The new Manchester Victoria tram actually runs inside the station concourse. picture here. Kind of a bit more adventurous than what Haymarket ended up getting. As I recall, the original plans did have everything running under a high-level glass canopy.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
"Leith and Granton spur tram routes back on agenda"
(62 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Hopefully the lack of cash, risk adverseness, and the bad taste from the incompetence of the first part of the tram will mean wont be further part built on the NERN.
The tram is slower than the bus, less safe than a bus for other road users be it pedestrians, bikes or cars, much more expensive, the networks are maintenance intensive.
The sustainability arguments are far from clear as would need to factor externalizes.
Sure if we ignore the maintenance vans trucks congestion created, etc that keep it running, the road is there for other uses, so its just the additional maintenance for buses, the externalizes of the trams from increased congestion as a result of building longer journeys, the opportunity cost of the trams (there may have been more sustainable uses for 900 million etc.)
In respect of the argument that more people would use the NERN in tram than on bike, at the moment many of these people would use the road in buses. What is the marginal benefit of these people using the NERN in a tram over using the road in bus?
What are the marginal costs of someone using the NERN in a tram rather than using the bus on the roads.
Well if we are taking about sustainability the benefits are far from clear. If people use the tram rather than the bus, and we compare the operating pollution exhaust from the current bus and compare to the tram the tram it may look better. But this ignores the impact of building and running network and of course generating the power.
Even the exhaust argument compares the tram exhaust an expensive hypothetical to what we now. Even this purely academic argument just focusing on exhaust, if objective was to reduce exhaust then may be more efficient to put the money in electric buses etc, trollies etc or more modern alternative energy buses.
Even if take the argument well trams are definitely the best, by ignoring total impact, just looking at exhaust. Then even if trams were to build. The argument would be where is best to put the tram, on a road displacing car use, or on a bike track displacing bike use.
If build the trams on the NERNS will help reduce road congestion and make car use more attractive.
So displacing bikes rather than cars could create more pollution.
The comparison of the number of people who use the path on bikes to the number of people who would use the path on trams is also a bit mis leading.
The people bike that way with little state support, the tram users would be highly subsidized.
So to take the argument to the ridiculous for clarity, if the government subsidizes were great enough for different types of user, then could have farmer herding the cows along the NERN, or could have air planes taxing along the NERN.
The government is in effect paying tram users to go that way in an sense. This does not mean it is sensible , whether that be environment or economic.
In the same way if the government paid planes enough money and made the NERN Wider then could get planes taxing from the NERN to the air port.
There may be more people in planes that would use this, it would depend what the government paid for this. How the incentives were aligned.
Of course planes taxing on the NERN is redilcous, but its same arguments that apply if consider how many people use the tram to who may currently use bikes.
With enough money spend all sorts of silly distortions are possible I would consider the tram on the NERN an example of this.
So comparing a use which has much less state support cycling on the NERN to the state spending a fortune and building a tram on the NERN does not mean in its self this is more environmental or economically better.
If the NERN was widened and used as a road may have a higher volume of users also.
It creates a false choice either or choice frame by people can either have cycling or a sustainable transport? Nonsense.
The only way this frame is achieved is by choosing a cycle lane to build on. The cycle track is more used than most parts of land besides it or most other parts of land in Edinburgh. Think hos many people pass per square meter a day. If took every square meter in Edinburgh could be far higher than average.
Also the frame of the tram also an either or.
The tram was not solution reach through analysis to solve a problem.
For a transport solution, for an environmental solution, or for a tourist attraction they may have been better uses of the money.
The transport benefits are far from clear. It provides a smoother ride, and better disabled facilities.
Yet better disabled facilities could have been achieved with spending much less.
In terms of moving people the tram speeds little different to the bus. The tram creates more congestion than the bus.
So even if the tram saved a user 10 percent on times, yet it slowed other transport users by 5 percent but was over twice as many other users etc etc etc.
The trams may be negative as a transport solution in respect to moving volumes of people around Edinburgh.
To justify building the tram on the NERN the tram would need to be the best solution and the NERN the best place for it.
I would be quite surprised if either of these were the case.
Of course its politics so does not matter where best worst of indifferent to an extent.
The tram is not there as a result of any proper analysis. It may be other cities use trams. Bremen in German has trams, but they would not have paid over £100 plus million a mile for there trams etc.
Where the tram project will hopefully fail in respect to the NERN is on lack of cash, risk of further embarrassment and the bad taste the perceived incompetence.
The way to defeat the tram on the NERN may not be necessarily be rational arguments, as that is not what was used to justify it.
Stories in the Edinburgh news of incompetence and constantly reminding people who much was wasted etc etc help as much rational arguments.
The problem with the tram now its up and running self perpetuating as government projects do, if have people sat around in Edinburgh transport or Scottish government, wanting to enhance their claim of tax payer money, councilors wanting a free lunch. The bigger the department the bigger the salary etc etc the standard waste incentive.
The government budget does not bear the true benefit /cost of the tram, the externalizes passed to the public good and bad.
It may be something like this.
The benefits go a few in concerted form, but the costs go to many in diluted form. The people get concentrated benefits push for more trams. The lots of people who lose a little less vocal even if more costs than benefits typical government type problem.May be the problem with cycling is its just does not cost enough to generate enough waste.
The tram looks good like Europe but dont think it would look good on the bike track.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Council report now available online - some pretty outrageous tram puffery in there. If approved then there will be another (£400,000) study into extending the line down Leith. The group managing the study nicely excludes any councillors. Also, looks like parts of the Leith Programme will be delayed/altered/shelved.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Morningsider
Thanks. The failure to use the subjunctive tone in the 'recommendations' section has set my teeth on edge straight away.
'Electric traction...','..patronage numbers have been in line with business case expectations.'
Gah! Who writes this stuff?
Posted 9 years ago # -
approved then there will be another (£400,000) study
Budget challenge? What budget challenge?!
Posted 9 years ago # -
It may be caused by your use of the subjunctive (were)rather than the indicative (was) in your user name. This meant that the world was short of 1 subjunctive. As one had been missed used for something else.
Like when I used the wrong bolt on my mudflaps the long one, when did not need the long one, then when I needed the long one was already used.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Ed1
The notion of the subjunctive as a conserved quantity is fantastic. Thank you.
PS - it has been suggested that everyone be issued with five exclamation marks at birth to use as they wish through life.
Posted 9 years ago # -
From the report:
51% of households in Leith and Leith Walk (54% in Leith Walk alone) do not own cars (compared to 39% for Edinburgh as a whole).Why is there all that space given over to parking in Leith Walk again?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Why is there all that space given over to parking in Leith Walk again? "
I would guess for retail but the
"51% of households in Leith and Leith Walk (54% in Leith Walk alone) do not own cars (compared to 39% for Edinburgh as a whole)."
Its number of car owners to road space which would be related to density that would be the revelant measure.
In a high density areas can have more cars per miles etc even if lower car percentage per house.
Leith walk is more dense than suburbs so can have more cars per miles etc even if lower ownership may be.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Meanwhile the EN is concerned with a different aspect-
"
The £9 million upgrade of Leith Walk has not been “future-proofed” to allow for an extension to the tram network – meaning some of the work is likely to have to be ripped up.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
In a high density areas can have more cars per miles etc even if lower car percentage per house.
This is true, but there are also a lot of roads perpendicular to Leith Walk with nose-in parking and last time I was down there, a lot of spare space.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The £9 million upgrade of Leith Walk has not been “future-proofed” to allow for an extension to the tram network – meaning some of the work is likely to have to be ripped up.
This is "interesting" as I am sure the Cooncil guys at the McDonald Road Library Leith Walk consultation day said they had to design it all to allow space for future tram provision.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"ripped up"
the median strip has been maintained. surely what they are getting at is not putting in the cycle infra because the road will be 'too narrow' once the trams actually put in?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I've given up following this closely, but my understanding was that some of planning was on the basis that 'we know that some bits will have to be undone/redone' but also working on 'the tram won't be extended for another 10 years/never'.
BUT - as far as I'm aware - this wasn't the 'issue' for the bits that are currently being done.
I think most of the 'extend the tram' talk is hype/fantasy (and will remain so) apart from the possibility (apparently a probability) of extending the line for a few blocks down from Picardy Place.
In terms of street width/space I think there is now more of an assumption that the buses will run in the same lane as the trams - there will also presumably be fewer buses (if the tram ever gets to the bottom of Leith Walk).
There is of course also a possibility that some parts of LW will be bike/bus/tram only.
The 'passenger numbers according to business plan' notion is based on the novelty period + a Take That concert!
Don't know how much pensioner travel is taken into account. SG only pays for buses so, for the tram use CEC (I mean council tax payers) is paying itself (I mean TE/LB).
In addition I don't know what amount of passengers/revenue is coming from people who were already using the buses. It seems unlikely that extending the tram to Leith will add many paying passengers who aren't already bus users.
The tram doesn't seem to have reduced bus numbers/frequency/routes, though a longer tram route might make that possible.
Of course CEC has LOTS of trams (bought enough to service the 'planned' routes) and plenty of 'spare' track. Though apparently some has already 'disappeared' (don't know if EN or LH knows that).
However - in spite of all the 'moving of services' on LW (for the tram) there isn't a high degree of confidence that these were done well enough for there to be no problems if/when more track is laid.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Take ThatOne DirectionTo be fair, concerts do happen at Murrayfield, it's not unreasonable to expect that to continue (Foo Fighters in 2015) and for gig-goers to use the tram to get there.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Apparently they play rugby there as well and have the occasional crowd.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Not sure the 'Novelty Period' can be called a thing any more, it's been running since spring. I've been on Gyle-bound trams a few times at rush hour now and each time by Edinburgh Park it's been crowded before emptying roughly 50/50 between Edinburgh Park and Gogarburn.
Extra revenue - probably not immediately - but maybe indirectly as this will be freeing up seats on the 22 and making it more attractive again for other passengers.
Other way any time I've seen it it's nearly dead by the time it's round the corner and into York Place... even getting it down to the foot of the walk will make all the different with a good volume of short journeys carrying those going to the shops/trains/buses.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"even getting it down to the foot of the walk will make all the different with a good volume of short journeys carrying those going to the shops/trains/buses"
Yes, but the point is - will there be enough extra passengers to justify the expense?
Elsewhere Public Transport would be seen as a 'public good' and paid for by the national government or extra local taxes - perhaps after a referendum...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Currently the section from Princess street to York Place only seems to serve the purpose of ensuring you can get a seat heading west. Otherwise in my experience you're quicker using the Princess Street stop and walking to and from York Place. If they extend it down Leith Walk I hope they also fix the East End bottle neck to ensure a smooth journey through town.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well they've either decided not to proceed with the tram, or the development wasn't encroaching on it, because the steel frame is now up to ground floor level at the site.
Posted 9 years ago # -
All the possible tram routes are still protected from development. That includes the Granton, Leith and Little France / Niddrie spurs. Also heard rumblings of protected land for an extension to Dalkeith.
I'm sure the original documents put to the Scottish Parly for funding showed a single line down to Granton. Parly then asked Edin Council to beef up the plans, at which point the line became duelled.
As the route will probably never loop as planned, I wonder if a single track with double at the station would be possible.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Photo below as mentioned by kaputnik. No sign of any work on the site.
I thought the issue was more about the access paths heading northwards rather than the actual building?
150113130539IMG_0035 by fountainbridge, on FlickrAs a side note I had a look at the planning permissions for the site. Seems they managed to wangle out of "safer routes to school" contribution as it only contains 1 bed flats and is unlikely to have any residents attending school. They also managed to have their tram contribution reduced from 43k to 20k - as CEC planning had said in emails it was not likely to exceed 20k.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I thought the issue was more about the access paths heading northwards rather than the actual building?
Yes think you are right, the flats will be built on the 1st floor level above that frame, with a patio / embankment extension out the back with its own little bit of path onto the main cycle path. The issue seems to be how much of the existing embankment they are cutting into / reprofiling to create this access.
as it only contains 1 bed flats
And some price for them too!
Wangling out of tram / safer routes to school contributions aside, I scrutinised all the documents and it does appear the developer has done everything "by the book" in terms of planning regarding the trams and that the mess up was on the council's side.
I did note the response from the transport dept. was negative; the flats are being built without car parking, and the response was that this would be a bad thing for transport as it meant that flat owners would park their cars on the side streets around Balbirnie. I take it the assumption in planning is that everyone owns a car and the only solution is to build parking spaces for all?
Posted 9 years ago # -
NEWSFLASH;
STUDENTS living in a new housing complex planned for Leith would be banned from having cars under controversial rules.
Not really that controversial, where are you going to stick 240 cars in Bothwell Street?!
This latest plan supersedes an earlier proposal for 71 residential flats on the site, which planners were reportedly “minded to grant”.
There's always money for student
open prisonsapartments in Edinburgh.Posted 9 years ago # -
CEC standards are normally 1 space per property for new build (either flat or 5 bed house). Does seem strange they were allowed to exclude car parking.
Presume shop will be a sainsburys local. No other supermarket within 20 yards.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Pretty much every time I go along Bothwell Street there's some sort of protracted multiple-point-turn stuff going on, complicated by pedestrians' insistence on use of the road instead of the pooey/icey/littery footways, the oblique angle of entry required to some of the nose in/out parking spaces and the occupation of some of those spaces by extremely long vans.
I assume any new student flats being built there would have to have some sort of special arrangement with the fire service to be able to ignore the usual bad-cooking false alarms as there's no way a standard appliance would be able to get down there at night-time.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"STUDENTS living in a new housing complex planned for Leith would be banned from having cars under controversial rules."
How would this be enforced? Are they going to follow every student as they leave the accomodation to ensure they board a bus/tram and not walk a few streets away to their parked private car?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Students in Cambridge are banned from having cars. I don't know how they enforce this, but it is said to be one of the contributors to the high levels of cycling in Cambridge.
Posted 9 years ago # -
They don't enforce it as far as I recall. It is just that it would be very tricky to keep a car in Cambridge if you are living in one if the colleges. There is just nowhere to put it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
the flats are being built without car parking
What about bike parking? Covered? Secure? Multiple bikes?
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
