Jump to content

Edinburgh Trams Farce Continues


Ribble

Recommended Posts

luckyBatistuta
7 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

No problem didn't take it as a dig. Congestion is a big problem in Edinburgh for several hours each day. I used to work in an office 7-4 So I could avoid the worst of it getting to from corstorphine to the M9 at Newbridge.

 

Another problem is, nobody is allowed to drive in the tram stops even if there is no tram. So Princes Street down to one lane just causes more congestion. Some bus drivers and taxi drivers still do it, but we have been told we could be pulled in front of the cab inspector for it ( although I’ve never heard of anyone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I was initially opposed to the tram project was that I didn't think adding more vehicles (buses, cars and now trams) to our already over congested roads would help matters. We would be much better looking at routes which avoid having to use existing streets - we've got a plethora of former train lines which should be utilised. 

 

Edinburgh's population is predicted to continue to rise faster than many other European cities over the next 25 years. That's going to mean more journeys and more people relying on the use of the same roads which won't be getting any bigger. Yes, we could increase buses and look at new routes but if public transport is already adding to the congestion due to the volume, then the problems aren't going to go away. 

 

As some have pointed out, it's fairly pointless to travel through the city centre using public transport - walking is often quicker as almost all bus routes go through Princes st and the congestion makes it frustrating. This might improve in years to come, the transport bill being proposed at Holyrood just now includes a provision that would mean that bus routes no longer need to be individually profitably, but that still won't solve inner city transport problems. 

 

In my opinion, we should be ambitious. If the argument for extending the current tram line is that the ticket money will recoup the costs, then surely we would be able to do this on more than one route? Let's look at completing the initial plans of looping it on the former Caley line in the north of the city, round to Roseburn and the third line to the ERI - with perhaps some less interaction with current streets. If I was being completely honest, I'd push for the 90s metro plan of going underground but I'd imagine the cost would immediately rule it out - although London seems to have no problem financing their underground projects (CrossRail is an absolute beast). 

 

 

Edited by Toggie88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Toggie88 said:

although London seems to have no problem financing their underground projects (CrossRail is an absolute beast). 

 

Not financed by London though. 

 

Currently £2bn over budget and a year late. Cash burn is around £30M per week. Total cost around £17bn, but quite a way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2019 at 15:04, FWJ said:

Part of the cost of the planned extension includes funds to help small businesses etc affected by the building works.

Shandwick Place certainly seems to have bounced back.

 

Oddly though the Co-Op there has just closed in the last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
57 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Oddly though the Co-Op there has just closed in the last week.

 

Couldn't compete with Sainsburys over the road.

 

There's a glut of these type of stores now.

Edited by Governor Tarkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Oddly though the Co-Op there has just closed in the last week.

It’s going to be a Lothian Buses shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

Let's see now. They can't get the bins emptied regularly. They are laying of staff. They are making cuts left, right and centre. Yet they are determined to spend a few hundred million on, what, 3 more miles of a tramline that few, apart from the vain idiots in the council, ever wanted. Not forgetting the official inquiry into the original mess costing millions without being close to it's conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

luckyBatistuta
6 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Let's see now. They can't get the bins emptied regularly. They are laying of staff. They are making cuts left, right and centre. Yet they are determined to spend a few hundred million on, what, 3 more miles of a tramline that few, apart from the vain idiots in the council, ever wanted. Not forgetting the official inquiry into the original mess costing millions without being close to it's conclusion. 

 

Oh don’t talk so much sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Let's see now. They can't get the bins emptied regularly. They are laying of staff. They are making cuts left, right and centre. Yet they are determined to spend a few hundred million on, what, 3 more miles of a tramline that few, apart from the vain idiots in the council, ever wanted. Not forgetting the official inquiry into the original mess costing millions without being close to it's conclusion. 

The extension is to be funded by borrowing against future tram fare revenues and not from general council tax.

Edited by FWJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
6 hours ago, FWJ said:

The extension is to be funded by borrowing against future tram fare revenues and not from general council tax.

 

What will they be paying the interest from? Current tram fares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

What will they be paying the interest from? Current tram fares?

For the extension?

Future tram fares from the large increase in passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
8 hours ago, FWJ said:

The extension is to be funded by borrowing against future tram fare revenues and not from general council tax.

:rofl::rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

:rofl::rofl:

 

It is though? That's making up part of the budget. There's no taxpayers money being redirected from elsewhere to fund it. 

 

Borrowing against future revenue and from the profits of the bus service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

It is though? That's making up part of the budget. There's no taxpayers money being redirected from elsewhere to fund it. 

 

Borrowing against future revenue and from the profits of the bus service.

 

Except the £20M gift from Lothian Buses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stuart Lyon said:

 

Except the £20M gift from Lothian Buses!

 

I said that! Fantastic joined up approach to budget setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stuart Lyon said:

 

Except the £20M gift from Lothian Buses!

Yes.  The £20million special dividend (or ‘gift’) from LB.

 

Weren’t the buses going to be brought to their knees by the trams?  And they were going to be forced off the airport route to give the trams (that would never run) a face-saving monopoly to the airport terminal (which they would never reach and you’d have to get a bus from the tram stop?)

 

Instead the buses are, like the trams, going from strength to strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Let's see now. They can't get the bins emptied regularly. They are laying of staff. They are making cuts left, right and centre. Yet they are determined to spend a few hundred million on, what, 3 more miles of a tramline that few, apart from the vain idiots in the council, ever wanted. Not forgetting the official inquiry into the original mess costing millions without being close to it's conclusion. 

Very much where i am on this subject, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
14 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Let's see now. They can't get the bins emptied regularly. They are laying of staff. They are making cuts left, right and centre. Yet they are determined to spend a few hundred million on, what, 3 more miles of a tramline that few, apart from the vain idiots in the council, ever wanted. Not forgetting the official inquiry into the original mess costing millions without being close to it's conclusion. 

Unfortunately the Tram fantasists ignore this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

196 million with a safety net of 50 million for overbudget , which like the original will happen.

Lessons never learned, but go for it, 

 

Incredible.

 

When the budget goes out the window as costs escalate, what then? Is there a point they abandon it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Incredible.

 

When the budget goes out the window as costs escalate, what then? Is there a point they abandon it?

No they will keep on going regardless, you could not make it up, bet there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

196 million with a safety net of 50 million for overbudget , which like the original will happen.

Lessons never learned, but go for it, 

Do you know that it will happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Incredible.

 

When the budget goes out the window as costs escalate, what then? Is there a point they abandon it?

Have a look back at the start of this thread and see how many of the other predictions have come to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

Yes.  The £20million special dividend (or ‘gift’) from LB.

 

Weren’t the buses going to be brought to their knees by the trams?  And they were going to be forced off the airport route to give the trams (that would never run) a face-saving monopoly to the airport terminal (which they would never reach and you’d have to get a bus from the tram stop?)

 

Instead the buses are, like the trams, going from strength to strength.

 

That's hardly a surprise when you move around the city and see the development at St James,  canongate/Waverley, Haymarket,  the Waterfront and Leith, Edinburgh Park and EDI.

 

The building of the tram line was a mess, but it was the right thing to do. And so is extending it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

Should have a people vote on it , we know the answer to that one.

You get one every few years to elect councillors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Should have a people vote on it , we know the answer to that one.

You can vote for the councillors who support, or otherwise, the tram extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

You can vote for the councillors who support, or otherwise, the tram extension.

Rather make that decision myself , but that seems to be lost on some , what if the person you vote for 

changes his/her mind,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Rather make that decision myself , but that seems to be lost on some , what if the person you vote for 

changes his/her mind,  

That’s representative democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2019 at 19:34, The Future's Maroon said:

The next stage is extending to Riccarton/Currie I’ve heard, not for a while but that next.

 

I was told by a developer, that the next extension will be by Meadowbank, to Portobello.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chester™ said:

 

I was told by a developer, that the next extension will be by Meadowbank, to Portobello.

My suspicion is the next line will be the spur up to Granton from Haymarket - because it’ll be mostly off-road using an old railway line.  Long term I think a line out to Portobello via London Road / Meadowbank / Jock’s Lodge would be a good idea - maybe as far a Musselburgh or forming a circle with the line up the Bridges to Little France / Fort Kinnaird.

That whole “South East Wedge” is another development hot spot, though Midlothian extends up past the Bypass here so that might be an issue - or an opportunity.

Edited by FWJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best thing to do is bring back the whole Edinburgh tram network, the best thing to have done was not get rid of it in the first place, busses are shit and always have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, FWJ said:

My suspicion is the next line will be the spur up to Granton from Haymarket - because it’ll be mostly off-road using an old railway line.  Long term I think a line out to Portobello via London Road / Meadowbank / Jock’s Lodge would be a good idea - maybe as far a Musselburgh or forming a circle with the line up the Bridges to Little France / Fort Kinnaird.

That whole “South East Wedge” is another development hot spot, though Midlothian extends up past the Bypass here so that might be an issue - or an opportunity.

 

It was a fairly interesting conversation I had with him at a recent public meeting and he probably revealed more than he was meant to (about the entire city and some of the goings on). :lol:

 

He was absolutely adamant that it was a 'done deal' to go to Portobello (after the tram finally ends up past Newhaven). He also said the Meadowbank development wont be settled for 'at least a decade' too. If its to be extended further, Portobello would make sense, as there's lots of developments in the pipeline, in that direction.

 

Apparently they also want to go over The Bridges to the Infirmary (which I think was in the very original plans too) but thats causing issues logistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
10 minutes ago, Chester™ said:

 

It was a fairly interesting conversation I had with him at a recent public meeting and he probably revealed more than he was meant to (about the entire city and some of the goings on). :lol:

 

He was absolutely adamant that it was a 'done deal' to go to Portobello (after the tram finally ends up past Newhaven). He also said the Meadowbank development wont be settled for 'at least a decade' too. If its to be extended further, Portobello would make sense, as there's lots of developments in the pipeline, in that direction.

 

Apparently they also want to go over The Bridges to the Infirmary (which I think was in the very original plans too) but thats causing issues logistically.

The last paragraph would be a great idea.

:laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chester™ said:

 

It was a fairly interesting conversation I had with him at a recent public meeting and he probably revealed more than he was meant to (about the entire city and some of the goings on). :lol:

 

He was absolutely adamant that it was a 'done deal' to go to Portobello (after the tram finally ends up past Newhaven). He also said the Meadowbank development wont be settled for 'at least a decade' too. If its to be extended further, Portobello would make sense, as there's lots of developments in the pipeline, in that direction.

 

Apparently they also want to go over The Bridges to the Infirmary (which I think was in the very original plans too) but thats causing issues logistically.

 

The Bridges are far too narrow for a tram - surely going up Lothian Road and the Meadows would be more sensible but then there aren't many places of interests for tourists to stop at, I guess?

 

Does Musselburgh need a tram before the hospital when, unless I'm mistaken there are rail links?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

 

Does Musselburgh need a tram before the hospital when, unless I'm mistaken there are rail links?

 

Depends on what side of Musselburgh you're at. High St/Racecourse side, not really (Wallyford is closest). Other side (which you might be able to argue isnt really Musselburgh) next to QMU, yes.

 

And there's a very valid argument re reliability of the rail line that way.

Edited by Chester™
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The Bridges are far too narrow for a tram - surely going up Lothian Road and the Meadows would be more sensible but then there aren't many places of interests for tourists to stop at, I guess?

 

Does Musselburgh need a tram before the hospital when, unless I'm mistaken there are rail links?

 

There are ways to do it, Amsterdam's trams navigate very narrow bridges by merging both directions going to a single line and waiting their turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

There are ways to do it, Amsterdam's trams navigate very narrow bridges by merging both directions going to a single line and waiting their turn.

Yes, the Leidsestraat is one - very narrow street and crowded with pedestrians but they seem to manage fine.

(I was going to post a pic but most seem to be copyright?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coonsil bashing on with the extension before waiting for the recommendations from the Inquiry

 

:rofl:

 

They just don't care. Press on regardless. 

Never mind that the rest of the city is falling to pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
14 minutes ago, Cade said:

Coonsil bashing on with the extension before waiting for the recommendations from the Inquiry

 

:rofl:

 

They just don't care. Press on regardless. 

Never mind that the rest of the city is falling to pieces.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
11 hours ago, FWJ said:

For the extension?

Future tram fares from the large increase in passengers.

 

So how are they going to make the repayments and interest charges prior to receiving this largesse of fare money? :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

So how are they going to make the repayments and interest charges prior to receiving this largesse of fare money? :rofl:

I wouldn’t say it was a largesse of fare money.

There will be twice as many people using the tram and they will pay their fare.  The fare money will be used to pay the loan - not money diverted from other council services.

 

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2616/councillors_to_scrutinise_trams_to_newhaven_final_business_case_ahead_of_march_decision

(Paragraphs 5 & 6)

 

How they are going to make repayments before the doubling of numbers?  I don’t know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
2 minutes ago, FWJ said:

I wouldn’t say it was a largesse of fare money.

There will be twice as many people using the tram and they will pay their fare.  The fare money will be used to pay the loan - not money diverted from other council services.

 

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2616/councillors_to_scrutinise_trams_to_newhaven_final_business_case_ahead_of_march_decision

(Paragraphs 5 & 6)

 

How they are going to make repayments before the doubling of numbers?  I don’t know.  

 

Have the idiots in the council ever actually released the cash taken on the white elephant line?  I've seen plenty of them banging on about how the user numbers are, in their eyes, soaring but I've never seen anything released about how much hard cash it takes daily, monthly or annually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fancy a wee :laugh: myself.

 

I might go back to the beginning of this thread and read some of the predictions about trams never running, having to get shuttle bus from the tram stop to the airport terminal, the airport bus being forced off (how many routes are there now - 4?) daily riots as conductors demand £1000, daily traffic chaos as trams break down left, right and centre, tourists deserting the city (how’s that working out?) businesses deserting it too.

Might have a wee ROFL myself.

Edited by FWJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...