CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Tram latest

(1669 posts)


  1. gibbo

    This page has a "computer generated image of how the trams would look on Leith Walk."

    Go look to see where your bike lanes are, my friends...

    PS To make it look even remotely credible, the image had to pretend there'll be no parking on the southbound lane.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  2. Klaxon

    All of this week's CGI is based directly on the 2004 design which is going to be passed to the winning design and build contractor as a 'reference design'

    SO in theory every single element about the road design between York Place and Western Harbor is game for considerable adjustment, with the exception of the new Leith Walk 'tram ready' kerb line.

    BUT these designs all won planning consent in 2008 and thus without clear and unambiguous direction from the Council that the 2004 designs are unsafe, non compliant with modern principals, and directly lead to a death at the west end, I fear we we will see another repeat of what I'm calling the 'master planning problem'

    1. A masterplan sets down a poorly evaluated and 'indicative' design 'for detailed examination and planning consent later'
    2. The builder takes the masterplan and applies for planning consent 'as is' because there is a presumption in favour of following the masterplan and large financial risks in deviating from the plan only to be rejected
    3. Once planning consent is given nothing ever changes even if the Council wants it because the short term cost/benefit of a late stage redesign is marginal or nonexistent

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  3. chdot

  4. Klaxon

    At the special TEC yesterday (4/9/17) the procurement exercise was approved 8 to 3. This will consist of a pre-qualification period and then invitation to tender for approved companies, with a "put shovels in the ground" decision coming back to full council Nov 2018.

    The webcast will be available at
    The agenda and business case is available at

    The following amendments were tabled. The Lib Dem and Green amendments were carried.

    Liberal Democrat Amendment
    Moved by Gillian Gloyer

    To add at start of 1.1.3: ‘Subject to a further report to TEC, within 2 cycles, on the options and
    implications for financing the funding gap in the worst-case sensitivity test, [agrees…]’
    To amend 1.1.3, point 3, to read as follows: ‘Allow further time for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry to
    report, in order to ensure that its recommendations can be incorporated into the project plans
    and governance arrangements before contracts for the main construction works are signed.’
    To amend 1.1.4, to read as follows: ‘Agrees that, prior to any contracts for the main construction
    works being signed, they will be reviewed by an independent assessor from outwith CEC and
    further approvals will then be sought;’
    To add new 1.1.8, to read as follows: ‘ Notes that significant new housing developments around
    the city will have an impact on Edinburgh’s Local Transport Strategy and that the tram project
    must be linked to the broader transport requirements across the city.’

    Green Addendum
    Moved by Chas Booth

    To insert a new recommendation 1.1.5 to read as follows, and to renumber the
    existing recommendations accordingly:
    “1.1.5 Notes the decision of full council on 29 June 2017 that the design of any
    future tram line extension will reflect the council’s policies to prioritise pedestrian &
    cyclist safety and convenience, including consideration of segregated cycle lanes,
    and therefore agrees to consult with key stakeholders including pedestrian and
    cycle groups in developing detailed plans for the extension to Newhaven.”

    Amendment – Conservative Group
    Moved by Councillor Nick Cook
    Seconded by Councillor Scott Douglas

    Item No. – 4.1(b)
    Edinburgh Tram – York Place to Newhaven – Updated Outline
    Business Case
    Deletes Report recommendations and replaces with:
    1.1 Notes the content of the report
    1.2 Regrets that the Updated Outline Business Case has not changed fundamentally from
    proposals considered by Council at several junctures in 2015.
    1.3 Agrees to take no action due to the fact the proposals continue to:
    - Expose the Council to a high degree of financial and reputational risk
    - Present poor value and fail to constitute prudent use of taxpayers’ money, particularly at
    a time of continued public sector funding pressures
    - Rely too heavily on a wide variety of assumptions
    - Proceed prior to publication of the full findings of the Hardie Inquiry into what went so
    badly awry with the previous project; considers the proposals presented in respect of the
    Inquiry findings to be presumptive and wholly inadequate to ensure lessons are learned
    meaningfully and comprehensively
    - Impact negatively upon Lothian Buses and remain likely to lead to higher fares for

    These excerpts were taken from the webcast archive page.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  5. chdot

  6. chdot


    FORMER council leader Jenny Dawe today told the Edinburgh tram inquiry of her frustration at being denied information on the troubled project by the authority’s own arms-length company TIE.


    We were unaware there were certain aspects that certain officers were aware of.”


    Posted 2 weeks ago #
  7. chdot

  8. chdot


    There is a principled view that favours extending – or completing – the tram to Newhaven, as per the business case to be considered today by Edinburgh City Council’s transport committee.

    Equally as principled is the view that, for the foreseeable future, the council shouldn’t touch the project with a barge pole.


    Posted 1 week ago #
  9. chdot


    A COUNCIL legal expert knew councillors were being given inaccurate information on the trams but was told to “shut up” when he challenged senior colleagues about it, the inquiry into the troubled project has heard.

    Former city Tory group leader Jeremy Balfour, now a Lothians MSP, also said the same official, Alastair Maclean, believed the original tram contract was “a piece of mince”.


    Posted 1 week ago #
  10. kaputnik

    Save yourself the time and effort of reading the updates on the trams enquiry by instead imagining a room full of people who were involved in it all pointing the finger at someone else in the room and simultaneously telling you why it wasn't their fault, 'onest guv.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  11. chdot

    True, all 'responsible' - but to different degrees.

    I suspect they won't look back far enough to blame some of earliest people who shouldn't have been anywhere near this project.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  12. Stickman

    "Are we making the right decisions so that our towns and cities will be more liveable in 60 years, not less? And are we committing enough resources to deliver on that goal?

    The Edinburgh tram inquiry won’t give us the answers, but those are the questions that urgently need to be asked."

    Posted 1 week ago #
  13. chdot


    “If difficult or awkward questions were being asked, senior TIE/TEL staff would complain to council senior management.

    “I experienced this personally when after attending a meeting of the TPB [Tram Project Board], Donald McGougan was approached and I was requested not to attend future meetings.

    “As experienced and highly paid experts, it felt as if TIE did not understand that council officers had a duty to question them to ensure that the council’s interests were being protected.”


    Which won't come as a surprise to many people.

    TIE has a lot to answer for - not that I expect any individuals will be held responsible in any way that counts (like paying back any of the money they got paid).

    I presume questions will be asked about arms length companies why they were/are a 'good' idea.

    Posted 5 days ago #
  14. Stickman

    Now, we can reveal that by the end of this month the local authority will start installing signage and road markings along the tram route.
    The signs will include information on the safe distance that should be kept between vehicles and cyclists and how cyclists should cross the tracks correctly.
    The road markings will also make it clearer for cyclists using the route.
    The local authority says it is the first of a set of measures planned for the tracks. Further action will be taken in the coming months.

    Posted 4 days ago #
  15. acsimpson

    It'll be interesting to see what it on the signs. If it is aimed at drivers to ensure that they know why cyclists are making what they perceive to be strange manoeuvres then they could be a good thing.

    If they are simply trying to victim blame any cyclist who chooses a different crossing technique then less so.

    Posted 4 days ago #
  16. Frenchy

    @acsimpson - I spoke very briefly to some council officers about this. At that point they were very early on in the process, but signs aimed at both drivers and cyclists were being planned.

    Posted 4 days ago #
  17. chdot

    Hope they launch them with LB saying they will instruct their drivers.

    (Other bus cos should do too...)

    Posted 4 days ago #
  18. gibbo


    “If difficult or awkward questions were being asked, senior TIE/TEL staff would complain to council senior management.

    Then the problem was council senior management.

    In business, someone has to be the adult in the room.

    The buck stopped with the council management, and it was their duty to tell the TIE staff that these "difficult" questions would not only continue, but that the council would encourage them.

    Instead, it seems like the council was happy to let TIE act like a bunch of spoiled little children ... and put those children in charge of a half-billion pound project.

    PS As anyone who has reached a high level in business would tell you, when someone complains about being asked "awkward" questions, that person is almost certainly a lemon who needs to be replaced.

    Posted 3 days ago #
  19. chdot

    "The buck stopped with the council management, and it was their duty to tell the TIE staff that these "difficult" questions would not only continue, but that the council would encourage them."

    That should have happened, and probably could have happened but in practice it wasn't so much an 'arms length company (wholly owned by CEC)' as a law unto itself convincing CEC officials and councillors it had to be left alone.

    I'm sure, initially, CEC was happy to have set TIE adrift and not have the worry/responsibility, but clearly it didn't turn out well!

    Posted 3 days ago #

RSS feed for this topic


You must log in to post.

Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin