Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Why is Edinburgh alone in its drive for new trams?

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: 31 May 2006
PLANS to restore trams to the streets of Scotland's capital for the first time in more than 50 years are coming under growing pressure after it emerged that Edinburgh is now the only local authority in Britain that is pressing ahead with a new scheme.
A succession of high-profile schemes in England - notably in Leeds, Liverpool and Portsmouth - were shelved by the former transport secretary, Alistair Darling because of escalating costs.

And last week the Tory administration at Ealing council in London voted against proposals for a 13-mile tram route being put forward by Ken Livingstone, the mayor, to relieve congestion in the west of the city.

Indeed, the recently ousted Labour administration has admitted its support for the controversial west London tram scheme was one of the decisive factors in its losing control of the council.

Now questions are being asked about whether a scheme in Edinburgh will provide value for money.

Although there are plans to extend schemes in Blackpool, Nottingham and Sheffield, Edinburgh has been left as the only council in the UK planning a completely new scheme.

Yet only five years ago numerous cities and regions across the UK were competing for government cash to build tram networks, which were regarded as one of the linchpins in public transport strategy.

The change has come about partly because existing schemes in the likes of Birmingham, Manchester and south London have failed to bring about the major change in behaviour that was promised.

A highly critical report into English tram schemes by the National Audit Office - the government spending watchdog - two years ago savaged them for failing to attract enough passengers, losing money and doing little to reduce road congestion.

It also said trams were not properly integrated with other transport, such as buses, and lines were taking longer and costing more to complete.

And although the Edinburgh scheme has completed all the parliamentary hurdles and satisfied the majority of MSPs, some fear it will fail to deliver.

However, the city council firm developing Edinburgh's plans insists it has taken account of such criticisms. A tram operator was appointed at an early stage and the scheme was integrated with Lothian Buses - the city's main operator - which is council-run. A full business case is now due by summer 2007.

In the light of opposition against the London scheme, campaigners have called on Edinburgh and the Executive to drop the £700 million plans.

Kenny MacAskill, an SNP MSP for the Lothians, said: "All over the UK tram schemes are being dropped. Edinburgh should follow this example. Labour will not be in office in the council after next May, and it should not burden a future administration with the huge expense of a tram scheme in Edinburgh.

But Donald Anderson, the Labour leader of the council, said: "Unlike south of the Border, this scheme only goes through one council area, so there will not be the same problems as there might be in London, and it has had the unanimous support of all parties in the council, including the SNP.

"It is undoubtedly true that some projects in the rest of the UK face serious hurdles, but there are dozens of tram schemes being built across Europe. We are slipping behind our European competitors in terms of our infrastructure."

Mr Anderson said Mr MacAskill had "flipped-flopped" in his stance on trams, at first supporting the idea but changing his mind in the wake of some protests against the idea.

Mr Anderson added: "The experience from everywhere that has trams is that once people have them, they want more. No-one is clamouring for the schemes that have gone ahead to be taken away, because they provide high-quality, environmentally friendly transport. Alistair Darling did what he did because he thought the schemes he was looking at did not stand up financially. Our scheme will be fully funded and affordable and will wash its face financially in terms of operating costs."

Howard Johnston, the editor of Tramways and Urban Transit magazine, said: "The reason Edinburgh is going ahead with trams is simple - Scotland is very pro-public transport.

"Politicians in opposition always try to put the brakes on schemes. In fact, in England, more trams have been built under the Conservatives than Labour."

A spokeswoman for the Transport Scotland agency, responsible for implementing Executive transport policy, said: "Ministers continue to support the Edinburgh tram project, but this depends on the promoter delivering an acceptable and robust business case which will confirm value for money, policy objectives and costs."

Tram schemes south of the Border


LONDON

TRANSPORT for London (TFL) will decide this summer whether to press ahead with a tram line in west London after the new Conservative administration at Ealing Council withdrew its support following the local elections.

TFL stressed yesterday it does not require the backing of the council or two others involved for the 13-mile scheme to go ahead between Shepherd's Bush and Uxbridge, but hoped for co-operation in areas such as the diversion of utilities.

Labour councillors have admitted that their support for the £648 million scheme was a major factor in losing power at the council this month, and said they, too, now opposed it.

TFL said two other tram schemes were at the design stage and planned to open in ten years' time - three years after the earliest the west London line could start. One is an extension of the 17-mile Croydon line, which opened in 2000, to Crystal Palace, while the other is a new line between Camden in north London and Brixton and Peckham in the south, via Euston and Waterloo.

LIVERPOOL

GOVERNMENT funding of the Merseytram project was withdrawn last November after Liverpool and Knowsley councils failed to deliver assurances that they could pay if it went over budget.

Ministers had pledged £170 million for the 11-mile scheme between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on the basis that it would be delivered with no further requests for cash from the local authorities. The two councils offered a capped assurance of £24 million, but Merseytravel said the total public sector funding required was £315 million.

Derek Twigg, the transport minister, said: "The £170 million was available for Merseytram as long as we could be sure the scheme would be delivered without any further requests for government funding. We asked for assurances from the districts, as the ultimate funders of any overruns, that they would cover any additional costs."

An attempt to have the decision overturned at the High Court failed but Merseytravel is now lobbying Douglas Alexander, the new Transport Secretary, for support.

LEEDS

THE axe finally fell on the long-delayed Leeds Supertram project last November, when the government refused to bankroll the £355 million scheme.

Alistair Darling, the then transport secretary, ended months of speculation by decisively rejecting a move to reinstate the project.

In an attempt to soften the blow, however, he pledged funding for alternative proposals, such as a "top-of-the-range" rapid bus system for the city.

The Supertram scheme was given approval in 2001, with a cap on public sector funding of £355 million. By 2004, however, the costs had spiralled to more than £500 million and Mr Darling reversed his decision.

The government has since been discussing alternative proposals with the Supertram's promoter, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

Announcing his decision, Mr Darling said the latest plans were still "very expensive", with costs nearly 40 per cent higher than originally planned.

PORTSMOUTH

THE government turned down plans for a tram system linking Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth in Hampshire last November, stating that it was too expensive.

Hampshire County Council has waited more than six months for a decision on its revised scheme, but the South Hampshire Rapid Transit tram scheme may now never be built after the government's decision not to part-fund its £170 million cost.

The Department for Transport said that although steps had been taken to reduce the cost, the required funding "remains significantly higher" than the department is willing to pay".

Derek Twigg, the transport minister, said: "The latest tram proposals are still very expensive - costs are nearly 50 per cent higher than originally planned. This is for a reduced scheme which places more of the risks with the public sector."

He said the scheme was given full approval in 2001 with a cap on public-sector funding of £170 million based on 2003 prices, but the most recent plans need £214 million of public-sector funding.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

AndyM,

Columbia, South Carolina, USA 31/05/2006 00:00:00

Please forgive what may ultimately be a very stupid comment, but as I have tried to follow the goings-on in Scotland, Edinburgh in particular, the biggest problem that Edinburgh seems to have is getting people into the city center and the traffic and parking concerns that derive from it. Do trams solve this problem in any way, or do they simply replace or augment the bus service that already exists? I am reminded of my aunt who used to live in the suburbs of San Francisco. She would leave her car at a train station that was a mile or so from her house, take the train into the city, and then board a bus to her office, reversing the process on her return home. Assuming that Edinburgh lacks a similar arrangement, wouldn't it be a much better use of resources?

2

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna, Austria 31/05/2006 00:00:00

Vienna has one of the world's best fully integrated public transport systems, based on trams, suburban rail, buses, and a new and expanding five-line underground system. Travelling in from the country, I can park my car for free at a rail station on the outskirts and travel across the city with one ticket, changing to tram, bus or underground as required. As far as comfort is concerned, there is no comparison between a noisy, rocking, jolting, accelerating and braking diesel bus and a modern tram. The newest articulated low-floor designs, which are presumably what Edinburgh would be using, have floors no higher than the street pavements, which means that the elderly and infirm just walk on, and mothers with prams have no steps to contend with. These vehicles snake around the streets with up to six or seven articulated units and an internal walk-through passenger space from nose to tail. The convenience has to be experienced to be believed. I hope Edinburgh goes ahead with its plans, and as a regular commuter to Scotland I look forward to using the system when it is complete.

3

Age of Reason,

Edinburgh 31/05/2006 00:00:00

The problem with Edinburgh's transport proposals appears to be that the public's confidence in the ability of the promoters of schemes to deliver hem has been destroyed.

That, coupled with a perception that those involved are being funded without any incentive to deliver successful schemes, and that the principal beneficiaries will not be those who bear the risk and provide the cash.

And thirdly, viable schemes are being exploited by those who see lucrative compensation for claimed losses, resulting in inflated negative publicity and compensation demands. Such costs are hard to quantify and impossible to limit, and inflate the necessary budgets being requested by competent promoters & project managers.

It's time for strong nerves to get essential infrastructure reinstatement projects imposed on the detractors.

4

Friar Tuck,

Port Perry, Ontario, Canada 31/05/2006 00:00:00

The trouble with trams is that they are not as flexible as buses. Having said that, there are certain advantages to trams. For one thing, they can carry a much larger load and if properly planned, can relieve congestion. For this reason alone, they should have their own right-of-way and should not be put where they are going to cause congestion. Naturally, this will probably cost more initially, but in the long term it will be more beneficial.

5

Amy,

Melbourne 31/05/2006 00:00:00

Trams work very well in Melbourne!!! Trams do not get caught up in inner city traffic as much as buses do. I realise there are bus lanes in edinburgh but i think trams would be a bonus and a much quicker way to travel though town. Here there are travel tickets that allow you to travel on trams, buses and trains within certain zones on the one ticket. The planners should look to overseas examples as well as other uk cities.

6

sjs,

Edinburgh 31/05/2006 00:00:00

Trams work well in Melbourne, this is Edinburgh. For one thing the geography of Edinburgh makes trams look like a joke, whizzing along the medieval streets of the old town. The current planned lines do not go where most people need to go... therefore they don't serve the community properly, and will not ease congestion. What do we think of ugly tram overhead wires marring the view of the castle from Princes Street? Though they're environmentally friendly, they take up an extra lane on roads already hoaching with traffic (and more cars all held up means more fumes... and worse pollution). I think it's time people realised that trams exist where they were put in years and years ago... bringing them in again is costly, and something other cities in the UK have realised is pointless. This reminds me of the cost of the Holyrood Parliament; a spending spree that went out of control. Edinburgh got rid of the tram for a reason, let's not have it back. What about other public transport, like an underground metro? Beautiful old cities like Athens and Rome have them, despite their hills and ancient monuments, and I don't see why Edinburgh can't have one too. A central line running from Musselburgh, through London Road, Waverley, Haymarket, Corstorphine, and linking with the airport would be great. Goodbye trams... you're history.

7

Lyndsey,

Edinburgh 31/05/2006 00:00:00

This has got to be the best bus system in the UK in Edinburgh. Why do they want to spoil it by having trams? The bus system operated by Lothian Buses is so good because it has been developed over the years. If they get the tram system wrong, they can't just change it to go down a different street like they can with buses. And what happens if no-one uses it. Similar systems in England are suffering through not taking as much in fares as they thought they would. Will the taxpayers then have to pay to have the rails removed and the roads put back?

8

Ellen,

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 31/05/2006 00:00:00

I don't know very much about public transport in Scotland, so I may be speaking out of school.
I want to tell you, though, about our experience here in Salt Lake City (SLC). In the run up to the Winter Olympics in 2002, SLC aquired a light rail system to serve mostly the north-south corridor of our greater metropolitan area. It was controversial and expensive, but the US federal government joined with Utah state and local governments to fund it. It has proven a very big sucess. Not only did the trains take pressure off the roadways during the crush of Olympic visitors (we were so happy to host them, out here in the isolated west desert), but ridership since the Olympics has exceeded projections. Expansion of the routes has been accompanied by ridership of those routes also exceeding projections. We live in a geologic bowl, so pollution gets trapped in our city. Anything we can do to reduce the number of cars on the road improves our air quality. Light rail has been a major contributor to that effort.
From this perspective, I would like to offer my vote of support for the expansion of your public transport system. I will be following the Tram story with interest.
Ellen Fisher
A light rail, bus, bicycle rider and walker in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

9

Helmut Böning,

Nuremberg, Germany 31/05/2006 00:00:00

along its track.

I was a child in the 1950s, and the sight and sound of a tram screeching round the corner was familiar to me. It was as natural as anything around me.
A city without a tram wasn't a "real" city. That was just an ordinary town, however big it might have been.

Helmut Böning

10

geekpie,

aberdeen 31/05/2006 00:00:00

It's very important to get cars off the road so my children can play out in the street like I could and not be a fat burden on their country. Especially in view of the London Olympics.

11

David,

Glasgow 31/05/2006 00:00:00

As a child I remember the Glasgow trams fondly,but in practical terms I believe the reintroduction of such a system as retrograde mainly through the inherrent inflexibility of the network.Closer development of an environmentally friendly bus with the likes of Alexanders at Falkirk would serve better and even stimulate Scottish manufacturing.

12

GEORGY,

NZ 31/05/2006 00:00:00

Trams are great. Amsterdam seems to think so as well as Melbourne. Try standing at the Balmoral corner when half a dozen double-decker buses are banked up at the lights and try to breathe! Trams are non-polluting and that's a plus for their reintroduction.

13

AWGL,

Palm Desert, California 31/05/2006 00:00:00

To my knowledge there is only one city in the entire United States with a tram system, and that is San Francisco. And those "cable cars" are simply a tourist attraction.

If trams made economic sense and greatly assisted in solving traffic problems, don't you think New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston and Houston would have built tram systems long before this?

Has the city government in Edinburgh proven itself in terms of creating and efficiently implementing new "government manged" projects? If so, the proposed tram system may in fact be something worthwhile having. If not, my advice would be to run in the opposite direction as fast as possible, because putting it simply this project will be a total disaster.

14

atinoz,

Bendigo, Victoria, Australia 31/05/2006 00:00:00

I think the problem is in two parts and neither belong to or are caused by trams. The public as Dave suggested has very little or no confidence in the people or groups proposing the tram project/s, and the local councils do not have the courage to close roads to traffic, or make car use in certain areas difficult, thus making public transport more convenient and as a result.
Until the councils and governments are prepared to make the hard decisions, public transport will never be the best way to travel in any city.

15

Helmut Böning,

Nuremberg, Germany 31/05/2006 00:00:00

I'd like to reply to Steven's comment.
Nuremberg is a medieval town, too. Right into the 1970s the town had tramlines through the historic city centre. They had been replaced by buses and, starting 1967, a classical undergroudn system, which has been extended to two complete lines, one of them linking the neighbour town of Fuerth, the other one the international airport north of the city. A third line is under construction, being the first combined system in Germany to run both manned and unmanned on the same tracks.
Since the beginning of the creation of the underground system, the 12 tram lines have been reduced to the present six lines. Two of the existing lines have been connected by a loop between their respective final stops, thus making two turning loops obsolete.
There were plans of building a fast tram city link to the town of Erlangen, 15 kilometres north of Nuremberg, however, for financial reasons, they have been dropped.
The existing six lines are well accepted by the public, and are integrated into the VGN (Verkehrsverbund Großraum Nürnberg), where you can travel on one ticket, using National Rail (Deutsche Bahn), underground, tram and bus.

Now, the optical restrictions by the overhead wires are neglectable. Imagine a tourist taking a photo of Edinburgh Castle. Taken from the north side of Princes Street, how tall must the photographer be to get wires into their picture?
Taken from the south side: No problem.

"Trams whizzing along the medieval streets of the Old Town":
Every place int he Old Town can be reached by walking a short distance.
Gradients are also no problem. Nuremberg has a castle, too, and the historic city centre covers both sides of a river, the castle being on a monolithic sandstone rock. Trams then and today climb these gradients with ease.

Although we have an underground metro system in Nuremberg (which has proved to be necessary), the tram has its advantages, being a

16

Christopher Crossley,

Wuhan Hubei China 01/06/2006 00:00:00

My most recent experience (if you can call six years ago as "most recent"!) of using trams was when I was in the city of Jena in the province of Thuringia in what was the former German Democratic Republic, commonly known as East Germany. (I have also travelled on trams in Brussels, Zurich and Toronto.)

Considering how East Germany had been the neglected younger sibling of West Germany owing to 41 years of Communist rule, it was quite a surprise for me to see this fully-functional and pleasurable form of transport operating in a city that surprised me with a beauty that I would never have expected from having been in the GDR for over four decades.

If the authorities in Jena (with the help of the government of the unified Germany, no doubt) could have been able to stump up the money for a tram system that stretches many kilometres out from the city centre in different directions to serve outlying residential districts, I am sure that the authorities in Edinburgh and other Scottish cities could - provided, it seems, that they could anticipate rising costs over the next decade at least.

Admittedly, the figures quoted for proposed (and rejected) tram systems have alarmed even me, and a lot of people would therefore say that the money could be better spent elsewhere (e.g., on education and health care).

Nevertheless, no matter if people say that trams are environmentally friendly (maybe even trendy), practicality should be the key to any decision-making involving the potential expenditure of budgets that would probably have broken the public purses of most cities even ten years ago.

If there appear to be more disadvantages in funding and implementing such an expensive system than advantages, it is perhaps the time to cut one's losses on funds already spent and to prioritize existing needs that we know need fulfilling.

17

MOAI VINCENT'S COUSIN,

Edinburgh 01/06/2006 00:00:00

approximately 750m apart; its interchanges with bus/train stations would be poor; it would have 5 stops on an urban wildlife corridor, virtually cut off from the general road network (therefore, buses); it would have very few direct stops at key trip generators; it would have only one park and ride. The promoter's own background papers disclose that it is anticipated to reduce congestion by less than 1% in either 2010 or 2026, and air quality would be improved by less than 0.4% in either of those years. Similar problems with other UK schemes were hightlighted in the National Audit Office report on light rail.

The Edinburgh taxpayers would appear to be quite justified in their concern that their taxes look set to deliver years of disruption, severe disruption to our very successful bus network and very little improvement in congestion. And where is the funding shortfall to come from?

18

MOAI VINCENT'S COUSIN,

Edinburgh 01/06/2006 00:00:00

It is interesting that of the 18 comments so far, the 3 from Edinburgh express scepticism, and the 15 others originate from elsewhere (mostly other countries) and are favourable. Perhaps our overseas correspondents are unaware of the actual details of the Edinburgh tram scheme.

Tram schemes in many other countries have often been successful, in terms of providing benefit to transport users and easing congestion, because they carry large numbers of people directly to the places to which they need to go.

In the UK, they have been less successful and have generally far exceeded anticipated costs and achieved a fraction of their anticipated benefits. The problems have even been highlighted in a Department for Transport Guidance Document, entitled "Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Transport Planning" which concluded that "promoters and forecasters are held to be overly optimistic about project outcomes in the appraisal phase when projects are planned and decided". Why? Because "Local transport authorities that cost their light rail schemes realistically, and therefore higher than other similar schemes, run the risk of not receiving funding". This appears to be the case in Edinburgh where the public was told, in 2003, that the cost of the scheme would be £375m, despite sceptics arguing that the cost would be in excess of £700m, as disclosed in the promoter's own background papers to the scheme. Time has proven the "ordinary people" to be correct and the behaviour of the promoter has prompted the public to question what else has been misrepresented and exactly whose interests they are serving: the public or the politicians. With a funding shortfall now of £224m - £264m, Edinburgh taxpayers are right to be concerned about whether this scheme is likely to bring benefits.

The Edinburgh Tram Scheme appears to be falling into the same traps as other UK schemes. With one (and conceivably one other)

19

Matilda,

Ipswich Australia 01/06/2006 00:00:00

Yes bring on the trams in Ediburgh they are great people movers. We had them in Brisbane years ago until some bright person thought otherwise now there is talk of bringing them back.! I remember well the trams in Edinburgh - great bring them back!

20

Mike,

London 01/06/2006 00:00:00

Edinburgh is not alone in seeking to match and compete with many forward thinking and successful continental European cities. Time has not yet finally been called on extensions to Birmingham's Midland Metro, Manchester Metro or Nottingham.
Edinburgh should count theselves well served in having to deal with the Scottish Executive. Not for them the indignity of continual delays caused by repeated questioning and re-questioning by the Department for Transport in London. Readers are referred to the findings of last year's Parliamentary Transport Committee that so vociferously condemned DfT's procrastination as a principal cause of increased costs. Gwyneth Dunwoody would be proud of you.
Our European neighbours have reaped the benefits of trams and metro travel for many years. We, for our past sins, elected to dismantle the one form of public transport that can and does reduce traffic congestion whilst significantly reducing the output of exhaust and fumes that the medical fraternity point out could be the source of so much respiratory illness with potential carcinogenic properties.
Take the opportunity while you can to move into the 21st century while your English neighbours continue to review and represent their business case for the umpteenth time to prove something in which they do not believe, namely that trams are not cost effective!

21

a point of view,

Edinburgh 01/06/2006 00:00:00

There are a number of key problems with the Edinburgh tram proposals:

Value for money. A build cost of £700m. This compares to an average annual spend on maintaining all of Edinburgh's roads and streetlights of £5m. So 140 years of roads funding for 1 1/2 tram lines that will only serve a fraction of the city.

Not addressing existing transport weaknesses, particularly line 1.

The trams will also contribute significantly to congestion by obstructing Haymarket junction, Lothian Road junction, York Place and Leith Street.

Trams are inflexible. If needs develop (over say the next 10 years) they cannot simply be extended, or re-routed in the same way as buses (eg the 22 service).

Tram networks are only as strong as the weakest part. If any part of the route fails the entire system grinds to a halt. What if there were subsidence (or another problem) on the route? The tram cannot be re-routed to avoid the problem. The service would be significantly impaired for weeks or months.

The standard of service being offered is also not so great. Mostly standing room on the tram, and a significant walk to each stop, even for locations adjacent to the route.

To develop public transport, better to invest in buses, at around £120k each. You could have 6000 new buses for the cost of the tram system (which will have around 30 trams?). (Lothian buses probably only needs a fleet of a few hundred). Plenty of change for investment in schools and hospitals!

The Council needs to admit that the tram scheme was required to increase the value of land at Granton, it has not been designed to benefit existing Edinburgh residents.

22

JIR,

Rochdale 01/06/2006 00:00:00

If the Manchester Metro has failed to reduce road congestion or attract enough passengers, may I suggest one cause of this is the fact that there are not enough carriages put on in the rush hour. My partner uses the tram every day and is never able to sit down and in some cases has to wait for the following tram as it is impossible to cram anymore people onto the vehicle. This, needless to say, does not make for a pleasant travel experience. More people would probably use the Metro is they could physically get onto it. Add to this the limited routes (the long promised extension to Rochdale has not materialised) and you have the answer to the problem; too few routes and too few carriages. We need an increase in investment in the tram system here in the Manchester region if the increase in passengers is to materialise.

23

Wee Beardie,

Edinburgh 01/06/2006 00:00:00

It has taken council contractors three months to re-lay a stretch of Howe Street about 30 metres long.
Remind me...
How long is the proposed tram route?

24

Mike,

burleigh heads, Australia 01/06/2006 00:00:00

Would Princess and nicholson streets not be better without cars all together? Or Princess and George streets? A car-free CBD, and using park and rides and either buses or trams would be a real step forward for Edinburgh.

If in doubt, look at Groningen's example.

Lastly, I would have thought an underground metro to be utterly impractical for Edinburgh's topography. It's imagine an underground station entrance in the middle of the old town street.

Look forward to getting back there soon.

25

Toronto Tam,

Toronto 01/06/2006 00:00:00

Trams are still in use here in Toronto and where they have their own right of way they relieve congestion, but in other spots they slow traffic flow. They are used by large numbers of commuters in this city. I still miss the sounds and smells of the Dalmuir to Auchenshuggle (was their really such a place) double deckers.

26

dimitris,

Athens-Greece 02/06/2006 00:00:00

The matter about trams is that
everybody looks at them at present
time. We had them going during
the Olympics 2004 , and even after two years people ,especially
drivers, have not learned to live with them.I believe future will justify thier use and comfort.

27

sjs,

02/06/2006 00:00:00

improved. I'm more in favour of trams either going underground to avoid the traffic and look of the city above ground (something no one has really discussed), or for a faster more efficient system of underground high-speed rail networks, serving central Edinburgh, the west of the city/airport, Leith, and Musselburgh. Above all; people are concerned about the amount of money being spent. Trams, underground lines... it is very costly, and I think the mistake being made is that no one bothers to ask the people of Edinburgh what they want; or propose all the possibilities to Edinburgh, and let the people decide. Do we remember congestion charges? Is that why they refuse to put a referendum on the future of the trams? The best option would be for the Parliament to really let people know what options are available for our future transport network, compile the pros and cons of trams, underground rail services, or whatever mode of transport we could be using. And projecting this data onto a vision of what Edinburgh might be like in the years to come, when this transport emerges and will be more drastically needed. This means informing people of the expected growth of Edinburgh, and showing examples from other cities, like London, and Athens. Then everything can be weighed up, and people can vote for whatever mode of transport (if any) we see ourselves needing in the future. It is important not to get caught down in what we need today, but in the future. As so many people have already said, it is out of the public purse that most of the money funding these projects comes... and like congestion charges, these are decisions which really affect our future. In such a case, some sort of referendum or public consultation is needed. And more independent research needs to be done, to make sure building any such system would be cost-effective. The building of Holyrood, and the question of congestion charges teach us lessons; but so do people from abroad. So in this

28

AndyM,

Columbia, South Carolina, USA 02/06/2006 00:00:00

With all due respect, john from edinburgh, I ain't tellin', I'm askin'. Second, I would sell my car for scrap-iron tomorrow if I had access to a public transport system that would actually take me where I need to go. Even then, trying to get a 50 lb bag of potting soil onto a bus would be difficult at best.

29

John B,

edinburgh 02/06/2006 00:00:00

Is this some kind of joke? All these foreingers telling us what to do. North Americans who can't get out of their cars. Europeans who are paying a fortune in subsidies to run their quaint trams. They should all come to Edinburgh and try our fantastic bus system.
We in Edinburgh do not need trams, we cannot afford them and incredibly they do not go where people live or want to go. And as for the wires over the streets....

30

sjs,

Edinburgh 02/06/2006 00:00:00

The main point coming across from the people of Edinburgh is that our bus system is already very effective, why do we need anything else? The answer lies in the future. The building of any new public transport will take a long time... and that's just for the first few routes to be constructed. We need to plan now for the future. I think the mistake being made is that people are thinking about these tram lines as if they'll appear tomorrow. They won't. They'll emerge 5-10 years down the line, when the situation is different. Edinburgh is bound to grow. There are extensive redevelopments along the Waterfront (Leith to Granton); and smaller ones at the old Royal Infirmary, and at Fountainbridge. The suburbs and commuter towns circling the city are also growing. Trams won’t solve the problem of transport today, and they won’t solve it when they appear in ten years time. Currently the bus services really are performing a remarkable service; but we all remember the bus strikes don't we? An alternative mode of transport is important, I think. The reason I'm against trams is because of the space they take up on our roads. I think what people have said about “pedestrianisation” is fine, but right now it isn't feasible: road is the main access to central Edinburgh. Putting in trams does not aid pedestrianisation. If anything, trams complicate an already rather congested situation. As well as growing itself, Edinburgh has a population which swells at many points of the year: notably Hogmanay and during the summer festivals, when tourists swell an already swollen system. I do not think trams can ever cope with this amount of people, and that if they do, they will grind the roads of Edinburgh to a halt. I feel one of the quickest ways to travel is by rail, but stations like Waverley can't really cope with anything else - despite expansions, there are limits. In that case, Edinburgh should think of building better rail links in and out of the city, and to o

31

Moyasta,

Brussels, Belgium 02/06/2006 00:00:00

I was in Dublin yesterday where the new "Luas" tram system is a huge success. Are the opponents of trams seriously suggesting that a city such as Dublin would be better off without them? Here in Brussels, trams are an integral part of the public transport system and extensions are being built. There will inevitably be problems during construction, but once the Edinburgh system is open it will quickly become indispensible. As for the SNP's stance, this really beggars belief. From a continental Western European perspective, Edinburgh's current bus system is merely adequate (the inflexible ticketing is particularly poor). Scotland's capital city needs a top quality fully integrated public transport system - which means trams.

32

John B,

Edinburgh 03/06/2006 00:00:00

The sad fact is, Steven, that the Scottish Executive will take the money away if it is not spent on trams. This is appalling and should be publicly aired and discussed, but is not. If anyone can tell me how we can change this I will be much obliged. What a stupid reason for choosing a means of transport! I agree with all your comments about spoiling the look of the city, you are absolutely right, but no-one seems to care. What are our heritage protectors doing; they seem to be looking the other way!

33

MOAI VINCENT'S COUSIN,

Edinburgh 04/06/2006 00:00:00

There is no reason why the Scottish Executive should take the money away, Margaret.

When Alistair Darling scrapped the Leeds tram scheme, he promised funding for a bus rapid transit system instead. This followed the production of a report by Atkins which showed that 90% of the benefits anticipated from that tram scheme could be achieved by modern buses, such as StreetCar, but at a fraction of the cost of the trams. There is no reason why the Executive should not come to the same conclusion as the Department for Transport, particularly as the Scottish Executive is obliged to ensure that the any new transport proposal will offer value for money.

The problem is that the Edinburgh tram scheme is being driven by sheer political will. They have lost too many schemes recently and fear the ridicule they would receive if they failed to deliver trams. Common sense has gone straight out the window. What we have here is a scheme for which no-one wants to take responsibility or be accountable. The level of questioning at Parliamentary level (as at Council level prior to lodging the Bills) was extremely poor. I suspect they failed to ask the right questions because they didn't want to hear the answers as that would make them responsible. Easier just to hand it back to the Council again! Very worrying, bearing in mind that it was the Council who insisted that the scheme would only cost 473m for three years whilst knowing full well all the time that it would cost over £700m because ordinary people had looked at the background papers themselves and could see that no allowance had been made for inflation, compensation to businesses, etc. The very fact that the scheme has got this far is proof that it is politicians who are pushing it and that is very worrying indeed.

34

Beth S,

London 05/06/2006 00:00:00

I don't know why all the Edinburghers are so set on how wonderful Edinburgh buses are. I used to live in Edinburgh but moved down to London last year which has shown me how inadequate Edinburgh buses are.

Edinburgh buses are infrequent; many services operate half-hourly after 7 or 8 p.m.
They end way too early. In London (most) pubs close at 11 but day time bus routes run until at least midnight. In Edinburgh (many) pubs close at 1 a.m. but day time but routes finish around 11 and night buses can start an hour later.
Sunday service is a joke! Buses are incredibly infrequent but when they come they are sometimes so packed no one can get on.
Prices for tickets keep going up but the service never gets any better.
Getting to the airport by bus (or anywhere in western Edinburgh) takes ages at rush hour even though if you drive/take a taxi on back roads the traffic isn't too bad. And that's with dedicated bus lanes on most of the route.
There are no free transfers from bus to bus so you have to buy separate tickets each time (usually better to get a day ticket, but still...) And it's even worse if you need to take buses from more than one company because there's not even a single cross-Edinburgh day ticket you can buy.

Not sure how much/any of this trams could cure but I have to say I'm surprised at the level of enthusiasm being displayed for Edinburgh's current bus system.

35

MOAI VINCENT'S COUSIN,

Edinburgh 06/06/2006 00:00:00

I am not sure when you left Edinburgh, Beth, but you actually can buy a single day ticket here which allows you to travel on as many buses as you like during that day.

Also, the trams are scheduled to finish running before midnight and frequency will be set according to demand, ie, they are unlikely to be any more frequent than buses, particularly as they are very expensive to run empty.

The trams will not be running to hospitals, universities, colleges, etc, where many people still need to travel during the evenings so there is unlikely to be enough demand for frequent trams during those hours.

Lothian Buses are now the most successful bus operator in the UK outside London, based on numbers of passenger journeys per head of population, but, in order to attract passengers to the one tram route now planned, it is necessary to cut many services which travel all over the city, thereby making it necessary for most people to have to change from bus to tram to bus to get to a destination which they can currently reach directly by bus. This will obviously act as a disincentive to using public transport at all.

If the tram route had been going to the key passenger trip generators directly, instead of, for a large proportion of its length, through areas of as yet unbuilt expensive property developments, right beside the sea and along an existing urban wildlife corridor, where catchment is poor, then perhaps it would be receiving more popular support.

As yet, we cannot see the benefit of jeopardising a very successful bus company which is managing to attract people from their cars in droves for a tram scheme which will not take those same people where they need to go and is currently facing a financial shortfall of over £330m and will most likely require a operating subsidy ad infinitum.

36

Moyasta,

Brussels 06/06/2006 00:00:00

I am surprised by descriptions of Edinburgh's bus system as "fantastic". Compared with much of continental Europe, the bus service can be described as adequate (Lothian Buses is better than its rival First.) The lack of integrated ticketing with other transport modes is appalling. Why the toleration of such mediocrity? Thatcherite-inspired bus deregulation introduced in 1986 is largely to blame - when will the Scottish Parliament abolish this? A new tram system will not cure all Edinburgh's transport problems, but it will be an enormous help. Good examples for Edinburgh are the new system in Strasbourg (www.cts-strasbourg.fr) and Dublin (www.luas.ie). As for the anti-foreigner comments posted by several individuals, I am an Edinburgh home owner and council tax payer currently working abroad....


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

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

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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