? Those have been at a local level with Glasgow Taxes rather than the Scottish Taxi Federation. The way that I should have phrased that was that they did not give me any indication that they were expecting any substantial change to the current situation once the plans have been completed. We have talked plenty about Edinburgh Waverly. Are there any other major Scottish Railway stations where provisions for taxis are particularly poor? No. The recent change has been controversial. We had some notice that it was going to happen. That might sound like a contradiction. We knew that it was tabled, but when it happened, it happened very quickly and with little notice. That has been an issue in itself. However, generally speaking, taxis are in close proximity to the stations and they are dealing with dropping off and picking their passengers up at a local level. For the record, what was the notice period? Anecdotally, I heard from transport people in the city of Edinburgh Council that they found out about the final date for change by reading it in the evening news. That was where I got my information. That is helpful. The last one is about signage. We had a number of witnesses complaining about signage when they leave the stations about how they move forward to the next mode of transport. How do you accept that that is a problem? Secondly, how would you go about improving the signage in and around the station to assist passengers? I will start with you, Mr Kenmure, but I am sure others. Certainly, I am conscious that the last thing that anybody wants in a pedestrian environment is bristling with signs. I understand that. One of the proposals for the further development of connecting with—sorry, to come back to Waverley station, but with Waverley station is to move the major taxi provision to Calton Road. I have to say that the development of the entrance there is terrific. It is a relatively quiet road. The new drive-in has been really well designed and built. Unfortunately, the only way to get to the station then is on a lift and into the network. It is a drop-off only at the present time, but there is a suggestion that a taxi rank on Calton Road might become the main provision. That is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, Calton Road, at the moment, exits on to Leith Street, the top of Leith Walk. You can only turn left on to Princes Street and you then have to drive past the taxi rank that is on Waverley steps. Unfortunately, it does not really lead you anywhere. However, our major concern with moving taxis anywhere would be the provision of signage. There are some signs that say the word taxi on them if you look hard enough, but they are not obvious and neither are the signs for assistance. A change in the position of the taxi ranks, would you be informed of that in advance or be given some help along to organise a signage? Those conversations have mostly been taken place between us and the City of Edinburgh Council. The council, in turn, has been suggesting that it would put the necessary pressure on the network rail to provide the signage. From the point of view of the pedestrian or anyone who is using a bicycle, signage is really important, particularly knowing the best route to get to a station. On my regular commute to my office, which is at Haymarket, I speak quite frequently, usually to visitors who are trying to figure out the way to Haymarket station, very often when they are only about a half mile or less from it. That takes me back to the issue around when a station is being redeveloped. What is the radius for people walking to it and what is the radius for people getting to it by bicycle and how can they be signed? People rely on signs, more than any other, more than clever technology or maps. It is signs on the street that they go, oh, that is great, right, I follow that sign, that will take me to whichever station I want to get to. So it is Queen Street, I am looking for Queen Street, there is a sign. It would be unthinkable to develop a road network to drive on without signage, but quite often it is an afterthought for people who are walking or cycling. I think that it takes me back to the idea that when you are redeveloping or just even promoting a station, there is a sum of money that is available outwith the boundary of the physical station itself, and you can then employ whoever it is, the local authority or whoever, to do a sign and schedule for those key routes from hotels, the places that people stay in when they are near a station to get to the station. Quite often, there is a feeling that the station is impermeable because you do not know where it is in relation to where you are in the city around about you. Signage is massively important for people who are walking. I know the answer to that, but what sort of discussions have first such trans had with Network Rail and local authorities about the signage? I know none. I should pause there. We would have discussions if the national cycle network, which we are responsible for, was running near to the station, but outwith that none. We talk to local authorities quite a lot more now through the Government's new funding stream, Smarter Choices, Smarter Places, which is very welcome, which allows local authorities to invest more in signing plans and schedules around, but there is no coherence between Network Rail, local authority and groups like ourselves. I just wanted to add a bit to what John has said. The potential is huge around stations for getting people to walk or cycle to them. In Scotland, a cycle journey is about 4.4 km on average. It is similar to the Netherlands and Denmark, which is a very high-modal share, and they average about 3 to 4 km. If you draw a 5 km ring around each of the stations that are identified in the study here, it is a huge amount of population of people that actually access that, that are then able to then access employment, education, friends and family visiting, services and leisure. To use employment as an example, we are focusing on the main stations, but as I was saying before, the door-to-door journey is very important. If you look at places like East Renfrewshire, which is a satellite of Glasgow, lots of people use the train, approximately 15 to 20% of those within 2 km of a station use the train to travel to work. It is a huge amount of people already engaged in the train. John's point was definitely about making sure people understand where the cycle routes are, where the walking routes are, what the distance is. It is also additionally about promoting the fact that it is possible to travel by foot or by bike to those stations. Having good signage is obviously good for those people who need to find their way and have decided that they want to travel by foot or by bike. There is a huge potential there in terms of identifying people that maybe had not thought about it at first. They see good cycle parking, for example. They see the signage that is there in place, and then they will actually utilise a bike or walk by foot or travel by foot to that station and obviously enjoy all the benefits of possibly changing to a low-carbon mode. Many of the local authorities have bus operator forums and bus signage at railway stations is an issue that very often is on the agenda. However, I am very quite sure that we actually close the loop in terms of the local authority, then working with Network Rail and ScotRail to deliver something. Probably there is a need to go back and look at how we can improve that and get the loop closed and get some of the improvements that people have asked for. It is important that people arrive at a train station and have a good idea that if they go to the door at the left, I can get that bus. If it is the one to the right, my options are A, B and C. We are not quite there yet in some locations, but it is that loop being closed that is the important issue. That sounds like a good idea. Thank you, convener. Just before I start, I would like to commend Mr Lodder for the terrific work that Sustrans have done across the Highlands and Islands in providing that cycle network and pathways. The committee undertook its own survey of passengers on this issue of accessibility of stations. One of the interesting things that we found was that cyclists were much more likely to give very poor ratings for accessibility and general friendliness for the perimeters around stations than other station users. Do you agree with that? Can you share any light on why cyclists in particular are so critical of this aspect? Thank you for the question. I think that it goes back to that stations do create a lot of movement in their busy places. From them, naturally, there will be a lot of movement of vehicles on the streets or on the roads of two stations. Understandably, taxis are plying their trade, buses have got to drop people off and pick people up and move them. That creates a general sense of busyness in the streets around them. The closer you get to the station, the more congested the roads will get. That is what we are focusing on on the big stations. That is definitely the experience. The closer you get, the busier the road gets. Setting aside the hay market where you have now got the added concern about dropping your front wheel into the tram line, you are simply experiencing more and more busyness as you get to it. Because you have busy roads, they will not have the type of segregated cycle lane that you would get in northern European city. Therefore, you are mixing all the time with traffic. That can be tricky and challenging. You have some quite busy roads right outside stations. Haymarket Terrace, for example, in Edinburgh, is very busy. Traffic is wanting to move at 30mph, therefore accelerating and decelerating, and it is just a general sense of having to really look out for yourself. That makes getting to a station on a bicycle not a pleasant experience at all. Sometimes you might have a good experience, for example at Central Station in Glasgow, where there is a segregated two-way cycle lane coming down Waterloo Street. That is great, very good, but that is one way to get to the station. Otherwise, I think that is why people will be so very, very unhappy. I imagine that people will be unhappy because, in our evidence and as Nathan has covered, there is probably very, very little space outside the station to park your bicycle, and then getting your bicycle into the station to park it is difficult. You just have, in the case of Queen Street, quite limited parking around the station, so you are probably looking for a place to park your bike. You are mixing with pedestrians when you do that. You are bumping into people, which you do not want to do. You are just getting in everybody's way, whereas the experience in other small northern European countries will be a definite place to park your bike. It will be substantial. You will know that you will be able to park it and you will not have to mix with pedestrians or people getting in and out of taxis. Sorry if I sound like a stuck record on it, but I think that it is where there is a physical red line drawn around the development. We will focus on what happens inside that and outside that. The local authority can deal with that. If the local authority has not got a budget with which to perhaps lower traffic speeds, reallocate road space, just make the whole experience better and more predictable for somebody on a bicycle, therefore nothing will be improved. The whole emphasis will be on finding your way and figuring out where you are going to go next. Thank you. You have anticipated my next question. That is very useful. Is it fair to say that the solution to the problem or the possibilities for improvement would perhaps lie more with local authorities than with Network Rail? It is a combination. It is a difficult thing to bring together different people. You have Network Rail anticipating increased demand and increasing patronage. Therefore, more people are being drawn to their facility. You have the local authority who are almost cut out of the loop in terms of providing improved access to the facility. You may have a very large budget that is improving the facility, but the budget cannot be used outside the station boundary. I think that it should be possible to bring those together. It happens in other respects. It happens with major developments or retail as well, so people can work together. The final point would be that it works with housing, for example. Therefore, housing developments and traffic implications are looked at quite rigorously before the developments are given approval. I am not sure that that happens. Nathan might know more, but I am not sure that that happens with stations. I do not know that the station or Network Rail need to talk to the local authority on how we are going to cope with the increased demand to it. I do not think that it is one person's job or another. I think that it is about bringing people together to work and use public funds in a better way. The best outcome would be for everybody to be working together to try to market so simple and easy that people want to come back and experience the whole thing once again and become regular users in buses and taxis and whatever means they use to get to the station. It is to start at the beginning and work its way through to the station, into the station and into the platform. Even if you are on an intermediate point, if I board my train on a Thursday evening to back up to Aberdeen at Waverley, I can go at the train and find carriage A. If I am on the platform at Haymarket, A could either be at the front or be at the back. You have that. Why, in this day and age, when you get to providing information to the public to make things easier, why can we never have the situation that the train, as it leaves a station, always has carriage A at the front? I find it really difficult at Haymarket trying to deal with that. Is it the front? Is it the back? Everybody is running back and forth to get their seat, the book, to get people that are, even with assistance, it must be horrendous. Marking it simple and easy for people to use so that you always know that A is going to be at the front would save so much hassle. If we all worked with that thought in mind, as John suggested, then I think that we could get a good result. In terms of my earlier question, I have got the sense from all the witnesses, both at today's session and last week's session, that Network Rail has been perhaps not as good as it could have been in engaging with stakeholders. In terms of what the suggestion was that there needs to be better collaboration between Network Rail and the local authorities, do you feel, is it possible to give a sense of, is the reason for that not happening, are there workings on the part of Network Rail, or is it just not really on the agenda at all that these two public organisations should be talking to each other? I think that you have hit the nail on the head there that it has simply not been on the agenda. I have been very conscious of some change over the past year to two years in the city of Edinburgh Council in particular and much more focus on integration. It is a shame that integration tends to become an item on the agenda once a project is completed. I hope that the concept of modern transport is an item one on the agenda, is how does it integrate. I hate to mention the tram, but that has taught us some more lessons there about where do you pick someone up and drop them off if they want to get on a tram, on your place you don't, on Princes Street you don't and at the west end you don't, because cars aren't allowed there. Integration is something that's bandied about and it's a word that comes into any discussion about transport, but it's rarely acted upon and I've appreciated John's comments about this red line. That's a good way of picturing it. I hadn't thought about it that way, but it seems clear to me that the managers of transport hubs are focused very much on once they've captured the customer, what do they do with them, but they haven't thought about how they get there and how they leave, which seems fundamental to the concept of transport, but unfortunately it's so often missing. Thank you very much, I used to be a joiner, so I'm glad I can still hit the odd nail in the head. Thank you, convener. Adam? No, no. Can I ask the witnesses if there's anything that they would like to put in the record that they haven't had an opportunity to say this morning? John? There's just one thing that I did put in my evidence and I appreciate it is out with the scope of your inquiry, but it is to commend the work of the team developing the borders line in Network Rail, which has been really good to work with. We've been involved with that project right from the moment the proposal was granted and it went moving forward. That was because the project sponsor in Network Rail was also the project sponsor for Airdrie Bathgate, and we were involved in Airdrie Bathgate because we owned, we had a cycle route on the railway line, which was then quite rightly reinstated. We worked with that person for quite a number of years. As a result of that, I think that the integration has been very good between Network Rail, Midlothian and borders groups like ourselves who have had budgets and have been able to utilise budgets that we manage. I think that access to the stations along the borders line, I'm hoping, is going to be really quite good for food and for people arriving with a bicycle. I know that it's out with the scope of what you're looking at. I'm going to ask each of the witnesses to leave the committee with a take-home message and to be as brief as possible. What's the one thing that you would want us to take away from today's session? If I may, I just gave my closing speech. That is the earlier that integration is considered in any development, the better for all concerned. Generally encouraging closer working between the key partners in this, working hard to deliver simple and easy to understand information on how you link journeys up. Just to reaffirm what I mentioned before in terms of the policies and the commitments that are there, particularly around the shared vision of 10 per cent plus the long-term vision on active travel. I think that it's just to encourage all parties involved to reaffirm their commitment to that and take actions to deliver on that vision. In terms of access to urban railway stations specifically? In terms of access to urban railway stations, as everyone mentioned here, following on from that is to learn from the things that have actually been positive and have been successful in Scotland, such as, for example, the Stirling Cycle Hub and other various aspects that have helped to improve access for people who are cycling in those particular areas and learn from them and share that information and find out ways to be able to implement those good practices across each of those main line stations. Mr Lodder, you have the last word. That's a dangerous thing to do with me. I would just draw the committee's attention to recommendations 3 and 4 in our paper. I'm actually quite hopeful. I think that with the appointment of a bellio on the new management structure, we could be on the eve of a much more coherent way to look at how we access our major urban rail station. That's a very positive. There are some simple steps at point 3, which I think could be tackled now. I think that point 4, we've all said the same thing, which is essentially that there needs to be a change in culture and a much less siloed approach to how transport is delivered, especially because it's all being delivered with public money in terms of how stations are built and how local authorities operate. That being the case, I would want to see those silos broken down and a much better team approach to how transport is delivered. I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning and I'll now allow a brief pause for witnesses to leave the room. Our second agenda item is for the committee to consider its annual report for the parliamentary year between 11 May 2014 and 10 May 2015. Can I invite any general comments that members have on the draft annual report, which has been circulated in advance of today's meeting? David? My view is that the report was well drafted and I think summarised the various issues that we've raised. Could I just mention, as far as European issues were concerned, the committee kindly made me the EU reporter just to say that I've arranged to go to Brussels in the first week of the recess to pick up a few general transport and funding issues, particularly on the EU funding. So just for the record, I'll let members know that I'm pursuing the EU reporter with vigor and energy. I don't think that that impacts on the content of our report, but that's a very helpful clarification, Mr Stewart. Anyone else? So there's no comments and changes on the report? Yes, of course. I understand that the Andrew reports, I think, that the current was still involved in this, will be in a new format in the future, which shall look more user-friendly. I think that this is already in a new format, is that correct? Well, when it's completed. I believe that when this is published, I'm reliably informed by Clark that there will be photographs and graphics that will provide a different look to the report from previous years. Photographs of matters that are relevant to the activities of the committee. I think that the key, certainly I saw some drafts in the past, that I think is a great project and I think it will make the Andrew reports of all committees a lot more readable and accessible and we should really be encouraging that and using the sort of journalistic inputs as well, which is worth doing. Do members of any other comments on the content of the report? In that case, can I invite members to agree the report and to publish this on Friday 5 June? Agreed. Thank you, we are agreed. I now move this meeting into private session.