Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Third of trams money gone and not a single track is laid

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 October 2008
MORE than a third of the money available for the city's £512 million tram project has been spent without a single piece of track being laid, according to new figures obtained by the Evening News.
The current total outlay for the Newhaven to Edinburgh Airport line is £177m, with around half of that having been spent on construction.

Details released by tram firm TIE following a freedom of information request show it has spent £1.5m on comm
unications, nearly £18m on land compensation deals and £34m on the tram design process.

The project is thought to be broadly on budget, but delays on utility works in Leith and the recent traffic diversion debacle on The Mound have dented reserves.

Business groups and tram critics today questioned the amount of money that had already been paid out.

But TIE defended the project, saying it still expected the line to be finished by 2011 and at the current £512m price tag.

Councillor Nick Elliott-Cannon, the SNP's finance spokesman, said: "It is scary how much money was spent on the project without a shovel going into the ground.

"While there are a lot of things you can't factor for in a job of this scale without actually starting, a third of the money is gone without a single track in place.

"They seem to have spent a great deal of money on design and modelling but have still managed to get so many things wrong.

"I am deeply worried about the whole project coming in on budget."

Over the summer, the price of the tram line rose from £498m to £512m due to increased costs and currency fluctuations.

The project still has an overall funding pot of £545m left, of which £96m is regarded as a "contingency" reserve.

However, tram bosses have still to pay out for the bulk of the contracts to build the tram line and wires, as well as the tram cars.

These contracts are thought to total around £300m.

Gordon Burgess, chairman of the traders association for Leith Walk and Constitution Street, said: "They've not exactly had good value for money from this £1.5m spent on communications.

"The communications started off quite well but it has really deteriorated.

"The third time they closed off Jane Street, all we got was two days' notice with a flyer."

More than £80m had been spent on the tram scheme by the time it was given final approval by the SNP Government in 2007. This included a £100,000 advertising campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the public.

A spokesman for TIE said: "The total public spend profile of the project is now one third complete. This includes costs associated with contract procurement, land purchase, design and planning.

"The construction is now 20 per cent complete and the project is on plan to commence a revenue service for the full network in July 2011."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 October 2008 10:26 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh transport plans
 
1

Concerned of Leith,

24/10/2008 11:42:28
At least here's a chance that Willie G won't be getting his £340,000 bonus then!
2

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 12:01:55
A third of the money gone, and no real sign of much progress on this White Elephant. There is still a loooooong way to go on this one. Final realistic cost, taking into account the subsidies it will take to keep this debacle running: at least a billion quid.
3

OnTrack,

Leith 24/10/2008 12:19:18
#2 Skip... I suspect I know where you pulled that figure from... hope you rinsed it off first.

This is typical EEN scaremongering to fill column inches. If the parliamentary process for a scheme like this can take two years, of course a healthy whack of the budget has been spent already

That there hasn't been any track laid is a useless marker of progress. There is plenty of time left to meet the anticipated build period that has been in every instance of the business case so far.

It's like the HBOS saga all over again. The media rattling everyone's cages as hard as they can to promote short-sighted and short-tempered panic mongering (and to sell newspapers.)

Please grow up everyone. I've been in several cities all over the world that have adopted trams. Your stories and comments are not new... they are repeated everywhere...

"No trams, more buses, waste of money, not a real system"

Then things go live and exactly the same bloggers are writing:

"Doesn't go far enough, should have built more, when will we have another line, should have built more earlier to save money on overall construction cost"

It's tiring. Trams work in Houston, Strasbourg, Portland Oregon, Berlin, Munich, Amsterdam, Manchester, Lyon, Melbourne, Bordeaux, Dublin... the list is really IMMENSE.

If so many cities in so many countries all think its the right choice for a greener, more accessible, more frequent congestion busting form of transport....and realise that it costs less over its life to operate than a bus system... and moves more people for less money when built... surely we should take notice?

People are determined to attack what the rest of the world seems to think is a good idea. Maybe we should step outside the comfort zone of moaning and complaining (a bit of a national pastime for us) and start looking forward at how this is another example of Scotland managing to deliver excellent, worldclass transport solutions when politicking and ineffici
4

Son of Gramsci,

Edina 24/10/2008 12:21:34
Well, it clearly costs a lot to dig up Leith Walk. And fill the holes in. And dig them up again. And fill them in again. And dig them up again.
5

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 12:21:50
#3

I pulled it from the same place as TIE's "sound business case".
6

OnTrack,

Leith 24/10/2008 12:22:48
whoops... got over excited.

To finish...

If so many cities in so many countries all think its the right choice for a greener, more accessible, more frequent congestion busting form of transport....and realise that it costs less over its life to operate than a bus system... and moves more people for less money when built... surely we should take notice?

People are determined to attack what the rest of the world seems to think is a good idea. Maybe we should step outside the comfort zone of moaning and complaining (a bit of a national pastime for us) and start looking forward at how this is another example of Scotland managing to deliver excellent, worldclass transport solutions when politicking and inefficiency south of the border have caused many of these good ideas to fall by the wayside.

We should be proud of what we're doing up here, what happened to that sentiment?

Here we are building a system that runs on electric, with a progressive government that promises to make the way we generate electric cleaner year on year.

Scotland is the only place in the UK building a brand new environmentally friendly transport system that will get cleaner as it gets older and has unparalleled access for disabled people,pushchairs etc... That's pretty amazing...

Where's the pride people?
7

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 12:27:29
It would only decrease congestion if it was off-road. As it is, spending so much public money on cramming YET ANOTHER mode of transport into already packed road space is absolute folly.

Underground? Reduces congestion - good thing, worth public investment. Off-road local rail system? Reduces congestion - good thing, worth public investment. On-road tramline, forcing yet more traffic onto less road space, while also narrowing pavements for pedestrians? Bad thing, and waste of public money.
8

Andy Pandy,

24/10/2008 12:33:32
#7 - I like the pride reference.

What you're forgetting is the "notion" it should be something we are ALL proud of.

Clearly for so many reasons it is not something for us all to be proud of.

It's a sham not a tram.

And when the final bill comes in over the current estimate and we all have to pay out of ur own tax pockets, I hope this shining white elephant of nonsense makes you feel proud.

I rather think it'll make a lot of people feel like money wasted, city wasted, opportunity wasted, what could we have spent the money on and made a REAL contribution that would have benefited the WHOLE of Scotland....I could go on but its nothing thats not been said before.

9

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 12:36:28
#9

Well said.

I'm all for spending public money on sound projects that benefit the people of Scotland. But this ain't it.
10

OnTrack,

Leith 24/10/2008 12:39:32
#8 Skip.... I agree... and underground would be FAB... but at ten times as much per metre of track to build one, I can't imagine you being happy about the bill. Let's put that debate to bed shall we?

Also, 60% of the route in Edinburgh *is* offroad... your point is well made, but in operation, tramlines have been discovered, in spite of partial on-street running to operate at a very similar efficiency to underground systems.

#7 ...thanks, I had my saltire waving a wee bit I think.. But I'm proud that we're doing something that is so iconic of progressive thinking. Once its running and running well, I hope you'll allow yourself to feel a touch of pride.

Everyone's welcome to their opinion, as am I. I promise I won't say "I told you so" when it all works out. If I'm wrong, I will happily go in the virtual stocks and allow you to jeer.
11

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 12:40:08
#7 - What is there to be proud of in spending £700m+ on a scheme which has no real benefit on congestion, increases pollution on side streets through forced traffic dispalcement, which serves only a tiny percentrage of the population and which puts at risk the success of the existing bus service as its business case is a complete joke?

To pursue this monument to politicians vanity and job preservation scheme for liars at TIE is a disgrace. Time to pull the plug before we waste another half billion and saddle the city with a further £10m+ pa to cover operating losses.
12

Leila,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 12:41:09
If it had been built underground and off-road I think it would have had the total support of everyone in Edinburgh. Of course that would have cost a lot of money, but as the saying goes, "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly".
13

OnTrack,

#13 24/10/2008 12:43:49
I think you're right about the benefits of underground. But it's about the benefit to cost ratio.
I'd like to believe you Leila... but I suspect that a £5 billion pound underground serving the city would not only not attract public support... it would be more than our government have to spend.
14

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 12:45:16
#11

I appreciate that Underground costs would be way above overground costs. Yet other countries manage to install underground systems, so why can't we? London, Prague, Paris, Prague, Berlin etc all have wonderful underground systems. How is it that they can afford to construct these, while we cannot?

I'm not anti-public transport (quite the reverse in fact) and I am not against spending large amounts of public money on smart, environmentally sound and good value for money public transport projects. I just believe that this isn't such a project, and that they money could be much better utilised elsewhere.
15

Andy Pandy,

24/10/2008 12:47:46
#11 fair point. See you there then - you won't miss me. I'll be the one drawing up in the virtual car.......:)
16

JT,

24/10/2008 12:49:14
Im really not surprised. Cant see it coming in on time or budget, just like the parliament building that is a disgrace to the city.
17

Brad,

Glasgow 24/10/2008 12:50:22
"The project is thought to be broadly on budget"

Isn't that the story?
18

Epicuras,

24/10/2008 12:51:51
"a £100,000 advertising campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the public." Well, that's due for a refund at least.
£177 million spent of which it's known that the contarct to Carrillion for digging up the roads etc - the only thing that has actually been done, so that's £137 million in brown envelopes and consultants - bargain!
19

New Town Resident,

24/10/2008 12:52:47
~13. Leila, Not so, actually it would have cost less money.

I was told by an engineer who worked on the initial design that the first study was to use a lot of the old railway tracks, including the unused tunnel under Carlton hill, with a proper Waverly link. This would have been much cheaper as the ground was already highly compacted from a century of rail running and didn't have the utility problems.

Why didn't they do it? Because of a green lobby over preserving cycle ways and they wanted to actually block cars, not just providea better alternative to actually win motorists over.

This is the problem we have with people who chose to become local politicians. They are either corrupt or obsessives with tiny minority fadish views which the party system allows them to foist on us at no consequence to themselves.

Windfarms anyone?
20

PaulB,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 12:56:05
#3 - well done! At last a voice of sanity amongs the usual idiots and doom merchants who lurk, awaiting the EEN's bait of 'tram horror story pt999' The trams are coming. Work is progressing to sechedule. It is NOT over budget. The work to move utilities was always going to be the major part of the project hence money has been spent on it. Thank you trackside for your well thought out and sensible comments. I totally agree with you - but suspect we are part of the silent majority.
21

New Town Resident,

24/10/2008 13:03:14
#15. agree, but see my post 21.
22

PaulB,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:04:40
Sorry #3 I meant On Track!
23

Boy Wonder,

24/10/2008 13:11:29
Hands up who didn't se this coming!!!
24

antifa,

24/10/2008 13:11:40
Tram scheme is on budget. What else is there to say?
25

capy,

embra 24/10/2008 13:11:53
Interesting that the EEN should conclude the story with"it was given final approval by the SNP Government in 2007" No mention that they actually voted against it.

I think an underground was ruled out on Geological grounds.
26

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:12:06
This could very well (and SHOULD) turn into a project to renew all the ageing water pipes, sewage pipes and cabling buried under Edinburgh's roads. Let's face it, the various pipes and wires they have renewed and/or serviced during this project so far is to be commended.

"Councillor Nick Elliott-Cannon, the SNP's finance spokesman, said: "It is scary how much money was spent on the project without a shovel going into the ground."

So I wonder how the massive holes have appeared in Princes Street, Leith Walk, Shandwick Place and various other locations? Maybe the "hole pixies" have been busy whilst no-one was looking?

To be honest, the work done so far has been worthwhile and has probably needed doing for years. However, once it has been done, they should fill the holes up, send the tarmac machine down, followed by a road roller and forget about the whole sorry episode. I would be beside myself with joy if the money ran out on this project, because then that is exactly what WOULD happen.
27

antifa,

24/10/2008 13:14:41
Also, this kind of investment is absolutely what Edinburgh needs as we move into recession. Let the bleaters bleat. For the most part, they are simply too ignorant (or in case of the guy above) too mad to enter into serious discussion.
28

Ron D,

Enybru 24/10/2008 13:15:06
I notice there are a few potholes appearing in Shandwick place already.
29

scotsol,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:19:14
The whole anti-tram case can be put in four words: I love my car. That's the beginning and end of it. All the whingeing about cost and congestion is rubbish. If the same amount of money was being spent and congestion caused for a motorway flyover smashing through the castle rock they'd be slavering over it.
30

Franky McNostril,

Brooklyn NY 24/10/2008 13:27:39
£177 000 000 for what?

Is this Holyrood, the sequel?
31

PaulB,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:35:31
#34 - have you seen the state of the old corroded pipes they have replaced? This work would have been done anyway, as all old iron gas mains have to be replaced with high strength plastic ones - and I am sure new water pipes will mean less leaks and fewer roadworks longer term. Not a bad start really, and once the trams are running, Edinburgh's transport system will be vastly improved.
32

Edinburgh Writer,

24/10/2008 13:37:24
What a stupid article. Obviously track-laying is going to be a relatively late stage of the project. Very, very poor journalism.
33

Mallory,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:41:14
Have TIE taken account of the possibility of legal challenges, both to the quantum of 'compensation' which may be paid to those who's land will be taken over and also any challenge to the classification of the system as a light-railway?
34

Ronster,

edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:43:57
Is everyone going mental ?????

The project is on time and within budget, yet all you numptys still get your knickers in a twist !!!!!!

If you all want to live in the stone age go to glasgow and do it !!!!!
35

,

24/10/2008 13:53:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

Kirspin,

Fergus, Ontario twinned with Blairgowie 24/10/2008 13:58:27
Cost will be more than double when its completed, now that the word Recession is apon the World, maybe more.
One thing I dont get that I noticed on my recent visit is that they should by laying Track after doing the underground moves, why dig it up twice!
Someone mentioned Cities that have Trams, you missed Toronto, Ontario they have had them for years! My wife said that Edinburgh tore up the Tram tracks in 1956, not a good idea now is it?
37

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 14:10:57
#33 - I take the bus to work everyday and am opposed to the trams. Every one of my colleagues uses public transport to get to work and every one is opposed to the tram farce.

#38. It is not on time and not on budget. Moving the time frame and changing the budget does not count. Leith Walk is c. 6 months behind whilst the road closures at Haymarket, Shandwick Place and massive amounts of works (far more than the max 7 stated in the business plan) are because it is behind schedule. Also, Remember 3 lines for £375m? Now we have one for a true cost >£700m.
38

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 14:15:34
33 scotsol,Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:19:14
"The whole anti-tram case can be put in four words: I love my car. That's the beginning and end of it. All the whingeing about cost and congestion is rubbish. If the same amount of money was being spent and congestion caused for a motorway flyover smashing through the castle rock they'd be slavering over it."

- Erm, no. That's just a convenient argument for pro-trammies who want to paint everyone who isn't in favour of the tram as some kind of car-obsessed petrol junkie.

Fact is, I use public transport to work every day. I do not drive a car anywhere near Edinburgh, nor would I want to.

Like most people, my opposition to the tramline is based on both the excessive cost/benefit ratio, and the fact that the scheme will do nothing to reduce congestion. And that's before you even factor in the political games, and TIEs Stazi-style PR operation and excessive profiteering.
39

Some guy,

24/10/2008 14:17:42
It's good to see a mix of opinions appearing now on the Trams and we have quite a few people supporting them. Each to their own i suppose, we'll see at the end of the build what group is right. I'm one of the people that thinks after a year or two running they'll be success and line 3 will be getting approved.

Oh and with regards to the budget and timescale #42 your right they are taking ages and i think Leith Walk is getting a bit disgraceful. It was the price that rose earlier in the year not the budget. The price rose to £512m the budget stayed the same at £545m.
40

,

24/10/2008 14:19:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 14:21:22
#38

Would that be Glasgow with the excellent local off-road train network, plus a highly successful underground that it is thinking of expanding?
42

Robin Bankes,

Culross 24/10/2008 14:24:46
Project on budget yet the moaning minnies and chip-on-the-shoulder merchants are out in full force with their ill-informed haverings and slaverings.
Personally I can't wait for the day when I can drop off my 4x4 at the Ingliston P&R and glide directly to Victoria Quay by tram to conduct my consultancy work instead of boarding a shoogly X48 then an equally shoogly 22 on Princes Street. I just hope the malconents in these forums boycott trams in order to improve the 'tram experience' for those of us who accept we are in the twenty first century. Ding ding.
43

Leila,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 14:38:14
#33: I travel everywhere by public transport or on foot. I don't own a car, never have done. But there's a big difference between supporting improvements to public transport (including trams), and supporting the Edinburgh tram project. What I was saying above was that if there really was the justification for spending a lot of money on a tram scheme, then it should have been done properly. I don't think that giving trams the exclusive use of 3/5 of the road space through an already congested city centre which still has to accommodate multiple bus routes and yes, some car traffic, is the right solution. Trying to improve things but doing it the wrong way, often ends up making it worse.

And lumping everyone who is concerned about any aspect of the Edinburgh tram scheme into an "anti-tram" category is both inaccurate and unhelpful (and insulting).
44

Some guy,

24/10/2008 14:40:27
rs i thought the budget for the trams was £545m including a £96m contingency to allow for things like the increase in price earlier in the year. This budget was for line 1a not 1a and b as people seem to think. Once 1a was finished money left from it was to go towards 1b with the council having to find money to make up the difference.

Slag them for being a waste of money, not helping congestion, diverting funds from other areas, not the best solution to a problem, being behind schedule not being an underground... just don't slag them for currently being over budget as their not.
45

Bring Back Poll Tax,

24/10/2008 14:56:35
#7 "environmentally friendly transport system"

Only in the same context that a Prius is "environmentally friendly" - e.g. what about all the tens of thousands of tons of "greenhouse gases" generated by the contractors vehicles and plant, never mind needlessly queueing traffic over the last two and next 2 years, together with the environmental impact caused by producing all the concrete and steel etc. that the tram infrastructure needs.

Oh yes, when it's actually running, it can run on eco-friendly wind power (or hamster wheel generation when the wind doesn't blow) but how many decades will it take before the marginal environmental "savings" (2% of car commuters changing to tram usage?) balance out all the pre-usage carbon deficit.

Just as well that never had to be factored into any measure of the system's green credentials (I have raised this as an FOI enquiry - TIE confirmed that it never bothered to calculate the carbon footprint generated by building the toy tram network of one line).
46

Incandescent,

24/10/2008 14:57:51
On a related note: I would find it rather strange indeed were modern trams to utilise a recording or other simulation of a bell from the last century to signal that the vehicle was stopping.
47

Incandescent,

24/10/2008 15:01:46
"ding, ding!"? I very much think not.
48

Some guy,

24/10/2008 15:10:18
The budget for the first stage of the trams i.e 1a was £545m including £96m contingency fund. They are currently using about 1/2 of their contingency fund to allow for the inflation thing you talk about thats the whole point in budgeting a contingency fund. 1b was always going to a a seperate budget decided at a later date depending on the price quoted and the remainders from 1a.

Yes that's the cost of 1a and 1b you've shown but 1b hasn't been properly budgeted for yet hence the stories ealier in the year saying the council have to find another £45m to pay for 1b if they want it.
49

macdowall,

24/10/2008 15:26:19
So what you're saying is that the Tram Project is broadly on target. Wow, hold the front page. The real news is that the quality of journalism coming from the EN is laughable.
50

Forthtag,

South Queensferry 24/10/2008 15:28:53
There has been lots of comment about putting the tram system underground.

Firstly the geology would be ideal for tunnelling, for instance Princes Street sits on a soft micaous shale. It would not need to be open cut and could be built from shafts stategically placed at underground stations. The tunnelling could be done from a maximum of five shafts.

The services would not need to be diverted at what ever cost. The cost of putting it underground would not be ten times as someone said, two small bore light Rail Tunnels each 12 Km long would cost in the region of £500m in todays prices. If this were to be done the capacity of the system would jump from 2,500 passengers per hour to potentially 12- 15,000 per hour.

There would be next to no disruption.

Surface trams are far to restrictive for Edinburgh, Dublin congestion is back to pre tram days because their systems are on road and does not have enough capacity. All of the new line in Dublin will be underground. Cities of similar size, Lisbon, Vancouver are all going underground, the added benifit is that it does not spoil our heritage!
51

,

24/10/2008 15:31:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

Skip McClendon,

24/10/2008 16:17:51
#67

Very interesting points, and well made.

Sadly, of course, your comments will be ignored by the rampant pro-trammies who characterise anyone and everyone who questions the value of this tramline as a rampant, ill-informed petrol-head.
53

lulach mac gille coemgain,

24/10/2008 16:23:28
I have decided - I am going to return to travel by horse and these tram routes look like the route to take from edinburgh west to the city centre and vice versa - i just hope the tram passengers are in no hurry, what, with the equestrian right of way.
54

Pond Hall,

near cockenzie power station 24/10/2008 16:56:36
comment 7 OnTrack, Leith 24/10/2008 12:22:48
whoops... got over excited.

Scotland is the only place in the UK building a brand new environmentally friendly transport system that will get cleaner as it gets older and has unparalleled access for disabled people,pushchairs etc...

Ontrack
environmentally friendly - think not, take a look at Cockenzie Power Station and the Black Smoke spewing out of it today.

Unparalleled access for disabled people....well Ok if you live near a tram stop, remember there will be a lot less stops compared to buses...3 on Leith Walk

Only 22 along the Whole Route and the Disabled will have to get into the middle of the road to get to the tram?

Or get on a bus,to get off a bus, to get on a tram, to get off a tram, to get on a bus, to get off the bus.
When prior to the Tram opening, they would have made one through journey on one bus!.

The financial benefit to The Tram/Bus company are obvious, instead of getting 1 "OAP" fare back from the concessionary fare scheme, they will be able to claim 3.

55

Top Floor,

24/10/2008 17:04:34
No comment from Cllr Phil Wheeler ..... Does he still do transport ?....
56

Mallory,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 17:24:36
Gopod news from Radio Netherlands

Trams accidents decreased in the Netherlands

The number of accidents involving trams has decreased 45 percent since 2000. According to figures released by the Ministry of Transport, 20 percent fewer people have been injured and in most cases there is only material damage.

The report states that tram drivers are often unable to prevent accidents. One of the causes of accidents are cyclists listening to music on their MP3 players, or ignoring traffic rules. Many people are not aware of the right-of-way rules which apply to trams.

57

Andrew,

24/10/2008 17:34:57
_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Tram wires!
58

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 24/10/2008 18:01:56
This is yet another anti tram non story from the EEN.

When I worked on new roads contracts, at least 75% of the costs were in preparation, earthworks, land costs etc etc. The last job done was actually laying the tarmac, so the same story could apply to every roads job in the UK as well.

But then that is not an anti trammie story, is it Mr Editor ?
59

gus1940,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 18:25:17
#3

Could this by any chance be an employee of TIE or the Council?
60

Leila,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 19:17:52
Probably, with a name like that, and obviously with no interest in any other story.
61

Just a tax payer,

EDINBURGH 24/10/2008 19:30:24
If the third of the money has already been spent, is itn't time to call this white elephant off: SCRAP the project and the taxpayers WILL save 2 thirds of the money. I call on the politicians (MSP and Edinburgh Councillors) to listen to the public. You were elected to serve the people and represent their wishes.
62

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 19:31:39
Some comments on this thread.
#21 New Town Resident - there was a private plan (NETCO) to run trams along Princes Street, Leith Walk and back around via the railway paths through Trinity/Roseburn. They wanted to cut costs by going for an unproven lightweight construction method. Later, early studies considered mixed-running from Haymarket through Waverley on heavy rail tracks. No capacity available, and no UK safety case for mixing trams and trains. And there is no unused tunnel at Calton Hill - one tunnel is capable of being restored to twin-track (without major engineering), and this might be wanted for additional capacity on the ECML and Borders Railway.
#67 £500m for the tunnels alone? What about trams, track, stations, signalling, OHLE, depot(s), planning, etc?
#77 Cockenzie has to shut by 2015, unless it is rebuilt with cleaner plant (flue gas desulphurisation, etc)
63

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 19:32:22
#85 - mince. The contracts have been signed.
64

Think Tank,

24/10/2008 19:41:49
On time and on budget.

That's what anyone with more than the single neuron will read into this article.

The alternative headline:

Edinburgh Evening News' "stab in the dark" use of the Freedom of Information Act to generate "headlines" fails once more- but we'll use it anyway!

65

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 21:07:46
#87. Contracts can be cancelled. There may be some penalty clauses to pay but they will be cheaper than wasting another £500m coupled with the structural operating deficits of at least £10m pa.

#88. Its not on time and not on budget. It is running late, hence they are playing catch up with the road closures and extra works that were never in the business plan (remember the approved plan had no road closures and not more than seven sets of works across the whole route) and is already over its original construction budget and eating into contingency.


66

Ian down under,

Musselburgh 24/10/2008 21:54:48
Why is that Trams won't work in Edinburgh, won't be used and will be a disaster for the economy, businesses, transport, old people, prams, and the environment?
All over the world they are successful, popular, efficient and environmentally friendly. Are the anti-trammers actually suggesting that we can't be as good as all those other places?
There are arguments for putting part of the system underground, especially in the centre and I would like to have seen a better link in to the Waverley but this would have cost more at this stage and getting Salmond to put money into this scheme was hard enough.
Don't look at the trams in isolation. We do need to invest more in our heavy [main line] rail network and that includes some more re-openings and some re-routings. Eventually a metro system underground in the city centre is a possibility. Once we have that kind of network and genuine through ticketing to include buses the city will become a pretty attractive place to be.
I don't know if anyone remembers when the Tyne and Wear Metro opened. They reorganised the buses to run in suburban areas to feed the metro with only a few buses going into central Newcastle. This was a roaring success until Thatcher decided to break up the bus network and banned Tyne and Wear council from running integrated service. The whole system collapsed with traffic jams of buses again and falling public transport use. Now with increasd road congestion the metro is booming and expanding and this helps the city economy.
67

the watchfull eye,

24/10/2008 21:57:02
just like the scottish parliment project to much cash and no brains running it. looks good on paper but tram loads of cash going nowhere apart from someones back pocket. I wonder how many politcians in edinburgh have bought shares in this company. quite a few no doubt thats why everybodys so keen to have the trams.
68

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 23:13:48
#90. Again you trot out the same tired arguments about how other cities have trams. Do some research. Every single new build tram system in the UK has been a FAILURE. The benefits NEVER justify the cost.

For the money wasted on this single line we could have run every Lothian Bus free for almost ten years. That would make a difference to public transport use.

But we get this monument to politicians vanity and a job preservation scheme for failures and liars at TIE. One which will be a drain on the public purse for decades to come.

69

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 25/10/2008 00:00:59
I am just back from a week's break and have been catching up with the news.

rs (57) - you are right: the original estimate of £375m was for both lines 1 and 2. This increased to £483m and then, during the parliamentary process, TIE admitted that the estimate was actually £714m. Both TIE and the Council knew perfectly well that the cost was £714m for nearly two years (and so must Transport Scotland) before finally making that clear to the public.

With a commitment to pay only up to £500m from the government, the Council then decided to "phase" construction and the current costs stand at £512m for Phase 1a and £87m for Phase 1b, totalling £599m, and leaving the Council to find £99m for both phases. It has so far banked just over £3m.

One of the main issues in relation to potential cost overrun is that both the utilities diversions and infrastructure contracts appear to have been let before the detailed design was finalised. I have been interested to read reports that roads are being dug up and filled repeatedly and can only think that this might be due to changes in the design. That fact that the diversions are also considerably behind schedule strengthens that suspicion and I doubt that reliable costs will be available until the works are complete.

On the basis of TIE and the Council initially understating the cost by some £339m, I take with a very large pinch of salt anything they say about finance now and, indeed, with such large bonuses at stake, would expect them, at this stage, to say nothing other than that the project is on time/budget. Academic studies have found that financial incentives have not been conducive to honesty from scheme promoters, particularly where a project is publicly funded, and it will not be until all the claims have been negotiated that we have an end cost.

70

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 25/10/2008 02:25:35
MADNESS.wright.from.the.start.a.stupid.money.pit
71

Mallory,

Edinburgh 25/10/2008 09:03:35
Edinburgh Tram line

----- ------------- --------- / /--
--------- --- ----------- ----x--------
72

Euan,

Edinburgh 25/10/2008 11:01:14
#92 Graeme.

As ever, very well said Mate.

The drain on our public finances that this tram line will create in the years to comes makes me shudder.

The fact is, the trams will not in any way reduce congestion in town. It will do nothing but create congestion. The route it is being built on only forms a small part of a number of already well-used bus routes.

A classic example of this would be say the No.11 bus route.

If a person gets on in Bruntsfield and wants to go to say Ferry Road, they are not going to get off in the West End, get on a tram, then get off the tram on Leith Walk only to get on a No.11 again are they? - of course not.

This rings true of many bus routes which use Princess St as part of their main route, whether the bus goes up to Newington, East Craigs, Morningside wherever. There is no reason for these people to use the tram as the buses they are on already go to where the want to go - simple logic.

Many, many car drivers will choose not to use them as they simply will not take enough people where they want to go regardless of how many passengers the tram can hold.

They will cause congestion in the city centre as all the bus routes I mentioned above STILL have to get about their daily business, as do trades vehicles, delivery vehicles, taxis, private hire cars, tourist buses, road sweepers, bin lorries and of course cars, which many people actually use for their daily jobs.

The tram line is a monumental waste of taxpayers money and will be of little or no use to the majority of the people who live in Edinburgh

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should TIE be spending time Twittering and using social networking sites?
Yes, many people communicate this way now
No, it’s just another form of spin
No, it should focus on getting the work done on time

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.