In his letter Neil Stewart of Buckhaven asserts that the St Andrews proposal is neither so advanced ‘nor as compelling’ as that for Levenmouth. He bases this mainly upon the lack of any STAG evaluation for St Andrews and Fife Council’s declaration that Leven is their first transport authority, as well as the potential for industrial investment and countering deprivation in the whole Levenmouth area.

The full text can be found at:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/opinion/readers-letters/how-will-scotland-keep-the-lights-on-1.899621

5th letter down.

Well, quite, Mr Stewart, but the case for St Andrews is very different from that for Leven, desirable though the latter undoubtedly is. St Andrews is acknowledged as an economic generator and as such has the potential to create much more prosperity for the wider area with better transport connections. Plus St Andrews is a top tourist destination, Home of Golf and a university town and as such attracts thousands of visitors and inward commuters every day. It should also be noted that the Tata report claimed that a St Andrews line could operate at a profit; in other words, it could help to underwrite the cost of running other lines such as one to Levenmouth. In fact the sensible approach, so far rejected, might have been to combine both schemes into one project, using the renown and relative prosperity of St Andrews to help alleviate the undoubted difficulties faced by Levenmouth.

It is not, and should not be seen as, a case of ‘either/or’. Both cases are equally valid and should be progressed as quickly as possible.