Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


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 Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Tram contractors to net £3.2m if expansion plan hits buffers



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: 10 June 2008
TRAM contractors will pick up a £3.2 million bonus if city leaders fail to commit to an expansion of the city's tram line, a council report has revealed.
A "contingency payment" will be triggered if tram firm TIE does not take up its £87m fixed-price deal to build the Haymarket to Granton spur by next spring.

Only around half the money is in place for line 1B at present, and council chiefs are faci
ng a race against time to get the rest.

The contingency payment was set as part of a deal which saw contractors agree to hold a fixed price for 1B until spring next year. Tram chiefs today said that without getting the construction firms to hold this price, the cost of 1B would be well in excess of £87m.

But opposition politicians today raised concerns at yet another potential increase in costs. Councillor Mark McInnes, the city's Tory transport spokesman, said: "I would be concerned that when the council comes to make a decision on 1B we are unduly influenced by this £3.2m penalty. 1B needs to be looked at on its own merits." Months of talks with German and Spanish contractors concluded when contracts for tram vehicles, track and other infrastructure were signed.

The contracts have left the overall price tag for line 1A at £512m within the overall £545m available for the scheme.

Protracted contract negotiations and record low exchange rates against the euro have been blamed for the recent price rises on the scheme.

Councillor Tom Buchanan, the city's economic development convener and the SNP's transport spokesman on the council, said: "We have consistently said we expect this project to stick within its budget and timescales, and that is still the case, so anything which leads to an increase in the price like this is of concern.

"But the council has still to take a decision on 1B and it will be a crucial decision because we need an integrated tram network."

The Roseburn to Granton spur has been a controversial part of the proposed tram network, not least because it would run along the Roseburn urban wildlife corridor.

Willie Gallagher, chief executive of TIE, said: "This contingency ensures that the competitive price negotiated for line 1B remains fixed while the city examines options on its construction.

"If we were to ask contractors to price Line 1B separately, the costs would be significantly higher."

www.tramsforedinburgh.com





The full article contains 418 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

capy,

embra 10/06/2008 12:09:26
The tram contractors must of seen these muppets from TIE coming from miles away. Never mind its only tax payers money
2

M33,

10/06/2008 12:16:29
Trams are actually just buses on tracks.
3

leith keely,

edinburgh 10/06/2008 12:18:26
#2 there`s no fooling you---- sherlock.
4

Corruption____,

10/06/2008 12:33:50
Given this line will basically serve the Granton development, why don't the council make the devlopers pay for it outright? Want to build 20,000 homes? Build the tram line first and we'll think about it.

Without the trams the devlopers would have to spend loads on extra transport improvements anyway.
5

Niadh,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 12:37:23
#1 Capy.
Get your own term for these guys. Muppets is my term of choice.

Seriously though. Why am i not surprised that the council has signed something that basically gives away our money??
6

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

10/06/2008 12:44:36
I didn't know that trams are actually just buses on tracks. I thought they were a new kind of multi-bladed razor.
7

Bob 2,

10/06/2008 12:45:29
It could only be the Council & TIE that sign up to give a Firm £3.2m (£3,200,000) for doing nothing.

How do you apply, sounds like good business if your the supplier.

Still see the EN is juggling the cost of line 1, £500m is/was the budget, so its £12m over.
8

,

10/06/2008 12:48:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Jenny MacArthur,

10/06/2008 12:49:40
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I just lurrvvve the moaning anti-tram whiners! Oh, and the Evening News just loves to prod them every day with yet another dredged-up story to feed their anti-Council obsession and give these gits more to moan on about with their uneducated drivel.
10

Trams shams,

10/06/2008 12:51:28
Oh this is a slow day for News! Why bother about £3.2M when in reality it will save £89M+. The situation should have never been allowed to develop in the first place.
Pointless trying to discuss this to a green person as they can't see the wood for the tree's.
Pointless trying to get people to remember it's a line that's going in not a system.
Pointless trying to agree the on whether this is right or wrong because opinion is so divided across a minority and as yet we've yet to see the direct impact of this on ouor pocket.
Pointless me going on...!
11

Bob 2,

10/06/2008 12:57:48
Jenny what planet are you on?


Read the Article, So do you think its a good idea for TIE to sign up to a contract, that give a contractor £3.2m for doing nothing....

Would you get work done on your house, then pay them for doing nothing.

Maybe TIE have never heard of getting a FREE quote

so based on TIEs money in the bank its just dropped from £545 to £543, sounds like good project management to me!!!!
12

Sarcasm,

10/06/2008 13:03:47
#13
You couldn't spot a troll like Jenny Mac or Gorgie T if it was a Staffordshire terrier shooting your cat in the eye at close range.
13

Bob 2,

10/06/2008 13:15:31
no15.....most people would probably have a budget set to meet the cost of their holiday (yes there are changes).

But TIEs shortfall of £45m+ is based on assumptions and hope.

Most people can give a budget forecast that sees REAL money coming in, not just some fanciful hope that £46m is going to pop up at the end of a Rainbow.

In fact TIE had agreed the price of 1b, before 1a had been signed, so the shortfall could have been greater if the price of 1a had been greater than £512, don't count the old chickens!!!
14

Andrew Kent,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 13:25:51
No trams are not buses on tracks... They are a criminal waste of money and will cause more problems than they solve.
15

Richard Lionheart,

10/06/2008 13:29:47
Trams:-

A mystical black hole where incompetent civil servants can loose vast sums of tax payers money without being held accountable!
16

Arfur,

10/06/2008 13:56:29
More money for this complete waste of time and money.

Whats this tho - 'But opposition politicians today raised concerns at yet another potential increase in costs. Councillor Mark McInnes, the city's Tory transport spokesman' - ehh, well why did Tory vote for the trams when the SNP wanted to can them?
17

Hmm ...,

10/06/2008 14:03:11
... no, trams aren't buses on tracks. No buses are 120 feet long.
Trams are more like trains except that they are not as strongly-built and they run on the public road, not specialised tracks fenced off to protect the public from their passing.
Oh, to think of their passing ... ! we saw that back in the 1950s!
18

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 14:05:49
#20 Jade the Obscure

Come on Jade, don't knock poor Jenny, it's just her time of life!!

I just hope to see the tram scheme fall flat on it's face taking TIE/Edinburgh Town Council with it.

19

Jim Taylor,

10/06/2008 14:10:27
Why don't we taxpayers just allow the council to dip into our pockets yet again?

There again, we didn't "allow" the council in the first place, it just did it anyway.

All of the cuts in council services we are having to bear, and meanwhile the council is pulling out all the stops to fund its wee "train set".

That's democracy, folks!

20

,

10/06/2008 14:41:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

The_Doctor,

The real world 10/06/2008 14:45:05
I'm not building line 1B either. Where do I collect my 3.2 Million Quid?
22

Dragonlord,

10/06/2008 15:00:19
So we are going to pay companies 3.2 million for doing nothing? What's news in that?
23

,

10/06/2008 15:04:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 15:50:48
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE OF EDINBURGH - SHELVE THE WHOLE TRAM PROJECT!!
25

,

10/06/2008 16:15:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

10/06/2008 16:22:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Euan,

10/06/2008 16:53:20
Councillor Tom Buchanan says in the article "But the council has still to take a decision on 1B and it will be a crucial decision because we need an integrated tram network."

What planet is this idiot on?

Due to the way this City is built and the geographical location it sits on, Edinburgh WILL NEVER, EVER have an 'integrated tram network'

The sooner the buffoons in charge of this disgraceful project realise this, the better.




28

Euan,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 17:39:07
#37

Yes, fair enough. But that is from 1932!

It is true, if these tram routes were retained before their demise in the 1950s, Edinburgh would be a very different place today - but they weren't retained.

In 21st century Edinburgh, the cars and buses are here to stay. What is required is proper park and ride investment together with modern engine upgrading of all the buses and taxis n EDinburgh to create a proper 'transport network' as Cllr Buchannan says.

In my opinion, trams do not fit onto this equation.

The trams being proposed for Edinburgh's streets are far bigger and more cumbersome than the trams of yesteryear.

Couple this with the staggeringly high costs of installing, building and then running them(not to mention the HUGE disruption to locals during the painfully long construction phase)and the re-introduction of trams in Edinburgh simply does not make any sense whatsoever.

And while the graceful, picturesque images of trams in Edinburgh's past may warm the hearts of a few people, the proposed new tram line represents to many, many people the squandering of valuable public money on a grand scale for little or no gain to the City of Edinburgh...
29

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 17:56:47
#38 Euan

Yet another spot-on assessment and evaluation of the situation. Trams can only spell disaster in and for Edinburgh and the project should be cancelled forthwith.

As for the refereence to trams in 1932, I have a book which contains a 'Scotsman' photograph taken in 1956 of a 'tram jam' in Princes Street. The photo was taken from the NB (now the Balmoral) and shows nothing but trams from one end of the street to the other (if you look very carefully you can count 6 cars, 1 bus and 2 lorries). So much for the trams operating then (or now) on an efficient basis.

30

Mastermined,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 18:55:03
Contractors to get a £3.2 million bonus if the city "leaders fail to commit to an expansion of the tram system - this isn't a tram system its a...............Gravy Train !!!
31

Arrow,

edinburgh 10/06/2008 19:44:06
you ain't getting a tram system you are gettign a single route with a couple of trams on it. a tram system implies a number of routes that offer a choice to users.
re the question of why the developers in Leith and the Waterfront did not pay for the tram is because much of the land is owned by the Council or Forth Ports and to ask for a tram contribution from prospective purchasers would have put them off. as far as i am aware the planning permissions were granted before the requirement for contributions were in place but with the Council in full knowledge of what was coming. EDI/TIE both "arms length" companies owned by the Council. so they do not pay out anything it is the public.
32

Plantagenet,

10/06/2008 20:26:13
Why do posters on here continually have a go at Jenny McArthur, I think that you are falling into her feeble little trap by allowing her to think she is getting to you, does she have anything constructive to say about trams? if so, let's hear it. Instead of goading the more sensitive posters on this forum to feel inadequate regarding their views on the trams, give us some concrete evidence that the trams are a good idea, that they are not a complete waste of money, go on Jenny, let's hear it, bring it on, let's hear your views, give us the benefit of your superior wisdom.
33

Leila,

Edinburgh 10/06/2008 20:37:50
#43: because every time there's a story involving trams, Jenny's in there, wanting the "anti-trammies" as she calls them, to post so she can be insulting back. Jenny has a real problem with trams, she's obsessed with them!
34

Goat Boy,

10/06/2008 21:49:18
Plantagenet - I was just about to say the very same. Jenny clearly sees herself as a green guru and our green conscience. The voice in our heads that says "that’s not the sustainable way".

Well Jenny, there may well be some fact in some of your outbursts, but the way you phrase them probably does more harm than good.

And if you think spending £600m on a tram line is a good way to improve our environment, you need to sit down and give it a bit more thought. Don’t accept the sales pitch, try thinking for yourself.
35

Bob 2,

10/06/2008 22:02:27
32..Scallywag

But I don't order a Ferrari WHEN I KNOWINGLY DON'T have the money in the bank or have any guarantee of having £93m (original price for 1b) in the bank, yet TIE with "£46m" supposedly in the bank, sign up for line 1b at £87m.

This is not a game of Monopoly.

Again TIE signed up for line 1b, before they even had agreed a price for line 1a.

£500m was what was in the bank for line 1a, so what if the line had been even more tham £512m, £540m?
36

Happy Hibee,

10/06/2008 22:47:04
#46 Bob

Where do you get the idea that they have signed up for line 1b before agreeing 1a.

I think you will find that the agreement for both is included in the contracts and they were tie committed to both at signature.

tie have effectively hedged the cost of 1b in a manner used in numerous large construction contracts. Whether you are hedging against exchange rates, inflation or material costs, it does make sense.

Without the committment (£3.2M) the price for building 1b may have increased by a much bigger factor. Look at the current prices for copper, steel, etc and the construction indices (the measure of inflation in construction) which are running at >5% per annum.

£3.2M - Not a bad deal if you think about it, but only if the 1b section goes ahead.
37

Julian.,

edinburgh 10/06/2008 22:59:23
#42 Arrow

Yes we all know we're not getting a tram system. Most of us also realise that most tram systems in operation started off as 1 line, eg. Nottingham. And most of them, like Edinburgh's, were not a dead cert to have extra lines added to them when first started. It's called evolution, not revolution.
38

Julian.,

edinburgh 10/06/2008 23:02:35
Peter - very disappointed,

That photo you have of a tram jam is an instant in time. How do you know it wasn't a one off? I've seen hundred of photos and film footage of trams not in jams.

And it's just possible that with technology having moved on 60 years that tram jams will be an even rarer occurence.
39

Dr Egg,

Erf 10/06/2008 23:27:53
Tram Jams or Tram Bams?
40

Sanny,

Portugal 10/06/2008 23:58:46
As I recall the SNP manifesto was against the Tram Project and made their view very clear. Nonetheless the Unionist Cabal in Hollyrood forced the decision on the minority government. SNP warned at the time there would be NO additional funds to cover any over-runs for whatever reason and the council would require to fund additional costs from their own resources. Edinburgh council and its ratepayers could and should have kicked the project into the long grass.
41

Julian.,

edinburgh 11/06/2008 01:12:35
Sanny,

Yes, it was the unionist cabal + the greens who forced the tram issue through. Or, to put it more concisely, everyone else in the parliament.
42

OnTrack,

Leith 11/06/2008 11:24:11
Hmmm... The Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor.... that was a working rail track until the 1980s, still with station platforms visible at points along its length.

And it's reserved with planning as being for rail use only...since that's what it always was.

Why do people make it sound like the Roseburn Rail Corridor is some kind of planned and approved green belt when in fact it's just an overgrown tarmac covered railway?

Rebranding doesn't help clarify things for people. It's a great cycleway... I use it all the time... I look forward to some re-surfacing and lighting when the trams come in and upgrade the cycle path alongside as agreed
43

Niadh,

Edinburgh 11/06/2008 12:20:21
#45 Goat Boy
I have previously challenged Jenny and her ilk to provide proof about the benefits of this fiasco.
nothing was forthcoming.
I strongly suspect they are the commenting equivelants of a graffiti artist.
Hit and run tactics. Don't come back in case you get punced on.

I was going to use Banksy as a comparison but then realised that he actually has a sense of humour and some style.
44

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 11/06/2008 14:22:20
#49 Julian

"It's just possible that with technology having moved on 60 years that tram jams will be an even rarer occurence."

The only reason there could be fewer jams is because there will be considerably fewer trams using this ridiculous, poor man's apology for a tram 'system' (which it patently is not).

As I have said before this project will be a disaster for Edinburgh and I for one can't wait for it to fall flat on its face.

By the way, I was a child when the old trams were being exterminated, I can assure you the photograph I refer to was not a one-off.

45

Julian.,

edinburgh 11/06/2008 21:40:03
Peter,

You're right in saying there will be fewer jams because of less trams. But as I said, technology moves on and surely the new trams will be more reliable and quicker and, there will be better traffic management of the line. I suspect they will also have passing places for trams which are holding the system up.

I know it's a hard pill for you anti-tram people to swallow but, just because it's costing lots of money, it doesn't mean you can't recognise some benefits. Things are very rarely black or white, like the world people like Euan seem to live in.
46

Julian.,

edinburgh 11/06/2008 21:41:44
Sorry, I commited a cardinal sin. I called the tram line a system. I correct myself. It is a line, not a system.
47

Ian down under,

Kawerau 11/06/2008 22:16:04
If you really don't want trams or rail based public transport then you will have to build more roads to motorway standard and more and massive car parks to handle all the vehicles. Oh and the congestion you see now will look like a quiet country lane in comparison. Of course to build this you'll need to knock down half the city centre and for those who have groaned about a few roadworks in Shandwick Place well then you really will have something to complain about.
If you want to see how a city can survive without rail based public transport or very little of it I suggest you fly over to New Zealand and visit Auckland. They have a tiny wee station with only 2 rail lines to anywhere, they have buses everywhere and they have cars and motorways all over the place. In the middle of the afternoon, outside the rush hour it takes 90 minutes by bus from the airport to the city centre and in the rush hour the place grinds to a halt. The air quality is terrible, and on a par with Los Angeles which is another temple to the car.
So anti-trammers if this is what you really want I suggest you go and look at the Tram roadworks and imagine them multiplied a thousand times and imagine Princes St knocked down and a big car park where the shops used to be becuase that is what you are facing if you get your way.
48

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 14/06/2008 12:15:16
The tramline will create traffic jams and herald congestion charging - the real reason for them being implemented. It's called the Swiss Model and I studied this at Cranfield University.

The theory is simple, create congestion and people will accept charging. How? Narrow roads - sound familiar to residents? Give buses priority - sound familiar? Reduce road routes available - sound familiar? Trams will tick all 3 boxes in addition to all narrowing council has put in over last few years .
49

Ian down under,

Kawerau 15/06/2008 22:22:46
And when the oil runs out the trams will carry on running. I note that the antitrammers have got this fixed idea that trams will ADD to congestion. Where do they get this from? Each tram can carry 250 people and if they run every 3 minutes in the central area that equates to 5000 people an hour. If you are generous and assume every car has four occupants [rare!!] then it saves 1250 cars each hour each way [that's one every 3 seconds almost]. Buses [double deck can take about 80 passengers] could be reduced by about 60 an hour in comparison. So where is the congestion coming from. If you let the trams run every 90 seconds or even every minute once a full network is in place and you could find that congestion is a thing of the past.
Provide decent parking at peripheral tram stops and decent fares and all day tickets [for all modes] and you've got a city moving well.
I recently spent a week in Sydney and for the equivalent of 17 pounds for a weekly ticket I could travel on all the trains, trams, buses and ferries in an area the size of the Lothians and the souther half of Fife. All modes were well used and the trains ran about every 5 minutes on every route. This is the kind of thing we need in Edinburgh.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is the £100,000 expenses bill racked up by trams chiefs justifiable?
Yes, most of the claims look reasonable
No, they’ve got their noses in the trough
No, the whole project should be scrapped

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.