Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Trams costs shoot up for second time in fortnight

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.

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: 12 May 2008
THE cost of Edinburgh's tram project is to rise for the second time in a fortnight.
Tram firm TIE is facing a £3 million increase in the scheme's overall cost to £511m as a result of protracted contract negotiations.

The move comes just nine days after councillors approved a £10m increase to £508m after tram chiefs revealed that a delay in contract talks – in addition to exposure to Euro currency fluctuations – had pushed prices up.

It is understood the contractual problem was with BBS, the firm supplying the tram tracks and overhead wires.

Negotiations have now been concluded, with BBS now taking on more of the risks for the project in exchange for getting more money up front.

Contracts for both the infrastructure and the tram car deals were meant to be concluded three months ago but are now expected to be signed on Wednesday.

The increase in capital costs for the trams further eats into the scheme's contingency fund, much of which it had been hoped could be put towards the £87m Haymarket-Granton line 1B link.

The public opening of the tram line – previously slated for February 25, 2011 – has also slipped as a result of the extended talks and is now scheduled for July, 2011.

Tram firm TIE today said it had achieved additional benefits for the project, such as transferring more of the risk away from the public purse.

Deputy council leader Steve Cardownie said: "This is of real concern to us, it is public money we are talking about here and I will be particularly worried if any of these companies think we are a soft touch because it is public money.

"We have always been told there are checks and balances in place with the project but it now looks like two fairly substantial erosions of the contingency fund in the space of two weeks and it doesn't bode that well for the future.

"We will be asking why we are in the situation where the contracts have yet to be finalised and also whether anything could have been done to prevent this."

Council reports released last week show the base cost of the airport to Newhaven link has risen from £449m to £476m but the amount officials need to allow for project risks had dropped from £49m to £32m.

This accounted for the £10m overall increase in the project.

The Scottish Government has already given £500m towards the scheme and the city council has promised to come-up with £45m.

However, not all of the council's money has been secured, with city leaders banking on developer contributions to meet their shortfall.

Councillor Ian Murray, the city's Labour finance spokesman, said: "The contingency funding was put in place to try and make this project as foolproof as possible and it is at times like this when TIE will naturally be considering dipping into them.

"These are complicated contract negotiations and I think TIE has done a good job so far with the project."

A spokesman for TIE said: "We have endeavoured to achieve additional benefits for the project and this has involved small changes to the capital costs.

"This is still well within the overall money available of £545m."

www.tramsforedinburgh.com

The full article contains 548 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 May 2008 2:24 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

12/05/2008 11:53:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Douglas,

Bathgate 12/05/2008 12:01:34
I'm shocked. No I'm not, I'm aghast. No, wait a minute, I'm incandescent with rage. No that's not it either. Weary, aye, bone weary of this never ending story of waste served up with a liberal portion of bullsh1t from those who depend on this train set for their wages.


3

D Fiasco,

Borders 12/05/2008 12:03:03
First rule of project management in Scotland: Blow the budget sky high!
4

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 12:13:13
£3m is hardly shooting up - an increase of about 0.6% in fact. There is no evidence of mismanagement and lots of evidence of accountability. Compare this with the Highways Agency, where costs have risen massively on projects such as the M6 widening, and it is clear that this project is going pretty well. Still, nothing will satisfy those who were against the system all along and they will jump on any chance to knock the project, egged on by the irresponsible reporting of the Evening News
5

allknowing,

12/05/2008 12:16:43
"an increase of about 0.6% "

Speaks volumes doesnt it!! That £3m, which is a lot of money, is such a tiny percentage amount in this vastly overpriced train set!!

6

Scotish Exile,

12/05/2008 12:17:36
think of a budget and double it
7

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 12:17:48
Stop the trams NOW!!!
8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 12:19:30
Expect to pay anything between £2bn and £5bn for this un-neccessary fiasco.
9

allknowing,

12/05/2008 12:20:41
"Expect to pay anything between £2bn and £5bn for this un-neccessary fiasco.Report Unsuitable"

Thats the scary bit, i can actully believe that!
10

capy,

leith 12/05/2008 12:24:13
cllr murrys lack of concern is touching. after all its only public money.must be because it was the labour party,s pet plan. hope we wont hear any more moaning from them about budget cuts!! ps can anybody enlighten me as to who picks up the overspend tab.i once heard rodger harper msp state on talk 107 that the public purse was safe. dosent sound like it
11

Hmm ...,

12/05/2008 12:25:54
... I'll bet that there are a great many small increases in the cost in the three years until this tram line is actually delivered.

Even at this stage, we should cut and run - failure to do that ensured that the Scottish Parliament was eventually completed at a price that NO ONE would have accepted at the outset.

But then, that was the plan all along - as it is here.

TO be fooled once is disgraceful - to be fooled twice is an abuse of our public monies - Edinburgh's council tax in this case!

It really is time to dispose of these Labour and LibDem clones who think they can do as they like because they are above criticism.
12

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 12:30:56
"This is still well within the overall money available of £545m." but they're working on it and you'd hardly notice that the starting date is slipppppppping.
13

Dragonlord,

12/05/2008 12:32:10
On another EEN story, the cost of metal is so high that gangs are stealing drain covers. You will never guess what the toy train runs on? METAL rails. Cost will continue to rise, and Ok 3mill is not a lot in overall terms but when another 3mill and another 3mill are announced in drips, the cost of this toy train set will bankrupt the city.
14

calum,

12/05/2008 12:33:35
#4 - And the Highways Agency has got exactly what to do with Edinburgh? or Scotland for that matter?
Ah, David, your slip is showing!!
15

Rod,

Champfleurie estate 12/05/2008 12:35:18
#1 Of course, nobody saw this coming

Oh dear, the project management 'experts' are out in force again.
Why do you think a contingency allocation is part of the overall project?
16

Arnie,

12/05/2008 12:37:31
Was walking past a restaurant at Charlotte Square which had a board outside which said "To celebrate the arrival of trams in 2011ish free glass of wine with every meal".

I thought that was brilliant!
17

Get a life!,

12/05/2008 12:37:54
What a surprise!

Did anyone in Edinburgh actually want the trams, apart from Edinburgh Council!
18

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 12:39:56
Oh Dear!!!

It's not happening again is it ?

Remember the Parlament project?

Runaway price increases!!!

Delayed Openning Date!!!

Couldn't happen AGAIN in Edinburgh surely!!!
19

C.,

12/05/2008 12:41:11
it's a shame that you can't get a tax refund for things that you don't won't, broken, or not fit for purpose. if that was the case. the trams would be scrapped and the local councils would go greatly into the red. whoever thought the tram idea was good, must have been smoking ro drinking something very strange when they went to push the idea through. It is just another scottish white elephant.
20

Brian Ferrari,

12/05/2008 12:49:17
This is an absolute goldmine for all those contractors who are not in contracts.

What blows my mind is that the Council told us how much this would cost BEFORE they had agreed prices with all their contractors. Including the contractor supplying the rails.

Now, I'm no brain surgeon, or rocket scientist for that matter, but you have to dive pretty deep into the genepool to put a price on something before you know what you are going to be charged.
21

charliegreen,

edinburgh 12/05/2008 12:53:07
Watch out for more missing drain covers, but surely not 3 million quids worth.
22

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 12/05/2008 12:55:12
So what if costs have risen again ?? So what ?
23

Kirsty Boyd-Williamson,

New Town 12/05/2008 13:02:31
#17
Did anyone in Edinburgh actually want the trams, apart from Edinburgh Council!

Yes, me! And many others known to me. The tram line will make my frequent journeys from the New Town to Edinburgh International Airport all the more convenient and pleasurable. Ding ding!
24

Wullie Smith ,

Embra 12/05/2008 13:03:53
Now just remind me - whats wrong with our excellent Lothian Buses , and why do we need to spend £ 500 million just to turn the 22 bus into a tram , or am I missing something ?
25

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 13:07:07
#17

Do you know how far you will need to go to reach your nearest tram stop?
26

Bob 2,

12/05/2008 13:08:14
can anyone follow the plot of the trams.

1a was costed at £500m
1b was costed at £93m

the figures seem to change depending on what part of the EN your read

The Contigency , again anothr bit if strange financial brilliance.....how can you have a contigency when you haven't got money in the bank.

The city council has promised to come-up with £45m, with another £40m from developers.


is it £511m or £476m for line 1a

The Start date is now July 20.

Its bizarre that they've managed to get an £87m fixed contract for 1b, but the costs and price for the line getting constructed varies from day to day.

The Plot thickens..Not even Columbo or Agatha Christie could solve this mystery.

is there a Plot, never mind a Script.!!!

Let the Fun continue.

27

Graham P,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 13:09:14
Now that the EN has devalued the phrase "shoot up" by using it to describe a 0.6% increase, what will they do when something really does shoot up?
28

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 13:12:02
Oops should have read #23 Kirsty
29

scotsol,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 13:12:20
I was in Marseilles last week, yet another city where they've opened a tramline in the last few years, and which is now a great success. Even if the Edinburgh project were over budget, which it isn't as you'll see if you bother to read past the idiotic headline, it would still be worth every penny.
30

Loki - The Scourge of the Schemies,

EH1 12/05/2008 13:15:52
> 17: Did anyone in Edinburgh actually want the trams, apart from Edinburgh Council!

61.5% of the staff in my Edinburgh office favour what is proposed. Of the remaining 38.5%, one third expressed no view whilst two thirds are opposed. Of the two thirds who oppose, all but one live outside the city boundary.
31

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 13:18:42
#23 Kirsty

What about the majority of people who wanted/were told line 1. would go to the new Royal Infirmary/A & E/ Simpsons ?????
32

Bring Back Poll Tax,

12/05/2008 13:19:55
Oh come on now, what's 3 million compared with the 10 million that the pointless guided busway cost?

At least the additional cost will maybe (according to the TIE mouthpiece) "achieve additional benefits" - begs the question - (a) what exactly are these benefits and (b) why are they only "endeavouring" to achieve them?
33

11+failed,

the pans 12/05/2008 13:22:54
4 David Harrington,
"£3m is hardly shooting up - an increase of about 0.6% in fact"

Nice convenient case of myopia. Coming on top of £10m a fortnight ago that is 2.6%, not inconsiderable and far from the end of story for this ill- conceived, extravagent and largely irrelevant to traffic improvement project.
Ultimately this project will end like the £300m Sheffield "supertram" bailed out by the Labour government and sold to Stagecoach for £1 after losing £250,000 per month at the operational level.
34

PJ,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 13:29:43
It seems pointless...but ha-ha we told you so!
35

Arfur,

12/05/2008 13:29:49
#24 Wullie Smith - exactly. Labour have green lighted £500m to basically replace a combination of the 22 and airport bus.

Trams are good for cities, but only when you have a tram NETWORK. One chuffin line is a waste of time and money.

The £500m should have gone to either
(1) a new forth road bridge/tunnel or
(2) SNP's idea of a underground from city centre to airport or
(3) fixing the shocking roads in Edinburgh
36

vote them out,

TRAMBO 12/05/2008 13:34:11
Nobody understood trambo, nobody loved trambo - so trambo got medieval with their derriere and tore up the whole town.

In trambo II, evil public protesters eat lead and get tasered when they speak out against trambos budget.
37

James (1),

12/05/2008 13:34:42
Look if prices are only going up every fortnight then that is better than every week!
Chill out, the project will be over by 2011 so there are not too many fortnights left!
Do you thing these "brown envelopes" fill themselves?

This is a portable Scottish Parliament project we are building here. If you believed it would not spiral out of control then the next time you speak to the tooth fairy just ask her(I know we have male fairies but I am making a point here)if it was common knowledge.

38

The Judge,

12/05/2008 13:37:22
This story cannot possibly be true, for months the protramies told us the tramLINE nowhere will be "on time" and "on budget". I wish the EEN wouldn't make up stories like this, it must be disheartening to the hundred's of workers slaving away 24/7 to get the project finished on time and on budget.
39

Arrow,

edinburgh 12/05/2008 13:38:49
#30
how many people are in "your" office? in my office there are 10 people and 90% are against the Tram and 10% did not know!!
40

Arnie,

12/05/2008 13:38:59
Why don't we build an underground instead? It would add to our existing transport infrastructure rather than replacing buses.
41

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 13:42:11
David Harrington:

"£3m is hardly shooting up - an increase of about 0.6% in fact"

Neither was the odd penny or two on a litre of petrol but after 11 years we are now paying double what we were paying---and most of that is absolutely nothing to do with the price of crude.

I know that this project isn't scheduled to run for 11 years but expect several things to happen:-

1. It WILL over-run, probably by a number of years
2. It WILL come in at about 5-10 times the original estimate
3. Excuses WILL be made that the original figure was only a "ball park estimate"
4. Two or three key personnel WILL leave before the project is finished
5. Politicians WILL meddle in engineering matters
6. When the project is declared to be complete, it will not be and the next year will be spent ironing out problems that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

As a shining example of this, we have the Scottish Parliament building. Everything I list above was true of that project. Why should the trams be any different? The only saving grace for the parliament is that it is a single building in one location. The trams are going to run throughout all Edinburgh's major routes.

You must be stark raving mad to even consider supporting this rediculous experiment. It is not too late to call a halt to this madness.
42

Marathon,

Perth 12/05/2008 13:45:08
Is Edinburgh getting a tram?
43

20something,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 13:46:49
#23. Ding ding Kirsty! Ding ding. I'll be laughing all the way up Leith Walk when I get to use this fine city's fantastic new transport option.

Anyone want to buy a drain cover?
44

Brian Ferrari,

12/05/2008 13:53:50
Mistakes will be made.................Others will be blamed
45

ValdasTheMan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 14:32:48
#39

I'm self-employed, but I took a survey of my colleagues and I. 100% were don't know.

Are we getting Night Trams?
46

Scotish Exile,

12/05/2008 14:44:54
"BBS now taking on more of the risks for the project in exchange for getting more money up front".....what risks, and if they are getting more dosh upfront, what happens if they go to the wall, they will have had their money without delivering little or nothing, very silly
47

Goat Boy,

12/05/2008 14:47:10
You know, it’s amazing that so much money is being spent on something that is going to contribute so little to the city's transport system. It will hardly scratch the surface of the commuter problem and we will still be faced with congestion and pollution caused by the buses. This money should have been used to replace the bus fleet - that would have benefited the WHOLE of the city and the folk who live in East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian, the Scottish Borders etc. And what about the rail network that must be close to capacity - there doesn't appear to be a lot of effort being made to reduce the growth in commuter traffic. So why are we spending so much money on this tram? To allow 40,000 news homes to be squashed in to the north of the city that's why.
48

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 14:51:23
These trams need to be STOPPED NOW! It is already out of control!!

#24 and #58 have hit the nail on the head!
49

SamSung,

12/05/2008 15:31:58
if we were talkin a Monorail........that i could go for.
50

me150,

12/05/2008 15:32:40
0.6% increase is hardly a lot. It is less than usual in projects like this. A lot of the increases are due to time wasted dealing with moaners.

Why don't you all just shut up about stopping it because it won't stop.

Why not put your efforts into something constructive for a change.
51

RCI,

Not in Embra..Thank God 12/05/2008 15:34:30
Folks in Edinburgh better tighten those belts.

With the cost of this white elephant increasing, looks like Edinburgh folks are gonna get milked like cattle
to fund this rubbish.

Imagine what an injection of 500 million could do for
a decent thought out transport system...
52

Ed_Izmir,

Turkey 12/05/2008 15:34:58
Why are they not hedging costs against future Fx rates?

Any business that deals in one currency and reports in another does this to negate the exposure to Fx losses.
53

Ed_Izmir,

Turkey 12/05/2008 15:41:32
...and why are contracts for infrastructure in Edinburgh being made in Euros anyway?

they should be in GBP and the European supplier should be hedging against the possible cost of reduced revenues due to unfavourable exchange rates.
54

Voice o reason,

Innerspace 12/05/2008 15:43:06
So the cost has increased. Did anyone actually believe it wouldn't? 1st rule of public spending, "Why buy 1 when you can have 2 at twice the price". What riles me more is that fact that the cost increased due to "currency fluctuations". Now I'm no economics whizz but surely if you *agree* a price for something, then that price has to be honoured? All part & parcel of modern business no doubt.

Yes, the tramworks are the pits.
Yes, the cost will keep going up.
Yes, people will continue to mump.
Yes, I DO think that the trams will be a valuable addition to Edinburgh's transport infrastructure.
AND YES, I WILL use them when they are operational.

I do wonder though, when all is finished and we have a shiny 'New Train Set', will all the people that are condeming the Trams as a white elephant, turn face and use them? Or will they stay true to their current feelings....?
55

me150,

12/05/2008 15:49:59
I can just see a long line of P888ed off commuters standing in the rain and wind waiting for a bus as a tram passes by.

Quit the moaning and live with it!!
56

Graham P,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 15:53:48
#65: "It has never been possible to object effectively to the tram scheme."

You forgot to say "...except by voting for a party which opposed them."
57

Bertie The Bat,

12/05/2008 15:54:50
Let the train take the strain.
58

Goat Boy,

12/05/2008 15:56:40
Scallywag (60) you will probably find there will be drawer that is full of comments that were never allowed to surface, or a rug that that has been used to hide inconvenient truths.

It's a great example of "you didn't ask". So go and ask the right questions.

The truth is out there.
59

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 15:58:38
Spot on, #58 - As I recall, TIE's own figures predicted a reduction of about 2% in congestion and the same in 'pollution'. The whole crazy scheme was to support 'developers' who'd made all kind of promises to vain idiot cooncillors about some grand town planning nirvana called 'the waterfront'. Now the market in overpriced plasterboard rabbit-hutches is in meltdown, where does this leave the already fanciful 'business case' for the TramCars? Answers in a Broon Envelope, please.
60

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 16:02:33
#67

Only 5% of Edinburgh's population are served by this line and so the other 95% will have little or no use for it.
61

me150,

12/05/2008 16:06:44
Old arguements that are worn and carry no weight.

Roll on the trams.
62

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:09:17
It really isn't too late to halt this insane tram project and cut our losses.

On a daily basis we are witnessing the blatant squandering of what will surely amount to AT LEAST £1 billion of valuable public money.

The perpetrators of this wasteful and shambolic fiasco should resign with immediate effect and then be dragged into court to be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.

Shame on all of you.
63

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 16:11:01
#75 me150

Should call yourself 'meHeadinthesand'150
64

ChrisEH26,

Penicuik 12/05/2008 16:15:46
Are they actually doing any work in Princes Street and the West End? Every time I have the misfortune to pass there all I see are the same holes which have been there since last year. Maybe that is why the cost keeps rising?
65

Statsman,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:16:21
This was entirely predictable. The whole project is an ill thought out shambles.
66

me150,

12/05/2008 16:16:50
Yeah Yeah, whatever!!

I look at the facts before forming an opinion.

Trams will benefit Edinburgh in a BIG way. The costs will be recovered in a short time and you Edinburgh residents will reap the benefits.
67

Statsman,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:20:29
68 me150

Why should we 'live with it"? We are talking about taxpayers' money being wasted for the egos of politicians. That's money that everyone in Scotland has to pay for this complete joke of a transport scheme.

It is our democratic right as taxpayers to complain as much as we want. It's called democracy. If you don't like that concept, move to China or some other totalitarian state.
68

Happy Hibee,

12/05/2008 16:20:30
Comment Removed By Myself

Reason: To save the Aministrator the bother
69

Statsman,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:21:43
80 me150

Big on rhetoric, completely lacking in evidence. Do you work for council PR?
70

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 16:28:34
#80 meheadinthesand150

What source are you using to find these so called facts?
71

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:36:57
me150 = a wind-up merchant - best ignored.
72

me150,

12/05/2008 16:39:52
There is ZERO evidence to prove this will not benefit Edinburgh, with the exception of course of all the negativity displayed in this and other forums by politically motivated individuals.

There is a HUGE amount of evidence to prove that the trams will give Edinburgh a boost with a renewed interst in Leith, Princess Street and the route to the airport. Just look at any of the reports from other cities that recently introduced a tram system, every single one of them is positive. Much more evidence is available only if you cared to look.

The trams are not just a method of transport for the people of Edinburgh, as that it may not be as successful. The trams are an investment in the future of Edinburgh not the least to lessen the impact of cars and buses.

The trams will give Edinburgh the cosmopolitan image that it deserves and because of this everyones standards will improve.

Of course even the smallest part the evidence that is available will never be read by 99% of the objectors because it would be against their political bias.

Look at it sepreated from politics.

Look at it impartially.

But no, that would not be possible, would it?
73

me150,

12/05/2008 16:40:16
Thomas the tank spouting again!!
74

me150,

12/05/2008 16:41:12
It is always a good idea to ignorer anyone who does not agree with your politics or opinion.

As I stated in another thread, you lot should be politicians.
75

Statsman,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:43:07
86 me150

So basically your argument is that trams will benefit the city because they look nice?

Your point of view is worthless. You don't have any evidence. You are a troll.
76

Kirsty Boyd-Williamson,

New Town 12/05/2008 16:44:59
#28 Salty
Oops should have read #23 Kirsty

I live in Edinburgh's New Town, not far from Princes Street and am a frequent user of the Airlink 100 service to and from Edinburgh International Airport. I therefore know precisely how far I live from the tram line on Princes Street.
77

Kirsty Boyd-Williamson,

New Town 12/05/2008 16:47:29
#34 Salty - What about the majority of people who wanted/were told line ........

You tell me, what about them? In time I expect the line and a half will be extended to servew other areas of the city.
78

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:47:51
#86

What a complete load of utter nonsense you spout.

What a fool you are.
79

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 16:56:32
Euan (92) - LOL. I guess Me 150 has not waded through the STAG2, the Environmental Statement, the PFC, the two Tram Bills, the written and oral evidence or the various versions of the business case (together with the mountain of appendices to most of these), the reports to Council or what little there seems to be publicly available of the detailed design, etc!

I think, in light of the evidence contained in these documents, he/she is making a bit of a fool of himself/herself - best rise above it until he/she chooses to enter the debate from a more knowledgeable position.

80

Foresight,

By the Water of Leith 12/05/2008 17:00:19

What is really needed is trams to every Park and Ride site around the City thus fullfilling the objective of dealing with congestion and pollution.
81

Graham P,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 17:00:49
#73: "but surely you know how pointless it turned out to be, to vote for the one party which opposed them (SNP)? Yes the SNP promised to cancel trams, but were subsequently forced to agree to them."

Yes, because they were outvoted. But I was meaning in the local election, as opposed to the Scottish election. Just what proportion of councillors democratically elected to the City of Edinburgh Council oppose the trams?
82

Julian,

EDINBURGH 12/05/2008 17:04:56
#94 Scallywag,

Agreed, the majority of people objecting to the trams seem to be on these forums. And, as you say, they're just darn lazy. As if a word they say here is going to make any difference.

I wonder how many of them actually tried to do anything to stop this. And I wonder how many of them voted SNP in order to stop it. Hands up please.
83

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 17:18:24
#93, SarahB - well said(as usual..!)

You've got to like this part of the article: The increase in capital costs for the trams further eats into the scheme's contingency fund'

It then goes on to say in the article 'However, not all of the council's money has been secured, with city leaders banking on developer contributions to meet their shortfall. '

How can you eat into a contingency fund when the full amount of the project's main funding has not even been secured yet?

Whatever next?, Julian and Scallywag walking along Princes Street with 'Save the Trams' collection cans?...

84

Salty,

Midlothian 12/05/2008 17:22:11
#90 Kirsty

You miss my point,the line may well be on Princess St. but where will the one and only 'Tramstop' be on Princess St? Also since you are already well seved by the 100 Bus what are these benefits to justify the cost?
85

me150,

12/05/2008 17:22:56
#92

You are entitled to your opinion and considering your response it is very clear that you have in fact conducted no research so I am perfectly positioned to correctly call you the fool.

If you are not armed with impartial facts then you are hardly in a position to form a balanced opinion.
86

Robert12,

12/05/2008 17:23:17
It's only about 8% funded by the Edinburgh taxpayer with the rest being paid for by the rest of Scotland. At least we'll get a pretty train. What does everyone outside Edinburgh get?
87

me150,

12/05/2008 17:25:00
#89

Same goes for you.
88

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 17:27:12
#102

The 'impartial facts' that you mention in your post are nothing more than deluded visions of a person who clearly has very little comprehension of what is going on around them.
89

Liberton Star,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 17:29:03
And does anyone seriously think that the £4billion promised for the new Forth Road Bride will stay the same? Compared to the second Bridge, Trams are a modest investment that the city needs to have 21st Century infrastructure. And the Nat whingers can moan all they like, but their government supports Edinburgh's Trams, just check the back stories.
90

Goat Boy,

12/05/2008 17:31:54
95: "What is really needed is trams to every Park and Ride site around the City thus fullfilling the objective of dealing with congestion and pollution."

100% correct. Imagine if the tram had run from Newbridge to Newcraighall – think if the people it would have benefited. This would have helped to justify the ridiculous expense; but instead we have a project that has been funded using public money to develop and area that simply does not have the infrastructure in place to support such a large development. Is this good use of public money?
91

Dan.D.Nong,

12/05/2008 17:38:32
hey; another pretty picture of a tram with no wires anywhere!
92

Statsman,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 17:39:13
104 me150

It doesn't go for me too. I have studied light rail for decades. I know why this project is a waste of money. You don't have a clue.
93

Arfur,

12/05/2008 17:50:07
me150 - so you actually think that spending £500million to replace the airport bus is money well spent???????????????

If a network was created to replace the buses then fair enough, but ONE line for £500m - that is covered by a bus - which is every 20 minutes or so.

An underground to the airport from the city centre stoping at the park and rides would be much more benifical - cheeper - quicker - would not add to conjestion - and would not go in a certain direction because it can not fit through the streets of the busier router (i.e. corstorphine)
94

Julian,

EDINBURGH 12/05/2008 17:51:23
Euan,

I know you'd love to see that. But over 1 year into the project and about 1% over the figure agreed when the SNP gave it the go ahead, the "save the trams" banners are unlikely to see the light of day.

The main issue that you and most other people seem to overlook is why are our streets being dug up twice? I have a quote from TIE which clearly suggests that this is not necessary and that it is only because the contracts to lay the tracks haven't been finalised.

LEITH STREET TRADERS, TAKE NOTE!!!
95

Arfur,

12/05/2008 17:54:51
#100 Gorgie_Tony - you are a tube of the highest order. Labour brought this idiotic idea to Edinburgh. Yes it was in SNPs manifesto to get rid, but they can only do this if they have a majority goverment. As a minority goverment all they can do is bring their proposal to drop the project to a vote (which they did). Labour, Lib Dums and the Tories then voted to keep it i.e. SNP did all they could and the blame for this shambles goes to the other 3 parties.
96

,

12/05/2008 17:55:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
97

,

12/05/2008 17:55:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
98

Julian,

EDINBURGH 12/05/2008 17:56:38
Arfur #111

Agree. An underground would be a lot better. I assume you'd be quite happy paying an extra £500 a year on your Council Tax. Better still, let's make it an underground maglev while we're at it. A few billion would probably cover it;-)
99

me150,

12/05/2008 18:09:50
#110

I do not dispute your claim but must dispute your opinion as your opinion must be seriously biased.

The facts are out there and you of all people will know that and will know that my statements are in fact correct.
100

me150,

12/05/2008 18:11:29
#111

I stand by my statement based on facts and evidence from other cities.

For you to make your statements based on emotion and ill informed nonesense is irrational.
101

Graham P,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 18:15:35
Heh heh, Gorgie Tony is blaming the SNP for the fact that the SNP lost a vote in the Scottish Parliament. Presumably they should have staged a coup or something, abolished democracy, and imposed their will that way or something.
102

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 18:20:14
#118

The 'impartial facts' that you mention in your posts are nothing more than the deluded visions of a person who clearly has very little comprehension of what is going on around them.
103

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 18:24:00
#112, Julian

Nope, sorry man, I still have a picture of you plodding the streets of Edinburgh with that collection can of yours jingling away with the clink of coppers in it crying 'save the trams, save the trams!'

104

,

12/05/2008 18:25:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

Beavers,

Auld Reekie 12/05/2008 18:26:41
Who's going to stop these Pikeys nicking the tram lines then....a lot more money for them than the drains...
106

me150,

12/05/2008 18:28:11
#120

I am sorry but facts are facts.

You are obviously incapable of accepting any facts that do not suit you.

Perhaps some other readers of this thread will have been inspired to some of their own research and gained a fuller understanding.

These forums have been a place for your likes to sound off and sometimes seem to actually know what you are talking about. Just because someone like me armed with the facts does not fall into your wee group of wingers about this you revert to unsubstantaited criticism.

Enough said.
107

Statsman,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 18:31:52
117 me150

The business case for this project is to scrap as many bus routes as it takes until people start using the tram instead.

This project is not about meeting a demand. Instead, the egotistical politicians decided they wanted trams. They then tried to find a way to get them. They discovered the way to justify them would be to identify the most used bus route (the 22), scrap the bus and impose the tram. That way there would appear to be a business case with regards to passenger numbers.

What didn't happen is politicians looking at the transport needs of the city and deciding the most cost effective solution. They put the thinking back to front. They, like you, wanted trams because they look 'nice' and because other cities have them. They didn't care whether it was a real transportation solution or not.
108

Euan,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 18:36:37
#124

And once again..

The 'impartial facts' that you mention in your posts are nothing more than he tdeluded visions of a person who clearly has very little comprehension of what is going on around them.

109

Axl,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 18:45:25
me150

Have a good look at #125 - Statsman's post.

There's your 'facts' pal.

110

Goat Boy,

12/05/2008 18:55:22
Statsman: "What didn't happen is politicians looking at the transport needs of the city and deciding the most cost effective solution. They put the thinking back to front. They, like you, wanted trams because they look 'nice' and because other cities have them. They didn't care whether it was a real transportation solution or not."

Sad - but very true.
111

me150,

12/05/2008 19:15:15
My last post....

Refardless that the facts are there if you care to see them you still point the finger and accuse about the only person to have done some real research and name call.

You support your ignorance with no factual statements and resort to petty critcism.

It is obviously apparent that most of you have jumped on the bandwagon for whatever reason, be it political or otherwise, and really do not have a clue what you are talking about.

It is fair to say that the trams are costing far too much but it is also fair to say, in line with ALL the evidence, that the trams will be a huge benefit to the city.

Much has been said on these forums about the reasons for the trams being put in place but very little of what has been said has any substance.
112

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 19:26:17
Scallywag (98) - I believe one of the main reasons that other countries somehow manage is that funding arrangements are entirely different. For instance, in France, funding comes from national government (up to 35% of construction costs), local government, local companies and passengers.

In particular, they have the versement transport (transport tax) which is levied on both public and private companies with more than 9 members of staff and can be up to 1.75% of a company's payroll. This generates a huge fund to be applied towards both the construction and operating costs and, as it is a continuing revenue stream, it can be used to pay off borrowingings. Grenoble, for example, which had (in 2003) a population of around 430,000, raises around £43m through the versement transport.

Also, utilities diversions are funded through both the municipality and, critically, the utility companies themselves.

In France, passengers contribute almost one-quarter of annual investment and operations financing through farebox revenue.

There are other reasons why French systems are more successful than most existing UK ones but the difference in methods of capital cost financing would explain how, at least the French, somehow manage.
113

,

12/05/2008 19:31:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
114

Listening,

12/05/2008 19:37:10
Good for you me150, there is a massive following for the trams and you have at least stirred up some attention.

You have said the truth. Shame on the rest of you
115

11+failed,

the pans 12/05/2008 19:50:10
118 me150,

"I stand by my statement based on facts and evidence from other cities"
You mean like Sheffield?
"Ultimately this project will end like the £300m Sheffield "supertram" bailed out by the Labour government and sold to Stagecoach for £1 after losing £250,000 per month at the operational level."
116

STOP...... Hammer Time!,

12/05/2008 20:32:00
"£3m is hardly shooting up - an increase of about 0.6% in fact"

Creeping death!!!
117

jdships,

12/05/2008 21:06:16
73 World class concrete,
"but surely you know how pointless it turned out to be, to vote for the one party which opposed them (SNP)? Yes the SNP promised to cancel trams, but were subsequently forced to agree to them."

I voted SNP only in local elections in an endeavour to stop the trams .
Look what happened - but that's called democracy I believe.
Slowly but surely I am accepting the scheme simply on the grounds that it will turn out to be a first class "Tourist Attraction" albeit mega expensive
It will help put millions of pounds into the pockets of those who already have millions of pounds but unfortunately do little for the citizens of the City !
That again is called democracy ,I believe .

Time will tell.


118

tumshie heid,

12/05/2008 22:02:31
Edinburgh Shams costs spiral. Who could have predicted that?
The councillors responsible for this white elephant should hang their heads in shame.
Still as others have said,the trams will look good.
Oh and the tourists will no doubt love being whizzed up and down Leith Walk on "trainspotting"tours.
119

Julian,

EDINBURGH 12/05/2008 22:04:00
me150,

You're a good wind up merchant.

Would people stop responding to this guy until he says something of substance. You're all just giving him/her what he/she wants.
120

Julian,

EDINBURGH 12/05/2008 22:07:44
Euan,

Sounds like wishful thinking mate...and wishes don't always come true.

Now, go and do something constructive. Find out why the streets are being dug up twice...forget about these piddling little £3m increases. The double dig must be adding at least £100m to the cost, never mind what the shops are losing.
121

Sanny,

12/05/2008 22:36:40
137 jdships
As I recall the SNP did NOT AGREE but, as a minority government, were unable to overturn the democratic majority in opposition. Had the electorate voted an SNP majority then this project would neve have seen the light of day. To their credit the SNP did freeze the amount payable by central government and local government must pick up the tab for any overruns. It is now up to local government monitor costs and question every penny spent.
122

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 12/05/2008 23:08:38
rs (138) - I think it is me that you want to expand on the information I gave at 130.

See pages 16 and 17 of "Lessons from French Tram Schemes" on: http://www.pteg.net/PolicyCentre/LightRail/LessonsfromFrenchtramschemes.htm

In fact, the whole report is quite interesting.
123

Dr Egg,

Trams with trunks 12/05/2008 23:25:34
They're going to take me to the shops in 2011. I CAN'T WAIT!!! I'm utterly incapable of getting there at the moment.
124

Plantagenet,

12/05/2008 23:37:37
I've just found a use for the word TRAMS !!!!
how many words of three or more letters can you make from the word TRAMS, plurals allowed, I'm up to 18 already, can you beat that?
125

Plantagenet,

12/05/2008 23:38:57
Just found another - that's 19 now.
126

Plantagenet,

12/05/2008 23:40:38
This is easy - that's 20 now.
127

Plantagenet,

12/05/2008 23:42:24
You'll have to forgive me, I don't get out much, still I can look forward to a run on the tram if it ever comes to pass.
128

Adolf Crosby,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 00:33:06

How many of the promised £1.30 fares will they need for the trams to break even?

They'll need to ban pedestrians, buses, cyclists and cars for a long time, force everyone onto the trams.

Even when they increase the £1.30 fare to £2 it'll still be a loss maker.

Still, mustn't grumble - New Labour are an intelligent lot to have got this far.
129

Adolf Crosby,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 00:41:10
Like the headline by the way: "Trams costs shoot up for second time in fortnight"

The first time you shoot up, it's great, likesay - see three years down the (track)line? Money thrown away



130

Julian,

EDINBURGH 13/05/2008 02:34:25
Adolf #150,

It's a public service, not a private operation. Who says it has to break even?

This is not a new concept. The idea was first introduced about 100 years ago and even the Tories now accept that it applies in some situations;-)
131

Statsman,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 04:16:40
153 Scallywag

Really clever isn't it? Replace a perfectly good bus service with a tram for £600m+. Has it ever occurred to you to ask "why is replacing a bus with a tram for £600m a good idea"?

If every bus service in Edinburgh was a tram, we'd all have to use trams instead of buses. It's not rocket science. It doesn't mean that logic makes sound financial sense.

Directly replacing buses with trams is not a pro-tram argument. It's a pro-wasting public money argument that ultimately we all have to pay for through taxes and fare hikes.
132

Statsman,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 04:40:08
153 Scallywag

I should add that Neil Rennilson, the Lothian Buses chief, went before the parliament and said that the only way of making trams viable was by scrapping bus services. Furthermore, the Sheffield tram service shadows bus routes only the buses kept on running therefore it didn't work. He even admits this.

Other loony pro-tramites have gone as far to suggest that all independent bus companies be banned from shadowing the tram to make it financially viable.

Does this make any sense whatsoever? This is taxpayers' money being wasted. This is total contempt for taxpayers.
133

uncle bulgaria,

13/05/2008 06:51:32
Why do Scots always whine about getting something done.

Big projects cost a lot of money.

A lot of it goes directly in to everday people's pockets.

Trams will be fast, efficient and environmentally friendly (even if only to reduce exhaust fumes in the immediate environment)

Let's build them for a city that has always spent a fortune on looking good.



134

paulr,

edinburgh 13/05/2008 08:15:38
And will the next increase please step up and be rubber stamped, dont you worry, we will simply increase council tax to cover it all.........
135

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 08:17:44
Scallywag (152/153) - again I think you and I are approaching this from a different angle. I don't look for either pro or anti arguments - I just read reports like this and compare findings against what is planned here.

The funding/mayoral issues seem quite important in that, if businesses/passengers will be required to find at least 65% of the building/operating costs, then there must be a pretty clear commitment from those parties to the scheme for it ever to get off the drawingboard. If the same situation had been offered to the people/businesses of Edinburgh in 2003, I wonder what the reaction would have been and, whether it would have resulted in higher priority for Tram Line 3 over most of Tram Line 1.

Likewise, the reshaping of bus services so that they do not operate along the tram corridor seems important (not that I am advocating that in Edinburgh because I don't have the data to suggest that it would be efficient here), although I found it interesting that the report does not advocate the use of disused railway corridors on the basis of low catchment/poor visibility, which seems to describe the Roseburn Corridor well.

Quite funny that Faber Maunsell prepared the report although, of course, the Edinburgh alignment was more or less decided by the time the report came out.

136

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 08:19:22
Sorry, that should have read "businesses, passengers and local government".
137

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 08:26:54
Sorry again but I should have said that the very first sentence in the report is what caught my eye: "The success of French tramway schemes is not possible in Britain under current public transport policy".

Until we have a new transport policy, many tram scheme promoters will continue to misrepresent schemes in terms of costs/benefits and the public will continue to voice its displeasure.


138

,

13/05/2008 10:05:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

,

13/05/2008 10:07:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
140

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 11:06:54
#157 uncle bulgaria

"Why do Scots always whine about getting something done."

I don't know about the Scots, but you are certainly going to hear the Edinburgh Council Tax payers whine, yell and scream (regardless of their nationality) when the Local Authority have to pick up the bill for the 'overheads', i.e. any excess over the £500 million promised by the Scottish Parliament and other monies which were to be made available up to £590 million?

If you remember, that was one one of the conditions laid down any excess would have to come out of Edinburgh's Council.

Personally, I hope this project gets about halfway through and falls flat on its face with all the imlpications that will have for Edinburgh.

A local referendum should have been held by the then in power Labour Council but of course wasn't as they couldn't face a third defeat.

Alex Salmond should have resigned and called another election in the face of the political 'stunt' pulled by the united Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems and Greenies who jointly voted to approve the tram system in order to embarrass the newly elected Executive in the Scottish Parliament.

Can't wait for this carzy project to go way over budget so that we can all listen to the pathetic explanations which TIE and others will try to use to excuse themselves.


141

WKKB,

13/05/2008 11:42:23
shabby parliment building all over again... when will it stop?
142

WKKB,

13/05/2008 11:49:09
in response to #156. if they scrap independant bus services I'm scrapped... I live in an area that won't have access to a tram to get to and from work yet my taxes are paying for it. I'm NOT happy about it but if there's any further nonsense talk about scrapping busses to make the tram financially viable someone will be hearing loud and clear from me.
143

Niadh,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 12:52:29
Could all Edinburgh residents please register their position on the trams with the council.
The council should then only increase the council tax for those who support the trams to pay for its running costs when it is not making enough money to stay in the black.

Unfortunately the ground under Edinburgh is not suitable for an underground solution due to the number of mines.

For those who think that trams in Edinburgh will work because they do in other cities i would ask the following.
How big are those cities compared to Edinburgh (population and ground space)?
What is the tranport infrastucture like?
What percentage of the population of these cities has easy access to the trams system? Is it above the estimated 10% in Edinburgh?
Do they actually operate at or above operating costs?

Failure to comprehensively answer these will result in you being shot down and ridiculed like the muppet you are!
Yes that means you 20-something.
144

Niadh,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 12:53:49
It should be pointed out that any bus company that is banned from shadowing the tram route would have very good grounds for taking a case to the courts and Monopolies Comission
145

Adolf Crosby,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 12:58:17
#154 Julian - yes, I know it's a public "service", but that doesn't mean it should be a limitless waste of money. It'll undoubtedly get sold on at some point anyway. At a knock down price.
146

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 14:19:46
The costs were always predicted to rise by all but the lunatic pro tram fanatics.

The cost will be borne by Edinburgh rate payers who had no say in them.

Shame on SNP for being rail roaded into passing the bill when they could have stopped it.

With more pressing cash demands, cut losses and run.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.