Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Wednesday, 3rd December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

SNP signals a U-turn as it hints at tram extension



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: 07 August 2008
THE Scottish Government has signalled it might support more tram lines in Edinburgh, despite having made a failed attempt to scrap the current scheme.
Stewart Stevenson, the transport minister, told The Scotsman there was "logic" in expanding the network, because additional lines would cost less per mile than the initial route.

He said that was because major costs, such as a tram depot and powe
r supplies, would be paid for as part of the £500 million first stage of the project, between Edinburgh airport and Newhaven, due to open in 2011.

The news came as the city council lobbied ministers over a £200 million tram line from the city centre to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and Newcraighall.

The SNP's attempt to axe the original tram project and switch funding to bus improvements was defeated by opposition MSPs last year. But it has capped the £500 million funding for the project agreed by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration.

But Mr Stevenson stressed that the government had opposed only the current scheme and was not against trams in Edinburgh on principle.

He said that, having lost the vote, he was committed to making the scheme work.

The four-stage plan also involves a loop via Roseburn and Granton and a western extension to Newbridge. None of these later stages is yet fully funded.

Mr Stevenson said: "We are not against trams as such, but the project that was before us.

"The advice which Edinburgh City Council and Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE) have made to me, which I can see the logic of, is that when you have invested in the infrastructure it is cheaper to make extensions.

"The justification for (future] tram projects would be more straightforward, because the infrastructure costs will have been largely met by the first line."

Mr Stevenson said further lines were a matter for the city council and TIE, but he would "watch with interest" any such moves. He declined to comment about the Newcraighall line.

Tram developers TIE said it is confident Edinburgh would expand its tram network – just like every other city before it.

Willie Gallagher, the executive chairman, said: "Those cities that have invested in tram systems have all extended their networks to support and enhance economic growth following the initial construction.

"I'm sure that Edinburgh will be no different, and I welcome the minister's pragmatic view of the future of Edinburgh's public transport system."

Jenny Dawe, the Liberal Democrat leader of the city council, yesterday put the case for the Newcraighall line to John Swinney, the finance secretary.

Originally called Line Three, it was shelved because proposed funding from congestion charging evaporated when the council abandoned toll plans in 2005.

A feasibility study is under way for a guided busway on the route, which could later be used by trams.

Ms Dawe said: "We have the route of tram line three secured, a draft (parliamentary] bill ready to go, and we are preparing a business case to show why the scheme is so vital for the area. Funding as ever remains the issue, but I believe it's imperative that the growth in this area is seen as necessary, not just for Edinburgh but for Scotland."

However, Rob Munn, the deputy leader of the SNP group, which jointly runs the council, said: "The proposals would have to be looked at in light of the experience of the first line."

A spokeswoman for Mr Stevenson said: "The Scottish Government was against the trams project, but we respected the will of the parliament to allow the scheme to continue.

"In terms of extending any trams project, this would be entirely a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council and TIE," she said.





The full article contains 627 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 00:20:09
Yes!!!
2

,

07/08/2008 00:26:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

S'me,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 01:06:58
Did anyone else drift away after reading the waffle of #2 after the first 2 sentances?
Some common sense from the nationalists at last re the trams, good to admit when you were wrong.
4

Andrew D,

bne 07/08/2008 02:05:44
#3
Nothing about admitting the SNP were wrong. $500mill for trams is a bloody waste and wasn't in the manifesto and the pushing through of it by the oppposition parties cost other things that WERE in the manifesto (which those same other parties somehow find it reasonable to bleat about now... duplicity to the max)

As the TIE person themselves said, it is pragmatism and nothing else that makes Stevenson say what he did. To in effect say that since the money has already been wasted it might make sense to throw more at a significantly lower cost to expand on the idea.

Personally I think while it might be pragmatic, Edinburgh and it's people should stump the bill and not end up costing the rest of the people of Scotland more money for the idiot white elephant that the Unionists pushed through.

Oh, the TIE rep makes the point that in every other case where a city gets trams they expand... well no wonder. It costs a fortune to do not very much so you *need* to spend more to expand it to make it worthwhile!
5

Pilrig.,

Livingston 07/08/2008 05:45:18
1 - Yes ? You are Wullie Gallagher.
6

Pilrig.,

Livingston 07/08/2008 05:46:34
3 - so the bulk of Edinburgh population are wrong aboot trams as well ?
7

calum,

07/08/2008 06:22:28
So there you have it. The SNP is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of YOUR pounds on something that wasn't in their manifesto (Trams in Edinburgh)when they won't spend it on things that were (e.g. A9). It just shows that none of the parties are truly Scottish, more truly Edinburgh and more truly self.
8

JulesF,

07/08/2008 06:41:16
#7 you are an idiot and I claim my five pounds !
9

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 07/08/2008 07:38:07
SNP is learning some hard lessons, such as it's easier to make promises when you are out of office than when you are in.

As 80% of eligible voters did NOT support SNP at the recent by-election, I hope SNP learns a lesson here, too.

I hope it also learns that predicating an economic future on oil that isn't wholly yours and is in any case finite, is not a joined-up strategy.
10

Just_Me,

Moray 07/08/2008 08:15:08
"As 80% of eligible voters did NOT support SNP at the recent by-election"

Thats rather a warped way of reading statistics, although it does mean that something like 90% of eligible voters did NOT support Labour , which is a tad more worrying for them I would think!
11

Phil C,

07/08/2008 08:28:31
The SNP were right to try to stop the trams- disgraceful waste of money. However, all they are saying now is that it may be beneficial, having already wasted this money, to make the system better, most cost efficient. Plain common sense as usual. No U-turn- just adapting to the situation. Scotsman headlines should long have been consigned to the bin!

If the short-sighted unionists on here could for a moment forget their prejudices, even they might u-turn towards the new, fairer, more common sense form of government being carried out by the SNP.
12

Joe,

Myreside 07/08/2008 08:32:42
Still no word of the SNP alternative Edinburgh Airport Rail Link - due this month initially?. Are they hoping their promise on this will disappear?
13

John S,

07/08/2008 08:40:03
#9:Your way of reading the statistics is the correct way because in the 2005 UK general election 22% of the eligble voters voted for Labour Party therefore 78% of the total electorate did not want a Labour Government.
14

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 07/08/2008 08:56:01
#11 Dave.

Not voting is a valid position to take if there are no parties worthy of my support. I take it that that's how 80% of Glasgow Eastenders also felt about SNP, etc.

I'd vote for party that seriously promoted a federal GB as the sane alternative to either Union or Separation.
15

brownlie,

07/08/2008 09:06:41
Hamish and his "experts" seem to have based their theory on the very strange proposition that the only revenue available to Scotland after independence would be oil-based.

Does that mean no VAT, no LIT, no income tax etc etc post independence?
16

WJohn,

West Lothian 07/08/2008 09:13:56
We should wait for the profit to start rolling in on completion of the current tram scheme before getting the costs of this unfinished tram line deferred and mixed up with the costs of the future scheme. A common method of claiming that a project was completed in time and on budget
17

brownlie,

07/08/2008 09:15:40
It would have been helpful if Mr Dalton could have asked those who voted for this scheme if they did so because it would be an asset to Edinburgh and not merely to oppose the SNP?

Perhaps the candidates for the local party leaderships could be asked to comment?
18

Pond Hall,

07/08/2008 09:29:13
bet the traders "up the bridges" must be jumping with joy and doing cart wheels down the bridges at the thought of the tramworks and the benfits that it will bring.

no20 is correct, lets get line 1a up and running and the millions in profits can help pay for the new line.

and not being gobbled up in some over spend on the other lines

TIE, couldn't organise a P*** in a brewery, given the current state of Lothian Buses finances due to the tramsworks.
19

bluehead,

edinburgh 07/08/2008 09:43:12
the tram system was crazy from the very start,we had the best bus service from the very beginning,wnen you add to that the disruption ,the cost, and that, the trams will not pay,it can only be described as madness,not forgetting the many millions of pounds down the drain,that could have been used for better purposes,
that the SNP do a u-turn is not surprising , in the world of politics there is no rhyme nor reason.
20

Hamish Scott,

07/08/2008 09:49:39
Another example of the difference the SNP brings to government. Despite having the tram scheme thrust on them there is no vindictiveness or spite towards the trams but a preparedness to consider expanding them. We now have good government, what a pity Scottish democracy is landed with the Scotch Pravda where the real news has to be decerned from what is NOT said and by ignoring puerile propaganda.
21

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 09:54:28
Folks, it's probably time to stop rising to the bait of these Unionist trolls and start trusting the Scottish people more. Ordinary voters can see through their endless negativity and spin, which is why we have an SNP Government and an SNP member for Glasgow East in the first place.

Everyone can see that the SNP - who had the right to veto the trams - respected the democratic view of Parliament even when they disagreed with it, the mark of maturity and decency.

Everyone can see that these innocuous comments are logical and sensible in the light of that decision being made, a rational acknowledgement that once we're stuck with them, we might as well get the best possible economic value from the situation, and therefore should keep an open mind about future potential.

Everyone can see that despite the Unionist parties wasting half a billion quid whose absence is being felt elsewhere, the SNP are committed to bringing positive, tangible benefits to the WHOLE of Scotland, in the face of entirely negative opposition who produced next to nothing for ordinary people in the decade THEY were in power.

The people of Scotland can see through it all, which is why the SNP's poll ratings are soaring despite this supposed litany of "broken promises", and Labour and the Lib Dems are falling off a cliff, too busy fighting among themselves in the back seat to see the rocks rushing up at them.

These trolls are an irrelevance. They desperately try to provoke and spoil on these boards, but the most they achieve is to irritate a small handful of posters. Ignore them, happy in the knowledge that the voters aren't fooled. They're kicking Labour out on their backsides for their decades of complacent neglect and opening their hearts to an SNP government that's finally standing up for Scotland, and they're doing it at the only place it counts - the ballot box.

The sunshine days for Scotland are just around the corner. Don't be dragged into the swamps by these Weary Willies
22

Toast,

07/08/2008 10:21:05
# 24 & 25, the point exactly,we at last have a grown up government that is trying to serve the people of scotland not playing silly wee political point scoring games,RIP newlabour incompetants.
23

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 11:06:49
#24, 25, 26

What a load of cant! An SNP politician has just shown that manifesto commitments are to be broken and policies cast aside whenever it is appropriate. Welcome to the real world! Sensible politicians abandon manifestos, policies and plans when they no longer fit.
The SNP will abandon LIT next, but you lot (24, 25, 26 and he other SNP apologists who post this board) will blame anybody except your own party.
24

Venachar,

07/08/2008 11:10:29
Why on earth do they want to put a rail link to the airport - another loony idea that is a complete waste of money! The bus and taxi services to Edinburgh airport are perfectly adequate.
25

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 11:26:26
#27 Ah, another constructive post from the ever-constructive Unionists.
26

Shenachy,

South Queensferry 07/08/2008 11:46:10
Well said #25.
Life used to be quite interesting on this site, (long time ago) when intelligent contributions were made in response to stories. Alas, I very rarely take part now as I am somewhat long in the tooth and well beyond the childlike playground insults which current contributors seem to delight in. It really does not say much for Scotland and its people – irrespective of your political beliefs – when we display such a pathetic range of communication skills to the world-wide audience which has access to this site.
Come on people, ignore the trolls completely and show that you really have something to say.
27

Arfur,

07/08/2008 11:48:20
Typical hootsman - this is not a u-turn just making the best of what you have got.

As for the oil story - typical hootsman getting their labour lackeys in yet again. As for 'how are you going to have a fund and spend money on services today' well that's simple - after 2010 we wont be subsidising England anymore
28

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/08/2008 11:55:50
Regarding the Oil Fund report which was sabotaged in the first hour of the story going online, I would make this comment.

If the Experts who do not see a benefit in having a Sovereign Oil fund, but that we should spend the cash as quickly as we can, not agree that their expertise would have us accept that in our personal lives we should not -
bother putting money by for a rainy day,
save for our retirement,
invest in the future,
but instead,
should lead lives of profligacy and waste and squander our money as quickly as we earn it and not worry about the future.
Sounds like NewLabour philosophy to me.
29

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 12:06:43
#29; #30

Get off your high horses, before you fall off. Stewart Stevenson has wrong footed you and he is tripping up your horses.
It's good to see a minister with some sense. There are two very good reasons for abandoning opposition to the tram system. (1) The first stage is going to be completed anyway. (2) The rise in oil prices has made trams a more viable proposition - buses go on oil, trams go on electricity. I oppposed the tram proposal at first - and on this board - but I changed my mind. Only idiots don't change their mind when circumstances change.
LIT will be abandoned before the next Holyrood election, and opposition to nuclear power stations after the election. Get real folks. That's what politics is all about.
30

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 12:21:06
#33 He hasn't changed his mind. The SNP have, obviously, never been opposed to future expansion proposals because they never existed. He has, exactly as I said, taken the pragmatic and sensible approach to the fact that the trams ARE going to exist, and will attempt to make the most of the situation for the benefit of Scotland, compared to Labour who oppose everything purely for the sake of opposing it and trying to score petty political points.

The trams are still a total waste of money. But the SNP have respected democracy and allowed them to be built, and in that scenario it'd be stupid to leave them serving such a tiny percentage of the people of the capital when the biggest infrastructure expenses had already been incurred.
31

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 12:29:00
hehehe

Let me get this straight - 15 months ago the SNP had its 'activists venting their spleens over this.

Essentially, the money for the Edinburgh trams scheme could be used for dualling the A9. Roll on 15 months, trams are IN.

Can we expect a further announcement from Ewing on the pledge to dual the A9!!

Flip flop, flip flop...

32

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 12:35:14
25

Eating crow.
33

Hamish Scott,

07/08/2008 12:45:45
Let us not forget that had the SNP not formed the government we would now have a Lab/Lib coalition ploughing on with the Edinburgh aiport rail link which was already costed at £650 million before any construction work was begun and with a 'blank cheque' liability to the taxpayer for any costs involved to BAA for problems with live tunnelling under the main runway.
The link was predicated on massive airport expansion. We now have soaring fuel prices that may bring an end to cheap flights and a looming recession. The SNP have saved the taxpayer from funding a hugely expensive white elephant. Of course you won't hear anything about that in the Scotch Pravda.
34

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 12:55:26
#37 Hamish Scott

And the SNP could save some more money if they abandon the border railway proposal. This is a lot dafter than the airport rail link. The border railway won't attract enough passengers to cover its running costs, let alone recoup the costs of reopening the line.
35

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 12:59:44
#34 Rev. S. Campbell

He [Stevenson] hasn't changed his mind. The SNP have, obviously, never been opposed to future expansion proposals because they never existed.

Only a theologian could come up with logic like this. It's no wonder that folk are abandoning religion.
36

Hamish Scott,

07/08/2008 13:06:27
#38
Publius
I don't agree that the Borders link is 'dafter' than the airport link. The Midlothian part (Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge) will serve a substantial population that has no rail service. The part to Tweedbank is certainly more contentious but will provide the Edinburgh economy with a substantial input of workers, and without having to house them in Edinburgh, as well as supporting the Borders economy. And given that these sort of rail re-openings are usually very successful (Bathgate, Larkhall, Alloa) the benefits may well be higher than expected. There is also, of course, a longer term interest in re-opening to Carlisle.
37

Miss H,

07/08/2008 13:07:40
2 I had to laugh at the first line of that story - 'SERIOUS doubts were raised yesterday over SNP plans to create a Scottish Oil Fund and to fund public services – all from oil and gas revenues.'

Must say I would have serious doubts myself about plans to fund public services all from oil and gas revenues!

But since the SNP has never said any such thing I wouldn't worry about it.

The only question is whether this nonsense can be ascribed purely to Hamish's bias or his inability to construct sentences.

I suspect a combination of both.

6 Pilrig the majority of Edinburghers voted for parties which supported the tram project which is why you're stuck with it. While I understand the frustration there's not much anyone can do about it because people are getting what they voted for after all.
38

Miss H,

07/08/2008 13:15:57
27 Publius being stuck in London you probably have not yet got to grips with what PR means in practice, particularly in the context of a minority government. This style of government has been the norm on the continent for many years and voters in Scotland have adapted quite readily (though sections of the press have not). It is the much-heralded new politics in action. Of course Scottish MPs have adapted even less readily than the political media which is partly why Labour is now engulfed in what even the Scotsman Sunday edition was forced to describe as a civil war.
39

Miss H,

07/08/2008 13:21:19
Incidentally the key line in this story is 'Mr Stevenson said further lines were a matter for the city council and TIE'.

So no money.

If Edinburgh City Council and TIE can fund an expansion without money from the Government then why would the Government stop it?
40

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 13:51:59
#40 Hamish Scott

Hi Hamish
Fair reply ... but why not convert the line from Ediburgh to Eskbank to tram (or, because of the gradients, more likely metro) and build a park 'n' ride at Eskbank for folk further south? This would be much more likely to pay. I guess that someone in the SNP has a bad case of chuff chuff syndrome and wants a train all the way or nothing.
41

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 13:55:50
#42 Miss H

The parliamentary arithmetic of Holyrood is irrelevant: the SNP government could have refused to sign the cheques for the trams and that would have been that.
What matters today is that Stevenson has changed his mind and come to the correct decision. U-turns on LIT and nuclear power stations will follow: LIT in a couple of years, nuclear power in 4 or 5 years.
42

stargazer,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 13:58:25
It's hardly a u-turn. It's called making the best of a bad situation. We're stuck with the trams now, so we might as well have the choice of getting to more places than Ocean Terminal and the airport.
43

Hamish Scott,

07/08/2008 14:03:50
#44
Publius
There's no chance this scheme is going to be changed, assuming it can be funded. It's arguable that spending the same money on upgrading the A68 or A7 would be more effective. I hope the project succeeds but time will tell.
44

Publius,

London 07/08/2008 14:05:19
#42 Miss H

Incidentally the results of PR in Europe are very different from one country to another. There are many reasons for this, not least the type of PR used. Scotland's system is PR of the worst kind.
45

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 14:40:48
#35 Nothing's changed. The trams are still a waste of money. IF they work, expanding them will be much less so. Keep trolling, we enjoy it.
46

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 15:03:11
49

Interesting admission, reverend.

If, as you say, "the trams are still a waste of money", what does this say for your party's credibility, in terms of prudent financial housekeeping?
47

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 15:30:52
It says that they respect the democratic will of the Parliament even when they disagree with it. Try to keep up, dear.
48

Neil,

Glasgow 07/08/2008 15:31:35
How much cheaper would a 2nd tramline be? The article says nothing on this.

IE how much does a depot cost? If done competently not a high fraction of the £600 million price, after all it is just a garage writ big. Note that the price is "capped" at £600 million not 5 since the Edinburgerers are expected to put up £100 million. We will see if the cap continues to fit.
49

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 15:37:09
51

"It says they" - you don't seem too convinced. I'm not surprised.

It's frankly embarrassing to watch you Separatists scrambling to defend your master's change in policy - especially given your previous stance.

Spin at it's most nauseous. Funny, too. Sorry.
50

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 15:45:37
#53 What's the change in policy? The SNP accepted the trams, although they didn't have to. Now they're saying they'll "watch with interest" any future plans to expand them, since the economics will be very different then.

Do outline the "change" there for us.
51

ThomasP,

07/08/2008 15:55:13
#53

The SNP will be stuck with the Trams anyway.

What is wrong with wanting to make the most of them since it was thrown upon them in the first place?
52

Nikostratos,

07/08/2008 17:15:22
#54 rev head up his #rse

Its not alright to spend 500 million..but its fine to spend 500 million plus.....

A spokeswoman for Mr Stevenson said:
"but we respected the will of the parliament to allow the scheme to continue."

the will of the Scottish parliament is not to have 'Independence' will the snp respect that to ?...

snp flip..flop..flip..flop
53

AM2,

Scotland,UK 07/08/2008 18:12:15
I would have to commend Stewart Stevenson for taking this position. He's absolutely right about the "bang for the buck" for phases 1b, 2 and 3. I certainly wouldn't consider this to be a U-turn. It strikes me as a pragmatic and sensible decision, taken in light of the key facts.
54

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 07/08/2008 18:23:22
#56 The will of the Parliament remains to be seen on an independence referendum, since there's never yet been a vote on it. Last official statement was that Labour supported one, which would be enough for a majority. And independence itself is up to the people, not the Parliament.

So, y'know, up yours.
55

Miss H,

07/08/2008 18:29:09
48 You may think that Scotland's system of PR is the worst kind but the general population seems to quite like it. Don't forget that according to John Curtis (no friend of independence) 70£ of people in Scotland consistently want the Scottish Parliament to run Scotland not Westminster. That's because they make a better job of it. Cut through all the argy bargy on the surface and Scotland actually has a much higher degree of consensus government than England does. That is what people want. Politicians who can compromise and agree with each other as well as disagreeing.
56

Nikostratos,

07/08/2008 19:16:34
#59 MISS H

there is a lot of opinion poll evidence that people in the U.K would rather westminster run the U.K than the E.U........WHAT TO DO WHAT TO DO?
57

,

07/08/2008 19:30:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

,

07/08/2008 19:53:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

,

07/08/2008 20:20:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

ptdoug,

07/08/2008 20:34:15
How refreshing... a Government that can listen to advice and act on it.

I was an outspoken opponent to the Tram project, not that I was against the Trams.... simply that at this point in time I felt the money would be better invested elsewhere, (schools, hospitals, police etc) but the reality is that it is happening and it is now essential that we build a Tram System that will make a difference in Edinburgh regarding traffic congestion and polution.

The SNP Government have again demonstrated their ability to LISTEN... and act.

Well done!!!
61

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 07/08/2008 21:15:23
Looks loke the SNP will be trammed if they do and trammed if they don't.

Hey, Publius @27, let me know when the broken manifesto promises total £500 million please.
62

ptdoug,

08/08/2008 00:12:54
AM2#57

Fair comment.

In view of the recent shocking troll activity it really is up to the decent posters of all political persausions (including your goodself) to try to reclaim these forums.

Refreshing to see an arch-unionist recognise a decent decision by his political opponents.

It would be nice (I,m being niave again?) if we tried to be fairer when judging our political opponents.

As I said yesterday... we all wish the best for Scotland.
63

Iainbroch,

Moray 08/08/2008 00:23:07
So can anyone tell me what a journey on the trams is going to cost. Or at least what it will cost me to get to the airport from a central location?
The Trams are going to happen whther we like it or not, can we move on to discussing what really matters - the cost of journeys and will the wrong kind of leaves jigger the whole network?
64

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 08/08/2008 02:01:26
4 - I agree I think the people of Edinburgh should foot the bill for trams - then we can decide for ourselves whether to keep the lib dem council or re-elect the disgusting labour party who's idea this was ---- OR, wait for it .... Get rid of all trace of the numpties who invented TIE and start electing decent people with agenda's for edinburgh that stretch beyond lining their own pockets and massaging their own ego's!!

PS - Pro Tram idiots should pay tens times what folk with common sense should pay !?
65

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 08/08/2008 02:06:57
67 - if you divide the eventual cost of trams - adding in the damage to the local economy over the 10 years this project will take to complete plus the fact it will come in many times over budget Plus the fact it will be run by low skilled but highly paid 'workers' who do no work thanks to the unions - the actual cost of each journey may be in the region of ridiculous - but I guess they will subsidise it to waste yet more of our money ... heyho ...
66

David C,

Sunny Fife 08/08/2008 09:59:16
If the trams are to be expanded in Edinburgh, could I suggest that before contracts are exchanged for the new lines, that consideration be given to a different method of line installation. The present method, which has caused misery for months, ruined a number of businesses along the length of the re-siting of all the facilities, and caused traffic chaos, cannot be repeated, and need not be in the future. Take a look at the Edinburgh tram Company www.edinburgh-tram.co.uk site, for an explanation of the LR55 track system, which can be laid over existing facilities, can be installed very rapidly, and cost a fraction of the present method. Why this system was not chosen initially is a question everyone should be asking their local councillor, MSP, or MP., or was it a case that not enough pockets got lined, or too many friends of the previous Council had stitchted up the contracts so there was no escape, and they had to go ahead anyway with a more expensive contract? We have to know!!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you think that tthe number of bus lanes in the city should be increased?
No, they cause congestion rather than ease it
Yes, they will help improve the bus service
Yes, but only if parking spaces are not lost

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.