Revived Glasgow Airport Rail link Plans

[NotATrainspott]

Maybe there is no need for a rail connection. It appears to be unsuitable and costly. There is good connections from both Glasgow and Paisley.

Put the money in to upgrading the buses and running them more frequently with better facilities. If it costs hundreds of millions for a basic ineffective rail link for the sake of having a rail link, think what the hundreds of millions could do for a more viable road link.

Unless a rail link via Gallowhill jcn to the airport and Renfrew is built, there is no real benefit for rail.

This is a complete u-turn from me because I thought a rail link was essential but a tram from paisley to the airport is pointless.

That's the right sort of thinking to have when you want to spend any amount of money on transport improvements. Rather than saying that you want a rail link and you just need to find out what sort of rail link would be best, your goal should be something like 'enhance public transport between Glasgow Airport and the city centre'. Then you can look at the whole series of available options to find the one with the best business case. That might mean you end up with an enhanced bus service but if that bus service delivers most of the benefits for a fraction of the cost, then the extra that would have been spent on the airport can now be spent elsewhere. A smorgasbord of bus priority measures on the M8 might cost a few tens of millions of pounds compared to more than a hundred million for a rail link, leaving around a hundred million left to spend on some other worthwhile project like reopening to Leven or extending the Borders Railway to Hawick.

 

[HH]

However, realising the financial constraints we have, I think a light rail service to Paisley Gilmour Street is the best option we have.

That's the best rail option for sure, in terms of cost and deliverability.

There are good bus links to Glasgow, but at the wrong time of day they can take a long time.

The links to PGS can hardly be described as good IMO.

 

[me123]

10tph to Glasgow Central and the connections it provides. 4tph to Ayr, 2tph to North Ayrshire, 4th to Inverclyde. Pretty decent connectivity at Paisley Gilmour Street (whose code is PYG, just to be picky). I think Paisley Gilmour Street has excellent connectivity.

Admittedly, it lacks connections to the North and West of the city. But Crossrail as proposed really doesn't provide this either! Crossrail is often cited as a missing link, but I think the real missing link is between Paisley and Partick.

 

[HH]

Sorry, I meant the connection Airport to PGS.

 

[Altnabreac]

Maybe there is no need for a rail connection. It appears to be unsuitable and costly. There is good connections from both Glasgow and Paisley.

Put the money in to upgrading the buses and running them more frequently with better facilities. If it costs hundreds of millions for a basic ineffective rail link for the sake of having a rail link, think what the hundreds of millions could do for a more viable road link.

Unless a rail link via Gallowhill jcn to the airport and Renfrew is built, there is no real benefit for rail.

This is a complete u-turn from me because I thought a rail link was essential but a tram from paisley to the airport is pointless.

I can't help thinking that the Personal Rapid Transport option (Option 4) might be the best one.

The cost at £62M is relatively affordable and it has a pretty decent BCR of 1.62 - 1.97.

If you integrated the scheme to run from Paisley Gilmour St up Love St / Inchinnan Road but then serve the car parks / hotels / business park just south of the M8 and then on to airport and perhaps round to the long stay car park at Abbotsinch you could possibly improve the usage and BCR by replacing some of the many courtesy bus movements around the airport.

It seems to work pretty well at Heathrow Terminal 5 and high value customers don't have the same issues using it as they do with courtesy buses.

A similar scheme is also being proposed for Birmingham Interchange Station on HS2.

Doesn't require any extra rail capacity and can be delivered by the City Region without needing to interface with TS / Network Rail.

 

[clc]

I can't help thinking that the Personal Rapid Transport option (Option 4) might be the best one.

The cost at £62M is relatively affordable and it has a pretty decent BCR of 1.62 - 1.97.

If you integrated the scheme to run from Paisley Gilmour St up Love St / Inchinnan Road but then serve the car parks / hotels / business park just south of the M8 and then on to airport and perhaps round to the long stay car park at Abbotsinch you could possibly improve the usage and BCR by replacing some of the many courtesy bus movements around the airport.

It seems to work pretty well at Heathrow Terminal 5 and high value customers don't have the same issues using it as they do with courtesy buses.

A similar scheme is also being proposed for Birmingham Interchange Station on HS2.

Doesn't require any extra rail capacity and can be delivered by the City Region without needing to interface with TS / Network Rail.

There are various reasons the Clyde Valley councils will want the tram-train option. One is economic - the project needs a high BCR to ensure the City Deal GDP uplift conditions are met. Another is political. The councils are Labour controlled and Labour spent a lot of time and effort lambasting the SNP for canceling GARL, telling voters how economically damaging the decision was. Now that they have a big pot of cash to implement a similar scheme they have to follow through and deliver. How can they not when they said it was so vital?

However, if the SNP takes control of Glasgow City Council and one or two of the other Clyde Valley councils in 18 months time you would expect the chances of the tram-train option being dumped in favour of a PRT system to increase significantly. Then hapless tourists will get to share cosy pods with local jakeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suppose the choice between Tram-Train and some kind of PRT/people mover would be influenced by the strategy for increasing Glasgow's terminal capacity.

The published BCRs are based on the limitations of the existing infrastructure. However, if a cross city tunnel was built I wonder how this would affect the business case for a people mover given the tunnel would give Gilmour St direct services to a wide area of West/Central Scotland? Tram-Train's with their relatively low top speed wouldn't be able to operate on fast inter-regional routes accessed via the tunnel such as Dunblane, Alloa and Edinburgh, so a transfer at Central would still be required and you're still using up capacity at Central.

If it was decided that a cross city tunnel was too expensive then I think Tram-Train would be preferable. PRT to Gilmour St then change for train to Central would have too low a modal shift to make it worthwhile.

 

[XC90]

Is it just a coincidence the SNP sold the land for the viaduct back to the original owner for a fraction of the cost they bought it for, just before they purchased the only airport in Scotland with a rail link?

 

[Altnabreac]

Is it just a coincidence the SNP sold the land for the viaduct back to the original owner for a fraction of the cost they bought it for, just before they purchased the only airport in Scotland with a rail link?

Yes. Compulsory purchase law is such that you have to sell back land no longer required and the price is fixed by an assessor.

As regards Prestwick the purchase was more one of desperation to prevent job losses and while it has plenty of trains it is more lacking in planes, a key ingredient of an airport!

I don't think Prestwick is a very effective competitor at the moment rail link notwithstanding.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would hesitate in making generalisations such as this:

The Scottish government appear to be averse to direct rail links to airports having cancelled the previous plans for stations at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, with a lot of money already spent on preparatory works. The only Scottish airport with its own train station, Prestwick, now has only one or two flights per day!

What about Dalcross Station which we can expect being built shortly to serve Inverness Airport?

I strongy favour proposals for a rail link into Glasgow Abbotsinch, in view of the large numbers of road vehicles it could displace. With much of the enabling works having been completed at Central, then that would be the obvious terminal, though the ideal arrangement would be for airport trains to integrate with the suburban and/or regional rail network (as they do in London, Mancester and Newcastle).

 

[Dryce]

I strongy favour proposals for a rail link into Glasgow Abbotsinch, in view of the large numbers of road vehicles it could displace. .

The rail link is of limited attraction to commuter traffic or families going on holiday - who would use cars or taxis.

Commuters hitting the airport from early flights would get limited benefit from the link as the rest of the network connecting them to GLC isn't available to them that early. So cars and taxis will still rule.

Familes and holiday makers with luggage aren't going to want to haul themsleves and their stuff on buses or suburban trains to get to GLC and transfer to the rail link. The cost of doing this and hassle with a group of more than 2 starts to make taxis the whole way look cheap.

Then we have the split in rail services in Glasgow between GLC and GLQ -again a group of 2 or more passengers arriving at GLQ with luggage will probably find it easier just to take a taxi - or the airport bus - direct to the airport.

And for passengers maybe thinking of getting dropped off or picked up by private car at GLC to use the link - not really - GLC is broken as regards private car drop off and pickup access and judging by recent news is going to become even more broken.

Figures I recall from Manchester were just 11% of air passengers using the rail connection - and Manchester's profile is such that it pulls in passengers from a larger cachment area it benefits from direct long distance rail services - and that includes direct services to Glasgow.

It's hard to see Glasgow's link matching Manchester's numbers. At a guess it will pull traffic from the bus services and have low impact on private car and taxi use.

 

[me123]

I strongy favour proposals for a rail link into Glasgow Abbotsinch, in view of the large numbers of road vehicles it could displace. With much of the enabling works having been completed at Central, then that would be the obvious terminal, though the ideal arrangement would be for airport trains to integrate with the suburban and/or regional rail network (as they do in London, Mancester and Newcastle).

Every time I've flown from Glasgow (ever), I've departed before 9am. A huge proportion of flights leave at this time (I think around 1/3), and in the afternoon the airport can be very quiet with just a few flights an hour.

Needing to arrive at the airport early means that I simply could not use the airport rail link and guarantee that I would make my flight, as the first trains from there I lived left after 6am. Unless they start running trains at 4-5am on the suburban commuter routes. To families, passengers with lots of luggage, anyone from outwith the city centre... it will be of limited use. The best results from people outwith the city centre will come from Ayrshire and Inverclyde, and these people will have to change at PYG anyway!

People already overwhelmingly drive to the airport, and I can't see GARL changing that.

 

[HH]

You're ignoring the fact that people also fly to Glasgow, not just fly from...

 

[Dryce]

You're ignoring the fact that people also fly to Glasgow, not just fly from...

But they aren't likely to be using private cars unless being met. So minimal impact on private car use at the airport? For these customers the rail link is competing with taxis and bus services. (Yes in principle they could be met at GLC if being met by private car ..... but then they're faced with the issue of GLC's lack of suitability for that purpose).

So for them the link competes with taxis and buses. And even then only in a limited set of geographic and group size circumstances. For those travelling to Glasgow as opposed to beyond the same arguments apply as for locals when it comes to dealing with getting a group with luggage to their end destination if it's outside the city centre. So a taxi is still potentially more attractive.

And on departure they are still subject to the same issues when trying to connect with early flights.

 

[dcsprior]

But they aren't likely to be using private cars unless being met. So minimal impact on private car use at the airport? For these customers the rail link is competing with taxis and bus services. (Yes in principle they could be met at GLC if being met by private car ..... but then they're faced with the issue of GLC's lack of suitability for that purpose).

So for them the link competes with taxis and buses. And even then only in a limited set of geographic and group size circumstances. For those travelling to Glasgow as opposed to beyond the same arguments apply as for locals when it comes to dealing with getting a group with luggage to their end destination if it's outside the city centre. So a taxi is still potentially more attractive.

And on departure they are still subject to the same issues when trying to connect with early flights.

Surely from an environmental/congestion perspective, there's no difference between a taxi and an individual's car

 

[me123]

You're ignoring the fact that people also fly to Glasgow, not just fly from...

I hadn't forgotten, but yeah I haven't mentioned inbound traffic.

Glasgow has less inbound traffic than other major UK airports, and a bigger proportion of the flights are focussed on outbound tourist destinations (Tenerife etc) than inbound traffic.

People do, of course, visit Glasgow; and I'm sure they take the buses or a taxi at the moment if they're not hiring a car. The rail link will largely replace buses (unless it bypasses the city centre like some people seem to want...). People getting a taxi will still probably get a taxi unless the rail link opens up new destinations.

I'm not saying that a rail link would be pointless - I support it in some capacity, but I think expectations should be managed. A huge proportion of Glasgow's traffic is outbound tourist traffic leaving early in the morning, and I think a lot of these passengers would be reluctant or unable to shift.

Visitors will use whatever is available, and I can't imagine that public transport to an airport will encourage tourism. People are using the bus, and would use a shuttle to the railway station (as they do in New York JFK and EWR airports). A direct heavy rail link to the city centre would be helpful, but is simply not essential. And unless you're creating more capacity in Glasgow somehow (ask Altnabreac), I don't think this is the best use of the existing limited capacity.

 

[clc]

Yes. Compulsory purchase law is such that you have to sell back land no longer required and the price is fixed by an assessor.
.

That's right, under the 'Crichel Down' rules the government has to give the previous owner first refusal. The price will be the prevailing market value as determined by an independent valuer. If the previous owner declines the opportunity to re-purchase the land it can then be sold on the open market.

 

[Altnabreac]

Surely from an environmental/congestion perspective, there's no difference between a taxi and an individual's car

Not quite as licensed taxi will tend to try and carry a fare each way so you are potentially reducing emissions / congestion up to 50%.

Private hire more likely to make a specific round trip so on a par with an individuals car.

 

[Dryce]

Surely from an environmental/congestion perspective, there's no difference between a taxi and an individual's car

There seems to be a particular paranoia in Glasgow regarding private cars.

Also, the airport seems to have a thing about the number of people who are dropped off (and picked up) by private cars. The principle I suspect is that a drop off involves a return journey to the airport to drop off on departure - and a return journey to pickup - whereas notionally a taxi may drop off and then collect passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not quite as licensed taxi will tend to try and carry a fare each way so you are potentially reducing emissions / congestion up to 50%.

But somebody driving to the airport and parking is carrying a passenger each way - and moreover not carrying the extra load of the driver.

More efficient still. And the 'drop off' / 'pickup' occurs in a car park.

However the airport charges so much for on site parking that taxis are more attractive than they otherwise would be.

 

[edwin_m]

Not quite as licensed taxi will tend to try and carry a fare each way so you are potentially reducing emissions / congestion up to 50%.

Private hire more likely to make a specific round trip so on a par with an individuals car.

I got the impression Paisley taxis have a monopoly at the airport which I think means Glasgow ones can't pick up there.

 

[Dryce]

I got the impression Paisley taxis have a monopoly at the airport which I think means Glasgow ones can't pick up there.

My recollection is that until the early/mid-80s the taxis were Glasgow black cabs. The airport was considered part of Glasgow.

Then the Paisley taxis argued that the airport was in their area and the Glasgow cabs got pushed out.

Then the Renfrew taxis did the same thing and the Paisley cabs got pushed out.

And then in the intervening period the taxi services became rather more organised and it's now contracted every few years to an operator under the control of Renfrewshire Council.

 

[ScotTrains]

In the UKIP Scottish manifesto, announced today, they pledge to "Bring forward both the rail link to Glasgow International Airport from Glasgow Central Station and the Crossrail Glasgow project".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-35985165
Looks like there is a growing appetite across the political spectrum for this airport link.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In the UKIP Scottish manifesto, announced today, they pledge to "Bring forward both the rail link to Glasgow International Airport from Glasgow Central Station and the Crossrail Glasgow project".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-35985165
Looks like there is a growing appetite across the political spectrum for this airport link.

Probably not.

 

[Traveller54]

In the UKIP Scottish manifesto, announced today, they pledge to "Bring forward both the rail link to Glasgow International Airport from Glasgow Central Station and the Crossrail Glasgow project".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-35985165
Looks like there is a growing appetite across the political spectrum for this airport link.

They're also proposing increasing the drink drive limit back to that in the rest of the U.K., taking folk away from late night buses and trains back into their cars!

 

[Agent_c]

Just the typical "we'll promise anything" nonsense from a party that will never have to actually try to deliver any of its promises, and thus can say the silliest, unfeasable nonsense.

Vote for the world domination party, we'll add a tap in every home that dispenses hot chocolate, and make Mexico pay for it...