Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Trams and credit crunch blamed as footfall dwindles

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: 26 March 2009
THE economic slowdown combined with the tram works have been blamed for leaving Edinburgh trailing other UK cities on the number of people visiting its busiest shopping streets.
Latest footfall monitoring figures reveal the average weekly pedestrian count across the city centre was 107,654 during 2008 – 23.5 per cent below the UK average.

Some of the city's biggest retailers are suffering the most – figures outside Harv
ey Nichols on St Andrew Square revealed a 30 per cent drop in footfall between December 2007 and December last year. It is the first full year which figures for footfall have been available.

The festivals season in August saw the number of visitors rocket to 25 per cent above the UK average, with close to 500,000 pedestrians a week counted on Princes Street.

The following month, however, saw this fall away to 25 per cent below the national average, with footfall figures also remaining low in October as a result of failed diversions for tram works at The Mound.

The biggest footfall recorded was outside Marks & Spencer on Princes Street, where an average of 304,299 passed every week last year.

City leaders today said a string of new hotels and shops planned for Princes Street, along with a long-awaited revamp of the St James Centre, will help boost the city centre in future years, a view shared by property experts.

Mark Robertson, a partner at property firm Ryden, said: "The credit crunch caused several national retail chains to go into administration, resulting in a number of inevitable casualties in Edinburgh's city centre.

"However, recent initiatives such as the reopening of St Andrew Square and the pedestrianisation of Castle Street have improved shopper movement and helped boost the central core by attracting a number of new retailers."

Other economic indicators released by the city council today show that the number of retailers requiring property in the city centre space decreased by five per cent in 2008.

The number of people parking their cars in the city centre dropped by 16.6 per cent, a fall largely blamed on the tram works.

Councillor Tom Buchanan, the city's economic development leader, said: "There is no doubt that global economic conditions have impacted and that 2008 was a difficult year, as it was for cities across the UK.

"The council's efforts to support business are now more vital than ever."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2009 11:00 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh transport plans
 
1

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 11:11:57
Trunk
Round feet
A large body
Moody
Slow

Now can someone tell me whether that describes an enormous Lib/Lab White Elephant, Dawe or both ??
2

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 11:57:38
Nothing to see here. Move along please. The tram is a wonderful success story.
3

The Judge,

26/03/2009 12:17:34
Did they count the 93,000,0000 people who visited the MDF tram car?
4

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 12:22:48
Only a couple of weeks ago both the cooncil and TIE were boasting about how the 'footfall' level had increased!
5

It's Leith for me!,

26/03/2009 13:08:47
lack of shops bar chain stores, burger joints, tat shops and mobile phone outlets might have something to do with it as well
6

Jams,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 13:14:32
#4 is right. It was reported in this very newspaper that footfall had increased on Princes Street. Nae wonder they dont know how much it will really cost - they canna count.
7

NorT,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 14:28:04
How do they collect these figures? Does somebody stand with a counter and click it eveytime somebody goes by?
8

regentlad,

Lothian 26/03/2009 14:54:28
6: Apparently even more people called into the Kirkgate Centre last Saturday than visited the tram. 'Odit' Scotland (they cannie count either!) were out checking the bods that dropped in.....all enjoyed the experience.
9

Icebreaker,

newbridge 26/03/2009 15:09:38
The Trams cannot come soon enough
10

Leila,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 15:21:54
"City leaders today said a string of new hotels and shops planned for Princes Street, along with a long-awaited revamp of the St James Centre, will help boost the city centre in future years, a view shared by property experts."

I've heard of only one new shop planned for Princes Street (Primark) but the way things are going there are sure to be closures.

And the revamp of the St James Centre will substantially reduce the number of city centre shops because all the St James shops will be closed for at least 5 years.
11

Douglas,

Bathgate 26/03/2009 15:36:30
I know it's all been said before but, MONORAIL!!
12

Jambo-ree,

26/03/2009 15:36:39
"THE economic slowdown combined with the tram works have been blamed for leaving Edinburgh trailing other UK cities on the number of people visiting its busiest shopping streets."

Given that the economic slowdown is affecting all other cities then the only possible conclusion for Edinburgh trailing them is that it must be down to the tramworks. But will they listen?

13

Leila,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 15:43:01
I don't go to Princes Street anymore because I can't bear being penned in behind those ugly metal barriers. I particularly resent those "thank you for your patience" banners - no one was ever asked if we minded them digging up the street all summer. The tramworks have ruined Princes Street for both residents and visitors.
14

tumshie heid,

26/03/2009 17:00:18
Wait until Foo hears of this. He will chastise the naughty EEN for its woeful anti tram propaganda.
No real surprise though is there? The trams are ####ing up Edinburgh on a daily basis.
At this rate the tram will be a ghost (town) train when it travels through Edinburgh.
15

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 17:23:41
When the tram is up and running, and reduces congestion, pollution, noise, transport operating costs, attracts motorists out of their beloved toys (Cars). Brings prosperity, investment,and wealth, boosts the economy of the city. what will the antitramites moan about then? I beg you to believe me, without massive investment in the public transport infrastructure Edinburgh is doomed. The number of people around the country I have spoken to that have grown to hate Princes street because of the noise and pollution of nose to tail buses and taxis is unbelievable After all 95% of of the anti tram brigade do not know the first thing about modern tram systems
16

regentlad,

Lothian 26/03/2009 18:21:12
19: Congestion, noise, pollution and operating costs...why they're the very reasons Councillors in Edinburgh voted to scrap the tram system back in 1956...so who do we believe, think I'll stick with the view of people back then who had over 40 years of experience with trams and knew all about them. Unlike our present Councillors who have no experience of them whatsoever. We're not anti-tram, more anti paying over the score (blank cheques come to mind) for a tram line that won't benefit 95 per cent of Edinburgh and a project which is likely to financially ruin the city.

Edinburgh people much more concerned about jobs, housing, health and standard of living, thats the issues our Councillors and MSP's ought to be pursuing rather than a daft tram line to nowhere.
17

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 18:22:39
Re RS 20 You can you can replace the whole fleet of Lothian buses with gold plated bodies and ermine covered seats, but buses will still be the most uncomfortable, unpopular and lowest form of public transport
18

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 18:26:10
Re 21 Please do not compare the trams of 1956 with the trams of today
19

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 18:42:46
Re 21 Dear Regentland, Have the vast number of cities around the world that are either planning, building. or extending, their tram systems, all got it wrong then?
20

regentlad,

Lothian 26/03/2009 18:52:37
Why not - same concept and same source of power! But maybe we shouldn't compare too much as at least on the 1956 trams everyone got a seat and the tram stops weren't miles apart. What's all this about 180 passengers standing on the new 'world class' trams then? Hardly progress, more a step back to the days of third class travel and the cattle trucks.

Trams were ruled by the Council as the biggest cause of congestion in Edinburgh. The largest traffic jam on Princes Street took place in 1955 when over 40 trams were at a standstill for 5 hours when the power failed, and not for the first time either. Just as well the buses were running as that's how people got home.
21

regentlad,

Lothian 26/03/2009 18:59:49
25: That's correct. And also should be pointed out that since the first tram hole was dug public transport passenger numbers have dropped 10 per cent and rising. This causing financial problems for the bus companies and has resulted in the withdrawal of bus services in Leith, Lochend, South Side and Portobello areas. The tram project was based on a 15 per cent increase in public transport use. In reality quite the reverse is happening.

Remember this 10 percent drop is people no longer using the bus. They're still travelling but most using their cars, this the very opposite of what the Council's intentions were ! Think the mad projects gone pear-shaped in more ways than one.
22

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 19:02:43
Re 21 How do electric trams cause pollution?
Footnote; In 1965 Diesel and petrol were lass than 12p per gallon
23

Ian down under,

Musselburgh 26/03/2009 19:27:18
A non story. The banks have blown out by zilions, the bale outs are uncountable the shops in Princes St are getting rubbishier and rubbishier. As for Harvey Nicholls have you seen their prices. anyway how can they moan when a bus station had to close to make space for their shop.
Of course there will be disruption while any work is done and it's not been helped by the administrative mucking around over contracts etc. but I think the increased public transport use is expected once the trams are running not while the work is going on.
Again there is no eveidence that buses can get people out of cars, which is what we need to get, but rail transport be it trams or trains is successful at doing this.
Again I can give the example of the reopened Alloa railway and the Bathgate one before that where passenger traffic has proved to be treble the predicted level and 30% of travellers have moved over from using a car but would not use the existing buses. We've also seen massive increases in numbers using the North Berwick line since the electrification in 1990 and provision of high capicity trains on a frequent service. The car parks at Longniddry and Prestonpans are full every day which means they are not clogging up central Edinburgh.
24

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 19:30:36
When the new tram starts running. In the unlikely event of a power failure a traffic jam would not occur because the trams are to be totally segregated from road traffic. Your turn
25

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 19:35:13
Re28 Roboter Only the ignorant antitramites Swear
26

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 19:45:03
Keith Wilby - I think you must be winding us up, or else you have not bothered to read the documentation supporting this scheme.

Lothian Buses, prior to the tramworks commencing, accounted for around £105m passenger journeys per year so your assertion that only trams can get people out of their cars is incorrect.

Furthermore, the tram was predicated upon the Waterfront Development. The business case shows that only 2m of the 10.6m tram passengers in the first year of its operation will be new public transport passengers or former car users, the remainder will come from BUSES! You may think 2m (tops) is a fantastic result - I think it is truly pitiful.

Unfortunately, the Waterfront Development is somewhat stuffed for the moment so the tram is unlikely to get 10.6m passengers in its first year but, let's be kind and assume that it does.

That means that whilst Lothian Buses had 105m passenger journeys (having increased bus patronage year on year over the past 7 years), the tram will have attracted an additional 2m per year.

Well, that really is worth the capital cost, the disruption, the necessary increase in public transport fares, the reduction in bus services and frequencies and the possibly ruination of Lothian Buses - the best bus company outside London.

What you say about noise, pollution and congestion is also incorrect as the business case shows each of these will improve by less than 1%. As for public transport fares, they will undoubtedly have to increase again to cover the upwards of £10m losses predicted in the revenue and risk report because of the downturn in the economy and delayed development.


Saints preserve us from commentators who do not bother to do their homework before preaching to us online!

This tramline was never so much about encouraging public transport usage as boosting a private property development which has not materialised. To make it easy for you, here is a quote from the Tram Final Business Case to prove m
27

Sarah B,

26/03/2009 19:48:38
... my point: "The tram is an investment to encourage and facilitate the new development planned in North and West Edinburgh and to stimulate economic growth in the city".

It never was a serious attempt to reduce congestion or make public transport more attractive. It was about (and I quite from TIE) "addressing possible future congestion from the Waterfront Development". In the circumstances, possibly not the best of planning, I would say.
28

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 20:17:55
Sarah, Ive heard it all before, in Manchester. Sheffield, Nottingham, and London. now the ex tram knockers there, are mainly campaigning to get the respective systems extended. Take my word for it, without going into too much detail. Without a massive investment in public transport (Not new buses) the city of Edinburgh will DIE.
PS people do not get out of their cars to be thrown about in buses, and that is a proven fact.
29

regentlad,

Lothian 26/03/2009 20:18:36
33: Lothian buses were having success in attracting car users but not nearly enough was being done. More efforts ought to have gone into fare reductions and preserving inner city routes such as the Circle routes which were abandoned by them. Now they're paying the price and it won't help the prospects for the tram line. Passenger travel is in downfall and by June could reach 15 percent - the complete reverse of the Council's figures! You're quite correct in that the tram project was deemed essential to meet the 15 percent increase the Council projected. It was not intended to get existing users out of their cars. In any case the tram line couldn't do that as it will only serve 5 percent of Edinburgh.

The trams will merely replace the route 22 buses. They operate on a 10 min frequency with 82 seat double deckers. The trams will operate on a 15 min frequency, but with less stops and their additional capacity (around 180) will cover standing passengers only. Aside from that it will always be nigh impossible for trams to meet passenger increases. Demographics are the trams biggest enemy. If a passenger increase takes place say in Oxgangs and a decrease takes place in Leith the Council just can't move the trams up to Oxgangs! But demographic movements of that sort aren't a problem for the buses. You just move extra ones out to Oxgangs to meet the additional requirements.

The Council have got it wrong. The actual figures now coming through prove that. They should be honest enough to come forward and admit it. Instead they dig a deeper hole for Edinburgh as each day goes past.
30

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 20:26:43
#35 - I really think you must be on something to come out with such persistent nonsense.

It is clear you have not read any of the supporting documents for the Edinburgh project and are completely unaware (or choose to ignore) that every new-build tram system in the UK has been a failure when measured against original objectives.

As for your laughable assertion that without trams Edinburgh will die, well given how quiet Princes St is these days it appears that the tram works are doing a good job of killing it off.

PS - From Haymarket to Newhaven the vanity tram runs entirely on road, not separated. However don't let little details like facts get in the way of your fantasy.
31

tumshie heid,

26/03/2009 21:53:59
Pontefract Keith, I would prefer to sit on a bus than be standing on a tram. These new fangled trams don't have many seats you see.
Now give it a rest.
32

Icebreaker,

newbridge 26/03/2009 21:56:30
Funny how Britain (and perhaps France)were the only two countries in Europe to destroy their tram systems
in the 1950's
33

Keith Wilby,

PONTEFRACT 26/03/2009 21:56:51
Graheme H
I do not know where you get your information from but you are 100% wrong. These are the facts to date Manchester trams are running to absolute capacity, in so much they have been compelled to order extra vehicles to cope. The same applies to Sheffield they too have new trams on order to combat overcrowding.In Croydon the overcrowding is so acute they cannot wait for new trams to be built they are looking to buy second hand ones from anywhere. Nottingham are in the throes of extending the network and will order new vehicles as and when. It is safe to say that trams in the 4 cities where they have been introduced have have seen massive benefits both by bringing investment, reducing congestion, and tempting people out of their cars.In all 4 cases tram passengers have exceeded all expectations Do not take my word for it do your home work then come back admit you were wrong
34

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 22:16:52
Keith - I have done my homework as I think my posts over the past few years on this scheme make clear. Given the basic errors you posted, you have not.

That passengers use trams is indisputable. That every new build tram system in the UK has failed to meet its original objectives is also indisputable. The scale of investment they were intended to bring has not happened. The congestion reduction they were expected to bring has not happened. The so-called environmental benefits have not been realised.

Oh, intersting you quote the Sheffield system as a success. It is the biggest failure of the lot. Costing £280m and sold for £1 because passenger numbers were far below forecast and it was losing £250k per month. Not really a success in my book.

Installing a new build tram system as a solution to public transport problems is like trying to heat a house by burning £5 notes. Yes, you may get a result, but it is a very expensive way to realise it.
35

Ian down under,

Musselburgh 26/03/2009 22:37:08
If anyone doubts the info about the need for more trams in Croydon etc they just need to check the professional railway journals on line. try Railway Gazette international or Modern Railways and you'll find the details.
Also with all the talk about cosats and money losses etc could somebody please give us the details on the profit or loss made by the A1, M6, M1, A90 or for that matter any road in the country? Since road tax only covers a portion of road building and maintenance and is topped up by general taxation and local council taxes then I don't think they actually make much of an operating profit themselves. I suspect they make a spectacular loss but we've been conned into thinking they are so vital the cost does not matter.
36

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 22:59:45
Keith (35) - As other posters have pointed out, the "success" of other tram schemes can be assessed by different people to different degrees. Certainly the National Audit Office was scathing of all but a couple of existing UK tram schemes, in terms of having failed to deliver predicted benefits anywhere near having justified the capital or operating costs of the trams.

However, to my knowledge, not one of the cities you cite had a bus system as successful in terms of patronage per capita, low fares or extent of network as we have enjoyed here before the trams were introduced. Therefore, the trams may well have made a perceptible improvement to the previous public transport systems which existed in those cities. That does not make them the only solution to encouraging public transport usage or the best solution in Edinburgh.

I have often wondered who these mysterious people are who clamour for more trams. It seems to me the only clamouring done is by politicians who generally display complete contempt for the sensible use of public monies and who lack the technical understanding to know exactly what it is they are clamouring for; businesses, who generally do not have to contribute a dime so think that they are getting something for nothing; consultants, who see the public purse as a source of very rich pickings indeed; or anoraks who are so blinkered that they think that the only realistic solution involves steel wheels.

Having said that, by the time the tram losses have brought about further bus service and frequency cuts in Edinburgh and have pushed fares up to the extent that many have reverted to their car, perhaps people will be more inclined to support further tramlines here than they are now. Who knows?

It seems bizarre to me that, rather than consider other solutions, we have to sustain significant capital costs, disruption, increased public transport fares and the reduction in bus services to end up with a tramline that is predicted to m
37

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 26/03/2009 23:00:31
... to make no virtually no perceptible impact on congestion and that, in order to make such a perceptible impact, we have to sustain far greater costs, disruption, etc, in the future.

38

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 26/03/2009 23:06:33
it.looks.like.a.war.zone.from.over.here.not.this.year.iam.staying.in.CANADA
39

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 07:49:12
#46 - Ian. Total direct road user taxes in the UK are c.£50 billion per year. Total roads and pathways expenditure is less than £10bn.

After all direct costs, road users contribute an amount equivalent to around 15p on basic rate income tax. Your assertion that roads and road maintenance are subsidised is therefore strange.
40

tumshie heid,

27/03/2009 08:16:54
#46 So your real agenda is that you like trains (railway gazette, etc) Why not just say that you want to see a tram on rails rather than a bus on the road?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.