CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Tram debate

(57 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    Never really 'discussed' the tram on here.

    Of course the rails in Princes Street was a live issue when people first had to negotiate them and various other (planned) path closures and diversions were mentioned.

    I suspect a few people are firmly in favour (especially if the Roseburn corridor is left alone) others will just think it's a waste of money.

    Most (perhaps) just it would go away OR get finished.

    It's currently a topic on another forum -

    http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/edinburgh-trams-should-they-just-ditch-the-whole-idea

    Posted 13 years ago #
  2. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I like it. Because when it "doesn't happen", they'll have built me a perfect off-road cycle-super-highway straight to my work :)

    Even 1 or 2 % of the total cost spent on fixing the appalling state of the roads and on the cycling infrastructure would have been so much more sensible and beneficial to all road users...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    "
    I like it. Because when it "doesn't happen", they'll have built me a perfect off-road cycle-super-highway straight to my work :)
    "
    Only if someone pays to remove the rails...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  4. SRD
    Moderator

    I'm still a fan of the tram _idea_ but have trouble understanding how viable it will be if they keep cutting it back further and further.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  5. cb
    Member

    I have always been fairly pro-tram, even though I will probably rarely use them.

    I am concerned about a) the huge cost, b) the length of time to implement and c) the disruption during the building. (But, then, who isn't).

    £500,000,000 would certainly go a long way towards other projects but is there evidence that funds have been redirected as a result of the tram project?

    There seems to be plenty to suggest that tram projects elsewhere have been hated up until they become live, at which point they become wonderful.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  6. Kirst
    Member

    I'm anti-tram. It sickens and infuriates me that so much money is being spent to create one line from the Scottish Government offices to not quite the airport, when we have excellent bus services and a desperate shortage of cash in local government. The council could do worse to invest that money in local services, or give it to Lothian Buses to improve bus services, or sort out pay modernisation (40 years after the Equal Pay Act came in) or do pretty much anything else with it. Most of the money has come from Scottish Government, but CEC has had to find £50 million, and believe me, they could make much better use of that elsewhere.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  7. recombodna
    Member

    I wish they would just get it finished.It still isn't as bad as the new underground line they're building in Amsterdam. That's been on the go for over 10 years now and shows no sign of being finished any time soon.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  8. Dave
    Member

    Although I'm uncomfortable with reallocating space from cyclists to private vehicles (which is what happens when you rail half the road, that we can no longer use), I don't mind the *idea* of the trams.

    But the cost, and implementation have been truly obscene.

    To think that we're spending way upwards of £500m to convert 20 of Lothian Buses ~520 diesel vehicles to trams sickens me.

    Since the trams are going to have catenary anyway, electric trolley buses could have been running long ago, all over the city. No more breathing diesel fumes...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  9. PS
    Member

    It's a good idea, poorly executed.

    An decent tram network, linked to park & ride sites, would go a long way to pre-empting real congestion issues in the future. New tram systems in France (like Lyon and Toulouse) have been well-received once they're opened. And, from a cyclist's point of view, I reckon they're a good thing (once you've got the hang of the tracks), as they get motorists used to diversified use of the roads. Perhaps they might accept that roads are not just for the internal combustion engine?

    However, the way the Council has gone about it - a poor contractual structure by the looks of things, which hasn't transferred much risk at all to the private sector; the congestion charge fiasco (has any congestion charge referendum resulted in people voting for charging?), which cut a financial leg out from under the project; and the gradual reduction of plans from a meaningful network to an airport shuttle - has been pretty embarrassing.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    "It's a good idea, poorly executed."

    Suitably succinct.

    Current probability is contractor 'sacked' in December. Two years in court, by which time...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  11. Stepdoh
    Member

    22 bus on rails. Edinburgh's most frequent bus service, only a bit less frequent.

    Loved the idea, was really, really behind it. Was hoping it could the start of something bigger. Even if we had to share the beloved roseburn path a bit.

    It's just got smaller and more expensive and I think the final straw is that it's going to stop at St Andrew's square, so it's now not even the 22 bus on rails.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  12. Min
    Member

    It's a bad idea poorly executed. I mean gosh, who ever could have predicted that there could be any archaeology under Edinburgh that would have slowed proceedings? Or that the ancient underground pipe system might not have looked exactly as it did on the plans? Well everyone actually. Everyone apart from Edinburgh Council that is. Trolley buses would have done the same job without the need for rails and without the need for £500 000 000 being thrown away for nothing.

    Plus if it had gone to plan it would have meant the loss of the Roseburn corridor. Yet another example of cyclists being shoved out of the way so as not to inconvenience motorists by having it run on the road. It may yet but I am not holding my breath.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  13. Stepdoh
    Member

    There are a few routes that would have been fine for trolleys (from my Wellington experience) like the 22 but some of the more circuitous routes would be useless as they don't corner that well and the junctions need to be reasonably simple.

    Although the new gen ones in wellington had slightly bendier poles, and batteries so they can run off network for a while, which made the amusing sight of the driver going out, putting on his high viz jacket and and yanking the ropes till he got the poles back on the lines a touch rarer.

    Talk about cyclists causing tailbacks.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    As Hitler says in the Youtube clip;

    "500 million ******* quid just to replace the 22 bus?... ...they haven't come clean yet about the overhead power cables. Why didn't they just buy electric bendy buses?"

    Posted 13 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    "Plus if it had gone to plan it would have meant the loss of the Roseburn corridor."

    Yes.

    I believe Spokes lost some members because of its support for this part of the tram 'network'.

    IF it had ever happened the path would have been so narrow - especially at the bridges - and shut for a year or two, that usage would likely plummet.

    Of course the tram promoters where so arrogant that they couldn't possibly 'allow' it to serve the Western General because that would mean longer journey times to the wonderful Waterfront.

    This is Edinburgh.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  16. kaputnik
    Moderator

    This is Edinburgh.

    TIE...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    "
    This is Edinburgh.

    TIE...

    "

    WELL SPOTTED

    Never made that connection!!!!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    Perhaps 'we' should use TIE - to avoid confusion...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  19. Min
    Member

    That proves it is all a conspiracy!

    Yes, in my rant I had forgotten to add the bit about not going to the Western General. Crazy.

    Plus the council are now looking at using funds set aside for developing the Waterfront to finish the tram line, you know the same Waterfront that the trams were only going to because it was going to be developed in the first place..

    Posted 13 years ago #
  20. Min
    Member

    I also forgot to add

    MIN MAAAD!!!!!!!!

    *turns green and starts trashing stuff*

    Posted 13 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    "That proves it is all a conspiracy!"

    Possibly, but the conspirators aren't even very good!

    "looking at using funds set aside for developing the Waterfront to finish the tram line"

    True, but -

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2010/nov/03/edinburgh-trams-tif-funding-waterfront

    Posted 13 years ago #
  22. PS
    Member

    That story had the very strong whiff of a councillor speaking without thinking (or not having a clue) - "Ooh, there's a new pot of cash appeared - maybe we could use that for the tram."

    However, the TIF funding for the Waterfront will have required a business case that specifies what the money will be spent on - they won't be able to change that without putting in an entirely new business case (I would hope).

    Posted 13 years ago #
  23. Min
    Member

    And yet still... (from the story chdot just posted_

    "Council leader Dawe admitted there was "a strong argument" for the cash being used for trams, but said that "for now" she felt the four projects highlighted were the right ones. "

    NO THERE ISN'T

    Posted 13 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    "they won't be able to change that without putting in an entirely new business case (I would hope)"

    So would I, but -

    "Council leader Jenny Dawe today admitted some of the TIF funding could now be used to take the tram further than St Andrew Square, which is expected to be the last stop in a first phase of the project. She said: "It certainly has the potential to be used for the tram, although it is too early to have the full detail for that. I have asked if the Scottish Government approval is dependent on these four projects and was told no." (my bold)

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburghtransportplans/City-chiefs-consider-using-docks.6600951.jp

    "That story had the very strong whiff of a councillor speaking without thinking (or not having a clue)'

    Surely not -

    "However the city's economic development leader, SNP councillor Tom Buchanan took a different line.

    He said: "I didn't write this report and haven't read it in any detail, but I don't believe the premise that the tram is vital for the growth areas of Edinburgh to meet their potential."

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburghtransportplans/Trams-39key-to-economic-growth39.6598917.jp

    Posted 13 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    "
    The insider suggested Mr Mackay had been unhappy about remarks made by council leader Jenny Dawe. Last week she called on tram bosses to come clean on the figures used to support the project because councillors felt they were "being asked to take a lot on the word of officers that they perhaps don't know very well".

    The insider said: "That was code for 'We don't believe what we're being told'."
    "
    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Calls-for-caution-in-search.6612827.jp

    Posted 13 years ago #
  26. spitfire
    Member

    Scrap it scrap it scrap it scrap it!!! >.<

    Posted 13 years ago #
  27. LaidBack
    Member

    But whatever the rights and wrongs let's not kid ourselves on that this project is unique in over-running its budget.

    M74 COST SOARS 2008

      The cost of the M74 extension in Scotland has risen to almost £700m, bringing the bill to more than £26,000 per foot.A report published today by spending watchdog Audit Scotland revealed the five-mile, six-lane stretch will now cost £692m, that's £35m more than the price last announced.

      The project which is a partnership project between Transport Scotland, Glasgow City Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Renfrewshire Council is already three years late.

      The new eight kilometres (five miles) stretch of road will continue the M74 motorway from Fullarton Road Junction, near Carmyle, to the M8 motorway west of the Kingston Bridge.

      The orginal contract had only one bidder - a consortium including Balfour Beatty and Morgan Est and the original estimate in 2001 was £245m.

      The study said poor management, inflation in the construction industry and delays caused by a failed legal challenge by environmental campaigners had caused costs to soar.

      Transport Scotland said administration costs, buying land and the price of cable and pipe diversions - none of which were included in the original estimate - were also responsible.

    I don't think Edinburgh can provide efficient transport by bus alone - vehicle weight = road wear = potholes.
    But we could have opened the South Suburban line for a lot less. At least the electric line to Airdrie is close to budget of £300m

    Posted 13 years ago #
  28. cb
    Member

    "we could have opened the South Suburban line"

    ...and a great use for the tram tracks on Princes St.

    From Wikipedia:

    "To address congestion issues along the Haymarket-Waverley rail corridor, the group proposes a further alternative or running the line with tram-train rolling stock; these vehicles could switch to street-running mode as part of the planned Edinburgh Trams light rail network. The tram option would require the electrification of the line."

    Posted 13 years ago #
  29. Rabid Hamster
    Member

    The 7P's philosophy comes to mind...
    P1sh poor planning promotes p1sh poor performance!
    Bilfiger seem to make an occupation out of having disputes and killing people! Why did they ever win the contract in the first place!
    However to be fair, Edinburgh's subterrannea is riddled with abandoned pipework, culverts and corpses, so the MUDFA works were always going to be difficult.
    The +ives of finishing 'tramworks' will be new utilities infrastructure along the route; a replacement for the number 22 and airport buses; a lot of holes drilled in Listed Buildings (for catenaries); less traffic generally (unquantifiable as yet); 250 stinking Edinburgh citizens being herded and moved en masse on one vehicle thus replacing several stinky bus engines; taxis being even more stressed out; and finally we might be able to hear the birds singing in Princes St Gardens, and breath some fresher air!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    "the group proposes a further alternative or running the line with tram-train rolling stock"

    Like this -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn_Karlsruhe#Line_B:_introduction_of_tram-trains

    But I think actual infrastructure in Edinburgh and UK regulations mean 'it's not possible'.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin