Here are some of your views online.
Don't forget you can read more letters and the best in news and sports coverage in the St Andrews Citizen every week.

Harmful
sprays?
Sir, — Last Thursday, I looked out my window to witness a small motorized vehicle driving down the pavement on the sidewalks of my neighbourhood spraying what appeared to be a herbicide on both sides of the concrete. The vehicle was manned by two men in white suits and bore the Fife Council insignia. Before I could get outside to ask them what they were spraying they had left the neigbourhood and were gone down the main road back to town.
The same afternoon, I called Fife Council and spoke to someone in the parks division who was able to tell me the name of the herbicide and that it was not harmful to children or animals because, as soon as it touched a green leaf, it was fixed to the plant and would not contaminate anything else. When I pressed further to ask him for the spelling of the name of the herbicide so that I could do my own research he said he would have to get back to me and quickly hung up. I have not heard from parks again.
I am concerned for three reasons:
1. For the health and safety of the children who play on the sidewalks of our neighbourhood;
2. For the potential environmental contamination;
3. For the increasing presence of superweeds which are resistent to herbicides.
My children, like most children, spend a lot of time on their hands and knees looking at bugs, picking up leaves, collecting flowers along the concrete, dragging the feet in the dirt and along the curbs. They seek out the same wild bits of land and wood and untended paths that weeds do. This tendency puts them in the greatest danger of contamination from any chemicals sprayed in these areas. I hate having to ask my children not to touch the grass and weeds and rocks which they find as they are out walking. I do not want them to fear the natural world as a potential source of pollution to their bodies. And yet I do not want them to get sick from harmful sprays. Most pesticides claim to be safe, yet even the most common of all herbicides has been known to cause breathing difficulties, loss of muscle control and convulsions. It has also been linked to cancer and liver damage.
Despite the fact that Fife Council assured me the herbicide is harmless to the environment, research proves otherwise. Pesticides which fix to the roots of weeds or to minerals in the soil only remain fixed until a heavy rain washes them away at which time they contaminate our water supplies and move off the concrete and into our gardens. Herbicides are known to be harmful to amphibians. What of the 90 per cent of the chemicals sprayed that never touch a green leaf? In our neighbourhood the weeds are few and far between. The spray has no chance to attach itself to anything, but lays waiting on the concrete for a child, a dog, or a bird to come and walk through it where it will attach itself to a shoe or foot and possibly be carried indoors and into gardens.
Finally, on a global level, I think that the indescirminant use of herbicides on a town wide level is irresponsible. People are spending millions of dollar each year on chemicals to kill weeds.The result is not fewer weeds but stronger ones which will need stronger chemicals to combat them every year. I think our grandparents had a better solution for weeds, they pulled them out of the ground by the roots, end of story.
I would like to see St Andrews stop spraying for weeds, especially along neighbourhood streets. But, if the spraying continues, at least we could be notified when the sprayers will pass in our neighbourhoods so we can warn our children to keep off the curbs for a few days to give the chemicals time to fix to something other than their hands and sneakers. In addition, signs could be posted at the entrance to neighbourhoods saying when the herbicide was sprayed so that anyone who missed the advance notice would know that it had happened and take precautionary measures. — Yours, etc.,
Jennifer Rinterknecht,
3 Hay Fleming Avenue,
St Andrews.

Rail
link
Sir, — Ms Liston states that there will be parking at the St Andrews station. Can she please explain where? There is a finite amount of space, most of which will be taken up by the station. There is simply not enough room at Petherum. I stand by my comment that bank holiday traffic will not be reduced by a rail link as families will still drive to the coast.
I did not make any comment about a rail link having a detrimental affect on my business and did not ask anyone to appease me. My opinion is based on my knowledge of the travelling public. I am not just a taxi driver but also a pedestrian and a user of public transport.
Ms Liston is blinkered by the fact that a rail link would suit her travelling needs.
I am certain that, several times a year, the service would be full to the brim but a few days a year cannot justify the enormous amount of public money that would need to be spent. — Yours, etc.,
JANE BATCHELOR,
Chairman of East Fife
Taxi Association,
8 Main Street,
Guardbridge.

Black
hole?
Sir, — When are governments and councils ever going to wake up and do their jobs properly?
I, for one, am sick of big business and banks being bailed out by them. On tax payers' money, too!
Britain is sinking into a black hole caused by the greed of many industries in relation to its customers and employees. Never before in history have taxes been so high and the every day cost of living has sky rocketed. And what do we get for this? Substandard services, more unemployment, shabby wages, and this equals big business profits. Probably invested overseas too!
I pray for the day we ever see a politician who uses common sense, stands up to big business, invests in publicly-owned wind/hydro energy which is never contracted out to the private industries and builds some more darn homes so human beings don't have to sleep out in the streets.
And since the big boys of political parties seem to enjoy being on the internet for comment, perhaps they would grace us with the opportunity to vote by email on every issue before they make decisions on legislation or spending. At least then we citizens could have a say.
The majority vote rules, not the minority in their little blinkered social circles.
Wake up citizens. If you want action, stand up and be counted. — Yours, etc.,
KAREN HUTCHENCE,
66 Langlands Road,
St Andrews.

Rail
link
Sir, — May I respond to the letter from Ms Liston in your paper of June 6.
I did not compare the situation of the 1950s and 60s to the rail situation now, I gave the reasons for the demise of the railways since that time. I stand by my comments as they are a matter of history, all the reasons I gave are why we find ourselves with such a poor railways system now.
For Ms Liston's information, prior to the Second World War the UK had 23,000 miles of railway.After the cuts of the late 1960s this was reduced to less than 11,000. British Rail were not, as she stated, cutting branch lines for fun, they were trying to reduce loss-making lines.
Ms Liston also states that there is no evidence that the St Andrews branch was losing money. Sorry, wrong again.
At a meeting in the Victory Hall on September 2, 1968, British Rail spelled out just exactly how much the branch was losing, so much so that the Town Council asked BR to consider keeping the line open if Fife County Council would meet the £20,000 subsidy. BR agreed to do this, however the County Council were not prepared to meet the cost, so the line was closed. As I said previously, it was the loss of freight traffic, competition from buses, the family car, which all contributed to the closure of branch lines all over the UK.
The final nail in St Andrews' coffin, so to speak, was the opening of the Tay Road Bridge in 1966. The St Andrews line lost 40 per cent of its business with the opening of the bridge, and no line could sustain that kind of loss of revenue. Many other branch lines all over the country suffered in the same way as St Andrews, though many of them even today do not have such a good public transport system as we do.
All this information is contained in the recently-published book on the St Andrews Railway, published by Oakwood Press and available at Innes bookshop.
So please, Ms Liston, no more lectures on the railways. You see, it is a hobby of mine to study the history of the railways in the UK, and, no, I am not an ''anorak'' or a train spotter, I just find the history of railways a fascinating subject. Also, if it wasn't for the engineering skills of our forefathers, most of the world would be without railways.
I would now like to turn my attention to Ms Liston's comments on the survey she carried out. I find it very strange that she thinks her survey was a fair reflection on people's opinions, yet disagrees with the Wilson report, of around 2000, saying that its findings were flawed. Or was it just that it did not fit in with Ms Liston's dreams of a new rail link?
I have also read the Steer Davis Gleave report of 2003, which again found that it was uneconomic to reopen that St Andrews branch. They looked not only at a light railway but also at a heavy railway, and both were considered far too expensive. The L.R.T.system would cost £64 million, the heavy railway £36 million, both would have to be heavily subsidised, as the report found that there were not enough potential passengers available.
Ms Liston also makes much of the recently reopened Alloa line, and I agree it is wonderful for the people in that area to have access to the railway. However, the line is not solely reliant on passenger traffic. A great deal of freight is being carried, coal for the Longannet power station, and freight that was previously carried over the Forth Rail Bridge. This freight will help to offset any losses incurred on passengers. It will be interesting to see a breakdown of the figures in five years' time.
On her point of the car park at Leuchars always being full. Does she really believe that all those cars start their journey from St Andrews? I think not. If the rail link to our town was reopened where would all these cars park?
There would be no room at the new St Andrews station, as most of the North Haugh spaces would be lost to the new station and the line coming in through Petherum Bridge car park. Also, do the owners of the Strathtyrum Estate want a rail line running through their property or, for that matter, does the university?
Sorry, Ms Liston, it is time to remove your rose-tinted spectacles and face up to the fact that St Andrews will not have a rail link in the foreseeable future, if ever. There is no great need for it, and no great support for it.
No doubt you will respond to this letter once more, recycling the same arguments that you have been writing to the Citizen for the last 10 years, however history shows that there is no demand for it. You may be prepared to risk millions of pounds of tax payers' money on your dream, but thank goodness the powers that be do not agree.
May I thank the editor and staff at the Citizen for allowing me to air my views, the authors of the book referred to in this letter and the staff at the town library for their help.
This is my last comment on this matter, as I believe that history stands with me on this issue. — Yours, etc.,
Les Beech,
30 St Nicholas Street,
St Andrews.

*****************
Sir, — I am writing in support of the movement to reinstate the local railway as, along with our rising fuel prices, urgent environmental action is needed world-wide.
Bringing back the train would be a small step in this direction — and, once established, it is hard to believe it would be used only by the 800 who returned their 'Starlink' forms. Better still, it should link up with the campaigners who write to the East Fife Mail, so railways could be an option through much more of Fife.
Ideally, it would need to be subsidised — I share the concerns of those who consider it would be prohibitively expensive — however at the moment the cost to the environment of not providing alternative transport (to the car), is surely the most important consideration. Trains, combined with off-road cycle tracks, could provide a way forward. — Yours, etc.,
SARAH HOWARD,
Bridgend Cottage,
Dunino.
*****************
Sir, — I'd like to make just a few short comments on the letter from the chair of the East Fife Taxi Association.
For a start, the Starlink campaign has never suggested that a new station should have no car-parking, or be accessible only by walking or cycling, and I know of no-one else who has.
Secondly, I'm sorry that Ms Batchelor is sick of hearing about traffic tailbacks on public holidays into St Andrews. However, the townsfolk are also fed up of being swamped by cars and, in addition, I would guess that the inhabitants of Cupar, Dairsie and even Guardbridge are also sick of an increased stream of St Andrews-bound cars trundling through their settlements every time somebody somewhere has a holiday or even just when it's a nice day. It should come as no surprise that the eastmost four miles of the A91 is the busiest stretch of road in north east Fife.
Finally, although one can appreciate the concerns of taxi drivers, it would be perverse to deny such an important destination and economic generator as St Andrews a means of attractive, efficient and environmentally-friendly transport simply to appease taxi drivers.
However, with the increasing numbers of people who visit the town, it is clear that there would still be plenty of work for taxis both at Leuchars and St Andrews, and a series of short runs of a mile or so have to be more cost-effective than sitting for up to five hours at Leuchars on the off-chance of a fare and perhaps having to run back six miles to town empty at the end of it.
There can be little doubt that a railway would be good for St Andrews and the surrounding area, and it is clear from the messages of support that the Starlink campaign continues to receive that an increasing number of people appreciate this. — Yours, etc.,
JANE ANN LISTON,
convenor,
Starlink (St Andrews Rail Link) campaign

New
Madras
Sir, — I was pleased to see the front page article on Madras College in last week's St Andrews Citizen but, having read it, I felt that the exclamation mark at the end of the heading was entirely justifiable.
I do not believe that I am being unduly impatient or unreasonable in thinking that two years spent "developing a business case" at great expense, which might result in a recommendation that ''a project'' should not progress, is not a good use of £1 million of public money. To avoid the time and money being wasted, consideration should surely be made, at the same time, of the alternative to a one-site Madras College; a new school in the north of Fife and a small Madras College in South Street with the modern buildings replaced. A proper decision could then be made on the merits and costs of both proposals.
The two-school proposal has a number of financial and environmental advantages:
1. Children would be bussed shorter distances to the new school, St Andrews, and Cupar, reducing the cost and environmental damage.
2. New school buildings could be designed to the highest environmental standards, helping the fight against global warming and reducing running costs.
3. The two-school proposal would be more flexible, as the rising birth rate now means that the projected numbers for the single school could soon be exceeded, whereas spare capacity could be built into two smaller schools.
It is good to know that possible sites for a new school have been identified, and that "the elected members have made a real commitment in writing to replace Madras," but what has happened so far does not inspire confidence:
1. The education officials provided councillors with figures which encouraged them to abandon the policy on which they were elected (and it is still national party policy to have smaller schools), and then announced that the figures could not be regarded as definite.
2. The council announces money to be spent on "developing a business case for the new Madras" and, in your article, the head of asset and facilities management services warns that this might recommend that it should not progress.
Is it any wonder that, despite last year's elections, many voters in St Andrews are still deeply cynical about Fife Council's ability to provide facilities for St Andrews within a reasonable timescale? — Yours, etc.,
DOROTHY A. SNEDDON,
20 Hepburn Gardens,
St Andrews.

St Andrews
rail link
Sir, — A rail link from Leuchars to St Andrews? How can Ms Jane Ann Liston justify the multi-million pound investment that this would surely cost when so much of the current road infrastructure of our lovely city is in poor condition, especially that in the housing schemes?
I would ask her to have a look at the terrible state of the bus shelter and pavement at the west end of Lamond Drive, weeds almost two feet high, tree leaning over at an angle and an earth base to the shelter which becomes mud when it rains. The adjoining pavement has subsided owing to drivers swerving onto the parking area beside the bus shelter, to avoid going over the speed bumps!
Being a fourth generation St Andrean, I well remember and used the railway, but to spend an obscene amount of money duplicating what Stagecoach buses do at the moment is hardly the economic or sensible option.
The problem at Leuchars is that the buses rarely meet the trains and, with people often time-constrained for meetings, etc., they will take the easy option and hop in a taxi to guarantee their prompt arrival to wherever they are going in the city
Judging by her recent letter in the Citizen (June 6), Ms Liston obviously has no concept of how the taxi trade operates as the taxi rank at the station is simply a holding base for cabs to wait for fares in the Leuchars/Balmullo/Guardbridge area, with the owners of the cars astute enough to have other cars available and based in the town itself so as not to have ''dead mileage.'' — Yours, etc.,
Ken Reid MBE,
201 Lamond Drive,
St Andrews.

Market
Street
Sir, — Your June 6 issue headlined that there was a possibility that Market Street may be pedestrianised some time in the future, and it brought back memories of a similar situation I witnessed while living in Brisbane, Australia, in the 1970s.
Brisbane City Council (BCC) for several years wanted to pedestrianise a city block length on Queen Street, the main city centre street.
There was complete opposition to this idea from most of the shops and large department stores etc. They predicted that customers would desert the shops in droves, there would be mass unemployment, bankruptcies etc etc.
After a few years the BCC decided to go ahead with the plans anyway, despite all the opposition. They closed off the section of the road to all traffic and diverted it around other streets, they laid paving stones, installed planter boxes, planted trees , created seating areas, attractive lighting, and allowed private entrepreneurs to operate small cafes and other types of businesses etc. in designated areas. When it was completed the public absolutely loved the whole idea and enjoyed the freedom of being able to wander around the area in safety, free of traffic, and the shops and department stores, who had previously predicted doom and despair, in fact enjoyed a huge boost in business.
It was not long before the shops and other businesses in other parts of Queen Street wanted the same thing done to their part of the street.
So before the doom and gloom merchants get going here, please take note. — Yours, etc.,
Jim Braid,
7 Farm Court,
Anstruther.

Post office
transfer
Sir, — We have, through the courtesy of your columns, rehearsed often enough the reasons why the post office should not be transferred to W.H. Smith. Now is not the time for rehashing old arguments However, if all we have heard over the last few weeks from post office customers is common currency in St Andrews, the present staff will be sorely missed.
The closure was none of their doing. Without exception they are cheerful, willing to help and brighten up our days; small wonder that all who are in the market for jobs elsewhere have already secured them. I'm sure your readers would like to join us in thanking them for the way they have carried out their work, particularly in the last months when it cannot have been easy. If the Post Office can so lightly dispense with a set of people like this, we are not surprised that it seems to be heading for the rocks.
Royal Mail's new mass-advertising claim to be "The People's Post Office" rings very hollow in St Andrews, since over 70 per cent of the town's "people" signed the petition against closure.
The community council, all our Fife councillors, our MSP, our MEP and our Westminster MP were all against it. Instead of a centenary telegram of congratulations from the Queen, our PO and its staff were suddenly given notice of termination. Since then the building has been sold for a reported £1.26 million, a lot less than last year's £3,041,000 salary-with-bonuses of the man behind the closures, Royal Mail chief executive, Adam Crozier.
We'll see if we really get the "shorter queues" we've been promised and "improved standards of service" from counter-staff expected to be efficient and loyal on only £6-odd an hour.
We'll see if the "state-of-the-art writing desks" (plural, note) match the long writing-counter we had before.
We'll see if they give us the same seating "facility" we had before.
We'll see if the disabled get all the parking directly outside they had on the double yellow lines before.
We'll see. But whatever we see, we'll miss the cheerful, familiar faces of our highly experienced staff and the whole experience of being PO customers in a noble building that was really "the people's post office" of St.Andrews. — Yours, etc.,

CHRIS CARTER,
9 Wardlaw Gardens,
St Andrews;

JUDY CUMMINS,
6 Kincaple Cottages,
Strathkinness;

TIG LANG,
5 Kincaple Cottages,
Strathkinness;

MARGARET SQUIRES,
30 East Scores,
St Andrews.

Royal Mail
wrecked?
Sir, — The rather smarmy letter from Pat McFadden, MP, is meant to convince us that the Government is doing a good job on post offices. This is manifestly not the case.
The reason the Post Office is losing custom and money is because the Government has taken so many services away from it and given them to other providers. The internet is not the answer for many people, particularly older people for whom pension payments and other facilities should have been left with the Post Office.
Where post offices are closed it means that, in many cases, people have to use their cars to drive to another one several miles away. This same Government tells us to use our cars lessand then forces us to use them more.
It is reported in the Press that 2500 post offices are to be closed, and then a further 4000 after that, out of a total of 14,000. This is a much higher figure than Mr McFadden admits to.
Overseeing this closure programme, and also the huge increase in the cost of a stamp, is the chief executive of Royal Mail whom the Government rewarded with a pay, bonus and pension package of £3 million for last year. How many post offices would £3million keep open, and for how long?
Morale at Royal Mail must be at an all time low because of closures and job losses. The workers also see that Mr McFadden is only a part time postal affairs minister since he is also employment relations minister.
The Royal Mail used to be an efficient organisation which provided an essential service through the network of post offices. Now it is being wrecked by a Labour Government whose latest slogan is " we are on your side". Some hope. — Yours, etc.,
J.M. Anderson,
72 Bow Butts,
Crail.

Rail
link
Sir, — May I respond to the main points of Mr Beech's last letter?
Firstly, the traffic and transport situation today is simply not comparable to that in the 1950s and 60s because of the vast increase in private motoring over the last 40 or 50 years.
Secondly, over 600 responses to a questionnaire administered as was the Starlink one, especially with limited resources, is by no means insignificant and almost puts it in the league of the St Andrews Strategic Study of 1998.
Thirdly, if the buses between St Andrews and Leuchars were all that is required to convey rail passengers then most of them would be using those buses, making them considerably fuller than they actually are. Also, the recently-expanded car-park at Leuchars would be emptier rather than overflowing.
Taxis certainly will always be in demand at a railway station but, when they have to sit for hours nearly six miles from the main customer base waiting for a possible fare at Leuchars, it cannot be a productive use of time, nor cost-effective when the driver is summoned all the way back into town without a fare. If there were a station in St Andrews, that ''dead mileage'' would be greatly reduced.
As for the traffic tail-backs at Easter and May Day, these have been a regular feature for several years now and they will continue to be so thanks to increased and increasing traffic.
To conclude: it is wonderful that Alloa is now accessible by rail, it is admirable that Laurencekirk will be so later in the year and it is highly desirable that Leven, too, should enjoy the benefit of train services.
The truth is, though, that none of these places attracts the number of visitors or is as well-known as St Andrews, whose anomalous lack of a rail connection is rapidly gaining ''elephant in the room'' status.
It is time the anomaly was rectified. — Yours, etc.,
JANE ANN LISTON,
Convenor,
Starlink (St Andrews Rail Link) campaign

Post
offices
Sir, — No one likes to see post offices closing, but as a society we are using them a lot less as more and more services become available online.
Eight out of 10 pensioners, for example, now have their pension paid directly into a bank account and among new retirees the figure is nine out of 10.
One million people a month renew their road tax online — a service that didn't even exist a few years ago. And about three quarters of the population have one or more direct debits to pay bills.
As a result, the Post Office has been losing custom and losing money. There are now about four million fewer customers a week compared to a few years ago and the network is losing half a million pounds every single day. In fact, if it wasn't for subsidies by the Government, thousands more branches would be under threat.
Across north east Scotland, Tayside and Fife 1.3m residents are currently served by 416 branches. We propose to close 42 and replace a further 37 with an outreach service. Under this proposal, 99.9 per cent of the population will see no change to the branch they currently use or will remain within one mile by road of an alternative outlet.
I know that no one wants to see any closures but it is important to remember that the vast majority of most post office branches will be unaffected — even after the closures are complete there will still be around 11,500 post offices.
The future for the Post Office network cannot be about turning the clock back and wishing away the changes in technology and communications that have taken place in recent years — changes that most of us have taken part in, in one way or another. It must be about developing new products and services which attract custom and about ensuring the viability of the network which remains after the current closures. — Yours, etc.,
Pat McFadden,
Minister for Employment
Relations and Postal Affairs

Highway
Code
Sir, — I'm amazed by the number of motorists who don't seem to know how to negotiate a roundabout.
I use the Forgan roundabout every day during the working week and am regularly cut up by drivers who appear not to have a clue.
It happened again on Tuesday (May 27) at around 8.40 a.m. when the driver of a metallic silver Renault Scenic was waiting to enter the roundabout from Newport and sitting on the right hand side of the road. I emerged on the left hand side, intending to turn off onto the A914 road to St Michaels and noticed the Scenic turning in behind me, the driver looking somewhat disgruntled. No wonder there are so many accidents on our roads!
Simply, the procedure is as follows: traffic emerging from Newport and wishing to turn left onto the dual carriageway or turn off onto the A914 should stay in the left hand lane of the roundabout, using their indicators accordingly. Only vehicles wishing to turn right onto the A92 trunk road should be in the right hand lane.
If in doubt, get your copy of the Highway Code out! — Yours, etc.,
FED UP
COMMUTER
(Name and address supplied)

Lucky
escape
Sir, — As someone who regularly drives into St Andrews to shop, I would urge Fife Council to hurry up and mark the road at the newly-expanded roundabout on Largo Road, next to the entrance to the new hospital and health centre.
I have three times had a lucky escape when, positioned in the correct lane to access John Knox Road, drivers — once, scarily in a large 4x4 — have cut across in front of me without warning from the inside lane and almost hit my car.
What is it about roundabouts in St Andrews? They are nothing like the monsters people negotiate safely in larger towns and cities yet drivers in the town constantly seem to disregard the priorities. Along Hepburn Gardens, at the junction with Buchanan Gardens, is another danger zone where drivers approaching the roundabout from Buchanan Gardens regularly drive straight onto the roundabout without slowing down, regardless of whether another vehicle is approaching from the right or, worse, already on the roundabout.
Come on Fife Council, let's have some more obvious warning signs to alert drivers (who should know better) how to avoid becoming a hazard to others. — Yours, etc.,
C. Black,
Anstruther.

Load of
rubbish!
Sir, — As someone who has constantly tried my best to help keep the environment around my home clean and tidy, may I just point out to whoever is cramming household rubbish into the bin I placed at the bridge over Kinnessburn — to stop people dumping it in the burn —that there is an £80 fine for dumping your rubbish in someone else's bin.
On Sunday, I found a garden umbrella, broken ceramic pots, plant boxes and Fife Council black bags full of earth in and beside the wheelie bin next to my home. On Monday, I saw a middle-aged couple dump a large bag of recyclable plastic bottles there and on Wednesday there was more household rubbish. The same day, I challenged students stuffing cardboard and plastic wrapping into the black council litter bin there.
I had to take all the garden rubbish up to the recycling centre on Saturday where staff informed me that dumping rubbish in other people's bins carried the fine. I just want to ask the dumpers: "who do you think will get rid of your rubbish for you?"
Trying to get through to Fife Council on the phone is virtually impossible. They don't want to know.
While recently trying to organise one of the beach cleans I have arranged over the years, it took 14 phone calls to get through to the person I needed and my patience was frayed to the limit. One young man in ''control?'' informed he could not put me through to an extension; I could not leave a voice message and 'no' he could not give me the direct line number — but he could send the person an e-mail! Ridiculous! I informed him that trying to get through to Fife Council was like getting through to the Kremlin and he replied that he didn't have an extension for them either! There is just no incentive for people to be good citizens. — Yours, etc.,
MONICA RAMSAY,
Ducks' Crossing,
Dempster Terrace,
St Andrews.

St Andrews
rail link
Sir, — Firstly I should like to thank Fife Council for their decision to allow the building of the new Medical and Research Department in the North Haugh, and hope that it will be of benefit to all. Not just to St Andrews, but hopefully to the sufferers of cancer and alzheimer's, or any of the other illnesses that the research may help find cures for.
I would also like to reply to Jane Ann Liston. I feel her views on my comments on the rail link were somewhat over the top. By her own admission, there is no proof that the St Andrews railway was not losing money. By the same token, there is no proof that it was making money either.
The history of the decision to close the many hundreds of branch lines throughout the UK was not made to cause problems to towns like our own, but was made for economic reasons.
After the end of the Second World War, the railways were faced with massive losses. Rail freight was being moved to road transport, as it was more economical. Manufacturers realised that they could save money by sending their goods straight to their customers by road, rather than send them to rail goods yards, load trains, then unload back on to lorries to distribute to their customers.
In the 1950s, the railways were losing millions of pounds per year and the writing was on the wall even then for the branch lines. With the advent of the family car this made the losses even worse, so the then British Railways decided to cut branch lines in the hope that, by diverting any money saved to the main lines, they could provide a better service. What is most surprising is that it took British Railways so long to carry out these cuts.
As we now know, even these dramatic cuts did not deliver the better service envisaged by the rail company.
So we now come to the present day, and Starlink and Ms Liston's campaign for a new rail link. Their own recent survey was trumpeted as 79 per cent of people in support of the rail link. Not quite the true picture. Twenty thousand questionnaires sent out, 611 replies. Of that 611, 79 per cent want the rail link reconnected.
What about the 97 per cent who did not reply? Was it because they believe it to be a waste of time? I, for one, would not like to put words into their mouths, but the lack of response says quite a lot.
As to the need for a rail link, why? The public transport system is very good as it is, although not perfect. There are currently six buses per hour passing through Leuchars, that is one every 10 minutes. Is that not sufficient for the town's needs? As Mr Stuart Winton pointed out, quite a lot of these buses run below their capacity for quite a lot of the time, outwith the usual rush hour periods.
Much is also made of the weekends when the students leave. Even with the rail link, there would still be overcrowding so that ends that argument.
As to trains being more comfortable, I doubt it as there is very restricted leg room on trains, just as there is on buses. The problem of overcrowding on buses when the students leave is the same as it is on trains. Check out how many people are standing next time you are at Leuchars when they go home on their next weekend.
Something else which is never mentioned by Ms Liston and Starlink is the taxi service. Taxis are, after all, public transport, so why are they not brought into the equation? Taxi fares may be quite high when compared to single bus fares but, if people share a taxi, the cost comes down considerably. Four-seater taxis are not much dearer than the bus, six or eight-seaters are a lot cheaper. I find their omission strange, considering Ms Liston sat on the taxi licensing committee!
One final point, if I may. When interviewed on TV recently, over the proposed Levenmouth rail link, Ms Liston commented on the tailback on the Guardbridge road during the Easter Bank Holiday weekend. She implied that this would not happen if we had a rail link. What she did not mention were the factors which caused most of the problems, namely the council's decision to put temporary traffic lights opposite the Rusacks Hotel on the Saturday morning, and then clear off for three days' holiday!
Also, did the road outside Holy Trinity Church have to be dug up the week before Easter and left for four days?
It is time for Starlink and Ms Liston to face up to the truth. — Yours, etc.,
LES BEECH,
30 St Nicholas Street,
St Andrews.

Common
sense
Sir, — The Starlink (St Andrews Rail Link) campaign is for the good of people who live in, work in or visit St Andrews rather than to benefit rail buffs, trainspotters or steam heritage devotees.
It is surely a matter of common sense that such a major generator of income for the Scottish economy as St Andrews be made as easily accessible as possible by fast, modern public transport.
Your correspondent, Mr Newton, is quite entitled to express his opinion of the proposal to reconnect St Andrews to the rail network, though the increasingly personal nature of his remarks is unfortunate.
However, the fact remains that the ability to reach St Andrews by train would be a great advantage for the town and its businesses, residents and visitors, commuters and students.
It is, therefore, high time that a proper exercise was carried out by transport experts to ascertain the best way of bringing this about. — Yours, etc.,
Jane Ann Liston,
Convenor,
Starlink,
(St Andrews Rail Link) campaign.

St Andrews
Parkway
Sir, — St Andrews could be put more firmly on the national railway map by renaming Leuchars Station 'St Andrews Parkway' (the Parkway concept is already in use in several other places).
Already, Leuchars requires additional parking places and a designated drop-off facility.
Even in the event of STARLINK proposals coming to fruition, the presence of stations at 'St Andrews City' and 'St Andrews Parkway' should not lead to confusion.
There are proposals from Transport Scotland to speed up Aberdeen-Edinburgh services and to augment Dundee-Edinburgh services.
In a more ideal world, it would be very welcome if Dundee-St Andrews buses were fitted with transponders and Leuchars station bus stop could show forthcoming arrival times. Given the way bus privatisation was done there is no onus on bus companies to provide such information.
The above comments are offered for a 'here-and-now' improvement to local transport. I would welcome serious debate of facilities provided now and for the future.
Meanwhile, the long-running Listonian litany of letters continues in your columns with very little new being added to the debate. She does not have the courtesy to reply to some of your other letter writers and simply tells others they are wrong (L. Beech, April 25, 2008), without supplying any data. As a famous 19th century polymath said, "Give me data."
Like any long running soap the scripts for 'STARLINK Express' become more fanciful until the latest reach the ludicrous Aberdeen-Edinburgh via the SEGGIE TRIANGLE!
Any historical arguments are for the most part questionable as is the inputing of results from elsewhere. The woeful response to the STARLINK questionnaire (600 returns) hardly suggests much support. STARLINK think 200 returns would have been good, but I would not wish to campaign for an expensive rail link based on such data.
When people are asked questions about whether or not bus fares are too expensive, you get the anticipated responses. Rail fares are often more expensive than bus fares and have been rising faster than inflation.
Of course, buses at Leuchars cannot be held for late running trains because buses provided a service for other users. Even when bus-rail links are provided e.g. Berwick-Borders the 'deterministic arrival' bus cannot wait indefinitely for the 'stochastic arrival time late train'.
The oft-mooted mention of peak flows as being a reason for a rail link is a non-starter. Apart from any question of the sense in building a line for an infrequent event like the Open, a simple application of queueing theory would demonstrate that a single track branchline (with two platforms?) could not cope. (Carnoustie could only cope by taking stock on to Aberdeen for storage and servicing.)
The latest Seggie Triangle proposal is simply ridiculous. Citizens of Dundee/Aberdeen are going to be mightily impressed by a 21-minute detour with a free sojourn in St Andrews. A stoical attitude will be required. Much more seriously with conflicting movements on the triangular junction and late running times inevitable, one train north and one south per hour is going to be the maximum attainable.
What is even worse about this proposal is the bi-modal rail split. If you are travelling south of Edinburgh do you use the St Andrews branch and hope to make a connection at Edinburgh or simply join your long distance express at Leuchars? This problem is exacerbated by late running trains when coming north. One could argue that for the elderly and the disabled direct access to/from an express at Leuchars is preferable to struggling to change at Waverley.
The STARLINK campaign is long running, my son was involved in a Madras School project in 1993. I am a railway devotee and, of course, I support new developments where appropriate e.g. extra Dundee-Edinburgh trains. Only in the last few days did I realise the acronym was possibly from 'Seggie Triangle and Reversal' for this expensive proposal. Still as part of a 'learning curve' it would provide a reminder that 'the sum of two sides of a triangle is . . .' (answer in this instance: at least 21 minutes longer.) A 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. — Yours, etc.,
J. NEWTON,
14 Doocot Road,
St Andrews.

Cathedral
singing
Sir, — Walking through the cathedral grounds in the warm sunshine last Sunday afternoon I heard the sound of singing. As I got nearer the music became clearer and I realised that it was a hymn of praise. How appropriate on such a lovely afternoon!
The University Christian Union had organised a time of praise and prayer and invited town, gown and visitors to take part, and there they all were, music group, singers, townspeople, visitors, church members from Argentina staying in the town, and the leaders of some of the town's church bodies. Two church leaders spoke, others read from the Bible, still others prayed, we sang our hearts out, turned to north, south, east and west and cried "Jesus is Lord," and were sent on our way with a blessing in Spanish — it was almost a Pentecost moment, as, like the crowds in Jerusalem, I was able to recognise and understand at least some of the Spanish words.
From the earliest days of the Church, when Christians gather for worship, food is often involved. We hear in the gospels of Jesus feeding the hungry crowds with bread and fish. And here too great plates of sandwiches, cakes and fruit were laid out for us to share. I hoped the shades of those who worshipped in that great cathedral long ago listened and approved — I'm sure at least that Patrick Hamilton, reformer and martyr, would have felt at home with us.
Thank you Christian Union for your enthusiasm, your commitment and your hospitality. Let all those who sigh over "the young" and frown at "the students" take heart and thank God for young people with faith and vision. — Yours, etc.,
E. M. MANN,
(Address supplied).

St Andrews
blooming
Sir, — Many congratulations to the St Andrews in Bloom Committee. The flower tubs which they have provided this year are magnificent. At a time when the town centre has not been looking its best because of the ongoing roadworks, the flower containers have really lifted the spirits.
I understand that the committee raises much needed funds for the flower displays by holding plant sales in Church Square. Let's make sure we support these sales and this hard-working committee. Thank you, St Andrews in Bloom. — Yours, etc.,
A GRATEFUL RESIDENT,
(Name and address supplied).

Cycling on
footpaths
Sir, — A lot of fuss has been made, recently, about cycling on the Lade Braes path. Cyclists along the East Sands footpath pose a much greater hazard and inconvenience. There are not enough clear notices prohibiting cycling, but the notices that say "Strictly No Cycling" are ignored. There is room, only, for two pedestrians side by side. The situation is hazardous and a potential cause of friction between the different users.
There is obviously no attempt to enforce the order and one can see that this would be difficult, as it would be for the Lade Braes, but difficulties have to be overcome. — Yours, etc.,
FRANK BUTLER,
21 Spottiswoode Gardens,
St Andrews.

Socialist
principles
Sir, — Now that Gordon Brown has announced that he wants to listen to the people, I'd like to know what exactly he plans to do about the Government's decision to drop the lower 10 pence tax rate, which has left many of the poorest and already low paid much worse off?
It's bad enough that these people have been already left worse off as a direct consequence of action by a Government which clearly has not been listening. A Government that likes to kid on, at least north of the border, that it still adheres to socialist principles. Unless my definition of socialism is badly askew, I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve causing the poor to be poorer by its own hand. These people can't afford a cut in their wages, especially in this economic climate with soaring prices of food, petrol, gas and electricity which are only set to get worse. Nor can they afford to wait until another budget, even if the cost of living hadn't increased as it has.
I'd like to know, Gordon, if you're listening? Will you reverse the decision and reinstate the lower 10 pence tax now? Or continue Tony Blair's legacy to simply ignore what you don't want to hear. — Yours, etc.,
Louise McLeary,
Solidatory member,
Via e-mail.

Parking
meters
Sir, — I read with interest your article regarding parking meters in St Andrews. It appears to me that the people of St Andrews will not be happy, no matter what system is put in place for the collection of parking dues.
They were against the implementation of parking vouchers.
Jude Innes asked whether the new parking meters will give change or accept credit cards and, if not, shopkeepers will be inundated with people wanting change for the machines? In my mind this is absolute rubbish.
By the way, are the shopkeepers not at present inundated with people wanting to purchase vouchers? How many times do you go to a town and find that you do not have change for the parking machines? Most machines will not give change but will accept overpayment, and very few accept credit/debit cards. — Yours, etc.,
Colin Shepherd,
5 Eddie Court,
St Andrews.

£869
raised
Sir, —The Fife branch of Save the Children would like to thank all those in St Andrews who helped with Street Collections on May 3 and house-t-house collections during Save the Children Week.
The sum of £869.25 was raised, and we are most grateful to all who gave their support. — Yours, etc.,
Betty Crips (MRS),
Via e-mail.

St Andrews
railway
Sir, — I would like to expand on Jane Ann Liston's letter (April 25) concerning a railway to St Andrews.
When the Fife coast railway route was closed in September 1965, the first act of British Railways (BR) was to discontinue two popular train services out of St Andrews, the 09.18 service to Dundee, and the 10.23 service to Leuchars, for onward connection to Edinburgh. At a stroke BR reduced the usefulness of their services.
I understand that a traffic census of the St Andrews branch line was carried out mid-morning on a February weekday — not exactly the busiest time of the year. BR was prepared to keep the line open provided the Town Council would fund it to the tune of £50,000 per year. This was rejected as being impossible.
The final nail in the coffin was that the week after the line closed in January 1969, the track was lifted immediately.
Had it remained in place, like was the case at North Berwick, then re-instatement would have been vastly cheaper than it would be to rebuild a railway track from scratch.
One marvels at the enterprising spirit of the local business community in 1851 when it formed the St Andrews Railway Company, and I wonder where that spirit is today. Recent shortages of vehicle fuel shows just how dependent we are on the car. One full train can carry one person much more fuel efficiently than can one car, so it is inevitable that the economics and politics of oil will force our hand eventually. — Yours, etc.,
RICHARD A, BATCHELOR,
Shieling of Blebo,
by Cupar.

******************
Sir, — I note that Jane Ann Liston/STARLINK haven't responded to my letter published on March 21, thus it's ironic that in Ms Liston's history lesson responding to Les Beech's letter (April 18) she laments British Rail's "point blank refusal" to disclose information on the economics of the old St Andrews branch line.
However, Ms Liston's letter (April 25) does make some substantive points regarding STARLINK's proposal for a rail link to St Andrews. A casual reader of her letter might be left with the impression that traffic volumes in Cupar and on the road to St Andrews would be reduced by something like 40 per cent with a rail link in place. Of course, this is surely nonsense and, in fact, the effect on congestion and the environment in the area would be negligible; indeed the biggest polluters (directly and indirectly) like goods vehicles, buses and agricultural vehicles would be unaffected, as would local traffic. And even without examining the details of the German study which provides the 40 per cent figure, it seems that to compare this to the local scenario is largely specious — how can a route which previously had no rail connection be compared with the St Andrews situation, where there already is a rail link in place, albeit one not optimally placed for the town?
In fact, any environmental benefit arising from a rail link to St Andrews would probably pale into insignificance compared to the congestion and consequent environmental damage cause by Cupar's traffic light system, which I seem to recall was installed during Ms Liston's tenure as a councillor. Thus it would be interesting to hear her views on this and several other distinctly anti-green policies which the council has had a hand in. No traffic lights in St Andrews (yet!), but what about the traffic congestion and pollution caused by the combination of the various roundabouts, ludicrously and dangerously situated pedestrian crossings and things like bus stops positioned such that they hold up all the traffic?
Then there's the traffic-calming measures such as the mini-roundabouts on the Canongate — what's the environmental implication of all the consequent braking, gear changing, slowing down and then accelerating? Of course, we're told "safety is paramount," but since Fife Council's leader recently stated that the more recent speed humps are needed to control traffic speed, this says little for the existing measures, but the end result is even more pollution.
There's also the various and often ill-timed roadworks, "improvements" and various temporary traffic lights which must wreak havoc with air quality; even worse that when it's all finished it's often difficult to discern much in the way of benefit at all, not to mention the fact that these works usually seem to be carried out at such a leisurely pace. And what about the significant increase in the number of empty and near-empty buses in the area?
While vehicles apparently doing 10mpg or so could never be considered environmentally friendly, when the greener versions of these vehicles were introduced wasn't this at significant expense to the taxpayer? — Yours, etc.,
STUART WINTON,
Via e-mail.

Lade
Braes
Sir, — May I comment on issues raised in your two recent articles.
First, the Lade Braes is not designated as a core path, on which horse-riding would expressly be permitted. But, even if the Fife access officer were correct, does Ms Cochrane seriously think that any horseman would choose to use the path, even at a walking pace?
Secondly, Mr Middleton states that there are a lot of blind bends on the Braes. Certainly, there is one point near Balnacarron — where two paths converge — which might cause a problem if an oncoming cyclist, or jogger, were inconsiderate. That situation could easily be remedied simply by placing a small offset barrier of the kind one already finds at several points along the Braes. I suggested to Fife Council that this should be done when the core path proposals were under discussion a couple of years ago.
Thirdly, the impression given by the articles is that cyclists, and in particular speeding cyclists, are a big issue. This is not my impression. Cyclists are not exactly numerous on the Lade Braes anyway, and their scope for speeding is limited.
Apart from the possible provision of occasional offset barriers, there are surely more urgent concerns to be addressed which affect the enjoyment and safety of users of the Lade Braes. Three which occur to me are the erosion of the path edges, drainage from gardens across the path, and long overdue woodland maintenance. — Yours, etc.,
Peter Robson,
Via e-mail.

********************
Sir, — As a regular cyclist through the Lade Braes, I have followed closely the recent events and reports in your paper. Without a doubt, the matter has caused people to become polarised.
There are a couple of issues I wish to raise. First, I find it strange that Gill Cochrane seeks clarification despite a local council employee explaining clearly the position by drawing from the Land Reform Act. In this respect I wish to be straightforward and state uncompromisingly that i will cycle through the Lade Braes as long as the law allows me to. As for the horsedroppings, we have yet to see this good source of manure in the Lade Braes.
As for safety of pedestrians, families and older people, I am in agreement that this is of paramount importance. Perhaps the authorities could encourage all cyclists to fit a bell to their bikes and also erect signs near the bends to promote safety. Furthermore, I have never equated family life, walking and old age with a fear of bicycles, and I would like to invite Mr Middleton and Gill Cochrane to get on their bikes and enjoy a safe ride through the Lade Braes. It's very therapeutic.
And as for these racing cyclists, I would like to ask them to be considerate, to be mindful of the safety of one and all and, above all, to remember the danger of causing injuries and of being sued as a result.
Despite all the hoo-hah about cycling and the Lade Braes, I would like to call on all Lade Braes users to be aware that, in St Andrews, we are all equal in rights and in responsibilities. We all have the right to enjoy the Lade Braes in our own idiosyncratic ways, on foot, on wheels or on four legs.
So let us, therefore, continue to enjoy this wondrous natural gift that is the Lade Braes. It is so quiet sometimes. — Yours, etc.,
NAME AND ADDRESS
SUPPLIED.