If Tina Woolnough really wants May 3rd to be a referendum on trams and if the pro tram parties collectively win a majority of council seats on May 3rd, will she accept that as the will of the people of Edinburgh?

I doubt it! Ms Woolnough will no doubt find a way of claiming that the majority of people support her, even when they clearly didnt!

She continually fails to come up with any solution to Edinburgh's traffic problems. She is not a transport planner, yet she thinks she knows better than them!

Why trams can be successfully built across the world, but somewhow Leith Walk is beyond the wit of humankind is beyond me!

Bring on the trams!

If the majority of people support the trams will Ms Woolnough represent that view - I doubt it.

If she wants to be taken credibly then she should put forward practical alternatives to reduce congestion and improve the environment which don't involve greater car use.

And would her objections to the tram be different if the line didn't run at the bottom of her garden?

For Independent candidate - read closet Tory, they usually are.

At least when you vote for a political party you know broadly what you are voting for. Vote for an "independent" and it is a shot in the dark.

It is a vote for a bunch of people with absolutely no experience of running a city. Political parties are made up of members of the community who have taken an active decision to get involved and together have spent time thinking how the city should be run, with a broad range of policies that people can look at and choose from.

And do so-called Independents cease to be independent when they all come to together, as Ms Woolnough seems to be suggesting? What other policies do they have?

#4 - You'd better whisper the closet Tory bit in front of the howling harridan Margo MacDonald!

Woolnough says that Tavish Scott is concerned about the "viablilty" of the tram project......

Given that the same Lib Dems are ploughing £1billion into the M74 despite the public enquiry finding that it should not be built because it would not bring any of the economic "benefits" the Lib Dems claimed it would, who trusts Lib Dem transport "policy".

They over ruled the public enquiry and pushed ahead with the motorway, so they dont really have a leg to stand on when it comes to being experts on transport projects.

Woolnough should be careful of using Lib Dem policy to justify anything?

Maybe there were no badgers on the route of the M74

2# Andy Pandy, you should get Looby Lou and get back in your box. There have been many sugestions to reform traffic in Edinburgh, all of which would cost a lot less than a tram line, that won't meet the needs of the city. Busses run on Biodeisel or LPG that are free for all.This would be a better use of the money.

# 7

Do LPG or biodiesel buses go faster than normal ones?

Are they magic buses that don't get caught up in traffic? Do they fly maybe?

Do they carry 200 hundred people at a time, and can they empty and refill in about a minute?

Will the tens of thousands of people who currently go by car be tempted to suddenly use the buses just because they have new engines? Doubtful.

And what we do when every single street is choked with LPG buses and journey times are even longer than they are now?

Is this the best we can hope for from "independent" anti-tram councillors?

Regarding the Granton Waterfront and the proposal to not have parking spaces, maybe if this new part of town was built with a decent public transport infrastructure, there would be less need for cars.

Sadly, thousands of new car journeys will result from the Waterfront, creating misery for local residents. Sadly, people still campaign against the trams which would help a lot. It can take 45 minutes by bus to the city centre (vs about 14 by the proposed tram) - no wonder people will prefer to drive.

And if the developers had built bus shelters (the New Telford college has only one bus shelter, capable of holding about six people) and proper bus stops, decent cycle lanes and pathways rather than the 1960s stuff they have built there, there might be less of a problem.

#7 - Trams run on roads for much of their journey. As such they will continue to have delays caused by traffic lights, pedestrians, other road users. Principal time savings for the tram line compared to buses are due to the off road sections and traffic light priority (which is being introduced for buses anyway) and removing large numbers of stops, meaning most people need to walk further to/from the stop.

Edinburgh will still need buses to serve the 80%+ of the population who do not live close to the tram route (and a higher percentage if you include those people who are not travelling to where the tram goes)

Buses can board and empty as quick as trams if they have prepaid or swipe tickets like is proposed for the trams (and are already used in London) rather than everyone paying the driver or stopping to validate ridacards.

TIE's own reports show no significant modal shift from car to tram, because virtually everybody who will use the tram is an existing bus user forced to switch. How many people on the tram route in Leith for example actually drive to work in town as opposed to taking the bus?

Nor do trams they show any material reduction in emissions - indeed per TIE's reports they will rise for the period during construction.

And all for £700m+

TIE tells lies.

Sorry - my comment was directed at #8. #7, what you say makes sense.

#10

That is mostly nonsense, or selective use of facts.

First of all, it is universally shown that the faster the journey times, the more people will switch to public transport. And tram journeys will be about a third of their bus equivalents, even with all the marvels you describe.

This is why in other cities there was a significant leap in public transport use when trams were introduced.

Secondly, TIE are only allowed to use certain figures for modelling under the strict rules governing modelling for transport plans.

And it is strange how the anti-tram people continually choose to ignore the MASSIVE increases in car journeys resulting from the new developments in Leith and Granton on routes into the city centre. But that doesnt fit their cosy viewpoint as it clearly doesnt affect them. Interesting how they only accept TIE's figures when it suits them.

And as for the question about "how many people drive to work from Leith to the centre", teh answer is quite a lot with more to come once Leith docks has its new complement of 18,000 residents.

And just look at the number 22 bus - each one is heaving with people. There are hundreds of them, you see 3 or 4 at each stop, each one packed. Imagine if that were a tram line instead! Why should people have to go to work in cramped sardine-like conditions day in, day out just because some people prefer badgers to people, or dont want a tram line near their back garden.

And as for trams "showing no material reductions in emissions" - are you seriously suggesting that trams will have petrol engines spewing out fumes?

Mind you, you say that "TIE tells lies", yet you freely quote from their own reports (when it suits you)!!!!!!!!

12# Still not back in your box then? Ok,What happens when a tram breaks down? How do people get on and off a tram, that stops in the middle of the road? What happens to passengers when there is only one stop on Princess St?How will trams benefit those from the East West and South of the city? How are trams quicker when they have to travel with other road users? The tram line is a sop to those buying expencive houses on the waterfront, It will never make money and every council tax payer will suffer, Including those, that the tram line will never serve. As perviously stated ( and you mocked) FREE busses would load and unload just as quickly as trams. BUT, if you still want something to help congestion, WHY was a trolly bus not suggested? No need for rails and if one breaks down it can be moved off the road.

I love trams. Can't wait for their return!

Good grief! Are we still stuck on "what happens when a tram breaks down"? d'oh! The one behind it overtakes it using the rails that link the two tracks. Honestly! And as for trolley buses, err, they cant overtake broken down buses because they are linked to the overhead cables. They also get stuck in traffic. That is why they are being phased out all over Europe where they still exist. (trams arent linked to the wires in the same way).

(btw, it took my bus over 20 minutes to get along North Bridge the other day 'cos of a broken down bus outside the Balmoral Hotel. Maybe we should scrap the buses too if that is your main objection!).

"How do people get on and off a tram that stops in the middle of the road". Maybe there might be tram stops, with platforms. I am just speculating there, I could have sworn that stops with platforms were included in the plans. Maybe TIE hadnt though of that one......

"How will trams benefit those on the East, West and South of the city"? Well, there are plans for a tram line 3, and eventually maybe a 4. I see you seem to suggest that the trams will actually benefit those in the North, which is progress at least. But by the same token, we should not make any improvements anywhere in the city unless it benefits the entire city.

"How are trams quicker when they have to share with other road users". Dear me! They will have their own tracks, for the most part segragated from other traffic. And it is much easier to regulate traffic lights for trams than it is for buses.

And maybe I have missed something, but how does a bus suddenly become able to load and unload quicker just because it is FREE? Are they magic big ones with lots of doors?

And you don't want council tax payers to pay for the trams, yet you are quite happy for the same council tax payers to pay for FREE buses? Very confusing!

The reason I am happy to make busses free is, that way we will not have the disruption that trams will cause, and it is a much better use of the money.People paying to get on busses causes the delay, so making them free would mean they are quicker D'OH!.

So because you don't want 18 months of disruption, Edinburgh should be denied a clean, efficient mass-transit public transport system?

I guess that you would have been against the installation of sewers, gas pipes, the tarmacking of roads, electricity cables, water pipes etc because of the disruption: "why should we suffer months of roadworks to put in gas? What is wrong with cooking on wood fires?", "we don't need running water! We just need a more fficient way of getting to the public fountain down the road".

God forbid that we should try and modernise the city.

I understand, from a usually fully reliable Political source, (Bloke down the pub!), that all voters selecting 'New Labour' in the forthcoming elections in May, will be able to avoid any congestion whatsoever in obtaining their official 'Certificate of Insanity' (whether they win or lose!) as arrangements have already been sorted to post them out to all who qualify - 'Free of Charge', simply by adding your details on their web-site!

Remember it is not a 'Prize Draw', so being first in - or last, will not get any advantage as to the quality of your classification under their 'equal opportunities Policy' !

Distinctive badges are to be made available, at a very reasonable price, but there will not be any compulsion to display them openly! For those who are brave enough to do so, don't forget their Human Rights Act is there to give you full support - after the event!!

One of the big drawbacks with public transport, buses or trams is often not the bus or the road or the track but the public.
I don't drive but I can understand why some people don't want to get on the bus and listen to other people's mobile phone conversations or the neds at the back of the bus who think a swear word is an acceptable alternative to a full stop in a sentence.

Just an idea, but rather than new busses or trams could we get some new public?

#16 "People paying to get on busses causes the delay, so making them free would mean they are quicker"

Yes that's right!

The huge delays to my number 22 this morning was nothing to do with the fact that there were 5 buses ahead of my bus all going on practically identical routes all queuing patiently to get to the bus stop.

That wasn't the problem, oh no, it was the pesky passengers having to pay. The three number 22s in the queue was the equivalent of one tram, which would have had plenty of doors.

Given that all 5 buses went to Princes St, where they all pretty much emptied just goes to show there are too many buses on the same routes, and that what we really need is trams.

Not that this makes any difference to the likes of JJ52, who clearly thinks there is no need to improve life for people in the North of the city unless it does the same for the South (whose buses presumably never get stuck behind a 22).

Of course, if it had LPG, would my bus have been any quicker than the 35 mins it took me to get from the Foot of the Walk to the Mound? No. There would still have been 5 buses ahead of me causing a massive tailback.

The #22 bus must be the bus from hell, a double deck bus on such a popular route must be a good idea. Single deck bus drivers get paid less though.

Tinas comments are surely not jusy becasue the trams coming near her expensive wee hooose?
what clout will one or two ( if were unlucky) have in shaping council policy 56 votes yes 2 no - oh on every decsion you bumped - get real - join the community council, or a neighbourhood association - oops aint she already on every committee, wiush i had time for that

The logical conclusion to the pro-tram argument is that larger vehicles with more doors and pre-paid tickets leads to less boarding and unloading time which is also reduced by having less stops on the route? Why can't this be achieved with single deck bendy buses with more loading/unloading points? If people are now joining the existing ranks of bus users who groan every two hundred yards as another one or two passengers get on and add 20 seconds to the journey time then if we had a single or pehaps two stops on Princes Street and a similar number on Leith Walk, then everyone could get off as the buses queued behind one another and people could board more quickly when the bus gets to the front of the queue. Congestion on Princes Street is caused by buses queueing at multiple stops and leaving their rear-end in the outside lane, so blocking buses behind that don't need to stop at that stop. Lothian buses could cut 5 or 10 mins off peak hour journeys at a stroke by doing this one simple thing.

The number 22 is the perfect example of a successful bus route:

A popular route crossing town to very well-used locations.
Very regular buses, so no need for a timetable.
Easy access single floor buses.

Trouble si, it is so successful it is swamped.

And the very reasons for its success are the very reasons that show why a tram would be the perfect replacement.

A popular route going to well used locations.
Very regular and reliable times, so no need for a timetable.
Easy access single floor vehicles.

Except each tram would be faster than the bus, would carry more passengers, more comfortably. Every tram would empty and fill faster than a bus and there would be less delays due to congestion.

The number 22 in itself makes the case for how successful the trams will be, and is in itself a perfect example of why it needs replaced by a tram.

There is physically no way that that service/route can increase its capacity, yet demand continues to grow!

What is the solution?

It is the perfect route for replacement with a tram! Then use all those buses elsewhere on Lothian Bus' network.

RJS - you obviously never witnessed the bendy bus on the number 19 route a year or so back!

Disaster! It blocked side streets, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, you name it.

The conclusion was that for a fleet of those to be introduced, almost every single bus stop in the city would have to be re-located and junctions redesigned, traffic lights moved etc. Would have cost a fortune. And for that money, it would still have been better to go for a tram, which has all the advantages of a bendy bus, with fewer of the disadvantages.

That said, fewer bus stops would be a great help. Why the cemetary on Pilrig Street needs a stop either side of the entrance is beyond me......

#25 Wouldn't a tram block side streets, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings if it was driven in the same way as said trial bendy bus?

#24 The 22 runs every 4 or 5 minutes and at peak hours is regularly full before it gets half way up Leith Walk, before unloading a lot of its passengers on Princes Street. Isn't the solution to increase frequency at peak hours to every 2 mins and stagger starting points (say at bottom of Leith Walk and top of Leith Walk) so that people there don't have to let 3 go past before getting on?

#12 How many people drive from Leith and Granton developments into the centre for work is a good question. Even more pertinent is where do they park? (I suggest that as there hasn't been any increase in the amount of parking spaces in the city centre since the hundreds of new homes at Leith and Granton have been built (in fact it will be less since the permit zones were recently extended) then there probably isn't any more car journeys into the city centre, just more traffic trying to cross town by a route other than Princes Street since it was closed to traffic that "just passed through".

People, people. Calm down. All this argey bargey about trams.......
The solution is obvious. Move the Western General from Crewe Road South to Craigleith retail park and vice versa. Then Sainsbury's won't get tram fly parkers in their car park and WGH will get a world class, modern transport link - and at a fraction of the cost of a new hospital because they won't need to buy the land. After all, the new ERI only cost £145m including PFI.
AND then terminate all incoming buses at Craigleith and Roseburn forcing, sorry integrating, people onto the tram and TIE will then get their predicted patronage figures. Sorted.