CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Did anyone else watch this on BBC this evening. Generally didn't tell us much we didn't know. "It was TIE's fault, and the council and/or the government should have spotted it sooner", was the summary.
Good conclusion from presenter David Miller (not THAT David Millar!) - if you want to get across Edinburgh quickly do it on your bike, and save about a billion quid in the process! He was on a nice quiet, wide street while filming that section, though, and nowhere near the Haymarket cones.
Yes I saw this. I also recognised the office with green interiors where he laid out his documents. I thinki I've seen it on a link from someone I follows Twitter post. I thought it may have been a cyclist on here, perhaps not.
yes, good ending! if only he'd actually said 'spend a fraction of that money and make it even easier to cycle across town'!
(ps was the documentary anti-tram? more anti-process, and it did mention the congestion charge foulup)
Congestion charge foul up?? I recall voting in the referendum for the congestion charge, but not any thing at the time about any foul ups?
I just meant that is should never have gone to a referendum!
"was the documentary anti-tram? more anti-process"
I thought it was surprisingly pro-tram. Quite reasonably most of the focus was on how tie was the main part of the problem. Exactly why is still something of a mystery though it got off to a bad start when early staff were ex-CEC on inflated salaries (not mentioned in programme).
Donald Anderson's reasons for the tram - 'joining up the developing areas of Edinburgh' and 'countering congestion' weren't given any sort of 'in hindsight' treatment.
Sue Bruce's role in sorting out 2 years of stalemate was highlighted (probably quite justified) and there was a reference to tie doing its best to make it non-cancellable - and keep them in well paid jobs.
Mr. Swinney's reasons for not intervening earlier wasn't questioned. He was fed a load of nonsense by tie, but he was being told by others, including at least one of his own MSPs, that things weren't quite the way they were being spun.
The most stunning bit was Gordon Mackenzie's admissions that he (and other councillors on the tie board) weren't really up to supervising how £500m was being spent.
The only really new bit was an interview with someone from the previously 'gagged by contract' Germany contractor.
Big subject to cover in half an hour, and did cover a lot.
"The most stunning bit was Gordon Mackenzie's admissions that he (and other councillors on the tie board) weren't really up to supervising how £500m was being spent."
On the one hand, this should not be a surprise. This is our principle of government 'by the people, for the people' - it presumes non-expert scrutiny in so many ways and on so many levels, and thinks that this is a good thing. One of the ironic benefits of the Lords' oversight, is that given their long tenure they do develop some expertise, as do long-sitting MPs; don't think city councils manage to develop that sort of considered approach, as it is by definition more amateurish (and populist). It's not just the councillors' experience, but also that they are (at best) part-time. To expect them to manage such projects is ridiculous - that is what the civil servants ought to do - but why haven't they? Inevitably, it is the politicians that get blamed, which is part of the problem!
(It's a bit like those trials which 'ought' to be jury trials, but end up being taken by judges alone because they are too complex.)
I noticed that they didn't mention that the tram rails will duplicate most of the journey, as the train lines pass the airport, South Gyle, Haymarket, Waverly and we still have 'corridors' where rails could link Leith.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When the plans were started we had the Scottish Exec championing the overpriced EARL project (plus GARL) which was rightly cancelled. A tram to suit tourists, RBS employees and the Gyle (basically replacing/extending the guided busway) also handy for Scottish Exec staff in Leith and new residents in all the planned waterfront developments.
One can see why these choices were made at the time. Looking back from our recessionary perspective, they should have planned differently. Probably they should have just built a train station at the old Turnhouse site, on the East coast line. Shuttle buses to the airport terminal from the station. Tram would be handier going from Newhaven to Little France via city centre, so that people from North Edinburgh can get to the ludicrously remote ERI. Re-opening of South Sub stations to passengers and extending Borders line to Leith via Abbeyhill.
Costs? Probably a billion plus. For that we could have had proper integrated transport for the city instead of one partially completed tram.
"On the one hand, this should not be a surprise."
I wasn't surprised by the fact, just the way that GM 'matter of factly' excused 4 years of ineptitude.
"that is what the civil servants ought to do - but why haven't they"
Good question - and to a large extent we are still waiting for answers.
It's quite easy to blame politicians (in this and other cases), and often justified.
For good or bad a lot of it comes down to personalities. There are plenty of cases where politicians and officials work together well to develop and deliver policy.
There are also many examples of where officials hinder the wishes/plans of politicians - not least on the basis that they will still be in their jobs when the politicians have 'moved on'.
One interesting feature of recent weeks is the extent to which 'everyone' has united to blame tie.
This all seems to be a direct consequence of CEC getting a new Chief Executive.
So for the last four years (and more)...
Of course one of the problems of the tram has been "the contract". Don't know if this was drawn up by Council lawyers or others from Edinburgh companies (or both).
The programme implied that the contract was mainly produced by the contractors - 'cos that was part of their expertise.
So, the contractors knew what was legally defined in the way of "risk" and tie/CEC believed something different.
Sue Bruce cut through it all, got the Council to cough up the tens of millions owed and borrow hundreds more (but still no guaranteed final price).
Once again Jenny Dawe says that the tram - Airport to SAS "will make a profit".
I have my doubts about this being true in any basic sense of fare income v running costs.
But clearly it will ignore the £500m from Scottish taxpayers and almost certainly the interest payments on the extra £200+m - never mind all the disruption costs.
I suppose it comes down to whether politicians and officials are delusional or visionary.
If the tram is answer what is the problem?
Is it value for money in transport and future development terms?
Is the future development that the tram was intended to deliver the best thing for Edinburgh?
Is so, given the Waterfront and, ever changing, Leith Docks proposals, is there any reason to believe that politicians, officials and private developers can ever deliver?
Is the notion of 'fix what you've got' - eg potholes - 'before you do anything else' just short-sighted unambitious NIMBYism that ignores 'human nature'?
@crowriver your transport options are much more rational.
There have always been MANY reasons for getting passengers back on the Sub.
The planned location of QMU should have been a tipping point.
The building of the Borders Line should still be another.
The closure of Cockenzie means no more coal trains so easier to fit passenger trains in ( though there would be a lot more obviously).
Simple fact is that South Sub wouldn't join Victoria Quay and the Airport.
Transport is political and decisions are not always made for the right reasons by the right people...
"
A SENIOR official at Edinburgh City Council has admitted the authority made a “big mistake” by agreeing to shoulder the burden for problems with underground tramworks when the contract for the troubled project was being drawn up.
Dave Anderson said he expected the public inquiry to find that the construction consortium should have borne the risks involved with digging up the city’s streets, rather than the local authority’s tram company.
"
Underground tram - now there's an idea!
"Dave Anderson said he expected the public inquiry to find that the construction consortium should have borne the risks"
I think that is delusional.
Though the BB man did say in the programme that they would - for the right price.
"The most stunning bit was Gordon Mackenzie's admissions that he (and other councillors on the tie board) weren't really up to supervising how £500m was being spent."
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you all of the Our City's Not For Sale campaign and invite you all to a public meeting in the Appleton Tower, Monday 24th October, 7-9pm, which will include an open debate with the council staff involved in the decision-making.
chdot - the guys behind the successful Nottingham tram advised CEC to roll the utility diversion and tram construction contracts into one. That way any delays to untility diversions would not impact on a seperate construction contract. CEC chose to ignore that advice and actually trumpeted what a good idea this was as it allowed utility diversion work to begin more quickly!
Kirst - can't make it to the meeting, but hope it goes well.
Of course the cost of the trams project is much higher, with the effect on business, tourism, image and general inconvenience.
I was in Angers last year and was amazed at the difference. The installation took 4 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angers_tramway
The French seem to be dab hands at installing tramlines - Toulouse, Bordeaux (although there was some initial issue with the power on these, which is some sort of induction affair rather than overhead lines), Lyon, Dijon...
@Morningsider The utility diversion / tram construction contract split was a disaster waiting to happen. I've always wondered whose advice CEC had taken on that, but it sounds like they took advice and then just ignored it.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts