ALTHOUGH former Labour rail minister Tom Harris may contend that any direct Glasgow Airport Rail Link is not a viable proposition without the Crossrail project, the underlying case for delivering planned Crossrail modernisation still remains intact, and robust, by integrating Scotland's historically disjointed and handicapped networks as prelude to offering a more convenient, credible and competitive alternative to mass car commuting across Scotland ("Airport rail link would be a poor use of public money", The Herald, November 18).

The core argument for Crossrail modernisation, initially reopening and electrifying the 1.8 miles of existing City Union Line, rests on delivering significant economic/employment, social mobility/urban regeneration and environmental benefits in their own right, with an airport rail link seen as a welcome "add-on supplement" rather than a pivotal justification for Crossrail, which is deliverable in incremental stages.

Pejorative comments suggesting that major transport projects are more determined by political dictat "rather than where real people want to go (in relation to an airport rail link) was powerfully confounded by the reopened Borders line, and other restored rail routes, where actual patronage has hugely exceeded dismal theoretical modelling forecasts. Crossrail has already passed the Test of Public Acceptability as outlined in the Faber Maunsell Study Report 2008 paragraph 8.9.4: "Public consultation has indicated that the travelling public would be generally supportive of Crossrail . . employers expect Crossrail to be beneficial for their employees with Crossrail leading to modal shifts away from car to rail which would reduce congestion, shorten train journeys and improve the accessibility to the place of work".

Isn't this positive finding entirely consistent with the Scottish Governments' regional and national transport objectives, given Crossrail has already been confirmed as a good business case comfortably exceeding all the Stage 2 assessments required, even although these are usually harsher and more cruelly applied compared with mega road/motorway projects.

Hopefully the Scottish Government will have the courage and vision to incorporate Stage 1 of Crossrail within its current transport strategy and climate change commitments. Such would cost only a tiny fraction of the £500 million recently spent on the M8/M77/M74 extensions, now "more ambitious" than originally envisaged and potentially eroding hopes of increased ScotRail patronage.

Intimation of an early go-ahead for Crossrail still remains an eminently reasonable request far too long denied to Scotland's largest city. With or without the intended airport rail link, delivery of Crossrail remains a key ingredient of a superior fit-for-purpose railway system better serving the requirements of a modern Scotland.

Ken Sutherland,

12A Dirleton Gate, Bearsden.

MANY resurrected proposals will now be dusted off in regard to this seemingly intractable desire to have in place a dedicated Glasgow Airport rail link of whatever shape, form or being. Newer versions of what could provide such a service have already bordered on the realms of fantasy.

Whether any of this may or may not come to pass surely the means of serving the airport will be nullified if such routing is made by way of making intermediate calls at such the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Braehead shopping centre as well as use by the good people of Renfrew for commuting, shopping and leisure.

This latter is poorly served from what I gather by public transport in its own right without the airport equation and should be dealt with as a separate entity.

I would agree that the Jacobs report ("Airport rail link would 'do more harm than good'", The Herald, November 17) was entirely correct in its assertion that the present airport link bus service is totally adequate for the numbers using the city centre as a departure and arrival point.

No matter what eventually is decided, it will be costly and every effort must be made to avoid future under-utilisation of the alleged assets created.

John Macnab,

175 Grahamsdyke Street, Laurieston, Falkirk.

YOUR article concerning the Jacobs report that has raised concerns about the likely negative impact of the tram/train proposal is very relevant and should be carefully considered. The capacity of the existing heavy rail network between Paisley and Glasgow Central would be compromised were the tram/train initiative to be implemented.

In terms of value for money, sustaining the economy of Glasgow and reducing carbon emissions, further heavy rail electrification bringing East Kilbride, Barrhead and possibly Kilmarnock into the electrified network has a far better case.

Your article makes the point that a street tramway network linking the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Breahead and Renfrew provides a better use of City Deal funding. Such a tramway system could connect into heavy rail at Cardonald Station and the subway and bus services at Govan Interchange. The point about the majority of airport users accessing the airport by private car or taxi is a valid one and the construction of a rail link will not change that fact.

In a European mainland context the tramway concept linking communities and business hubs would have been pursued years ago.

Kevin A McCallum,

43 Queensborough Gardens, Glasgow.

WHY can the monorail idea not be taken up (Letters, November 21)? It would take more passengers to the new hospital, Braehead, and places that are hard to get to, and especially difficult to park at. Is this too much common sense?

Bob Mitchell,

49 Main Road, Elderslie.

I REFER to David Miller’s letter (November 20) complaining about trains not stopping at stations between Westerton and Milngavie. I had a similar experience recently but at Charing Cross, where I was planning to catch the 9.28 train to Milngavie. The train arrived on time but just went straight through, leaving myself and another potential passenger stranded. I had to pay for a taxi to ensure I made my appointment on time. I do not understand how Abellio can get away with this. So much for encouraging people to use public transport.

John P Kelly,

9 Ilay Avenue, Bearsden.