Jump to content
Ribble

Edinburgh Trams Farce Continues

Recommended Posts

Dave de le Noir

Stop using his name in every post. It makes you sound like a patronising, insufferable bore.

 

If your arguments represent the kind of soporific thinking going on inside the council, then it's no wonder this entire plan has been a disaster.

 

I would love to see the data the council used to decide this simply had to be done. Thinking that business folk flying into Edinburgh took the bus into the city centre? Really?

 

Believing tourists were put off by a 30 minute (at worst) bus ride? Has anyone in the council ever travelled to a major city?

 

Edinburgh Airport is the source of most of the traffic heading into the city? Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on that one. Does that include traffic coming in from Glasgow or the Gyle Business Park?

 

How far out were they extrapolating Edinburgh's population, economic and traffic growth from 2000-2006 and concluding that this was an essential project?

 

That's before we get to the execution and the political nonsense that saw it bullied through, the comical contract negotiated by third-rate lawyers, the failure to realize that, as the ******* government you actually hold a lot of cards when it becomes clear a contractor is trying to screw you over.

 

You give the impression that the entire thought process was governed by a box-ticking mentality and very little common sense. Utterly depressing.

 

 

 

When have I called you any names Frank?

 

Any city is a valid comparison to any other. City's generally evolve the same way. The difference is bigger cities evolve at an earlier rate. The challenges remain the same. London is valid as they installed a rapid transit system (be it underground or tram) to cope with the cities expansion as Edinburgh is doing now.

 

Scapping the trams was a mistake, but as I've explained earlier this was the age of the motor car, thinking was different back then. Time has served to prove that rapid transit is the best system for an urban area. Edinburgh was not the only city to make this mistake.

 

Cotstorphine/Queensferry/Gorgie/Saughton are the priorities Frank. The tram network reduces the pressure on these areas. You don't seem to get this point at all. The tram will remove a large chunk of the traffic using these areas as a through route to get to the airport, the Gyle, Edinburgh Park etc This will make it less congested for the people who want to go to these areas for the facilities there.

 

"The fact that things need to change to make an improvement in transport infrastructure is irrelevant its down to how feasible and cost effective it is" - That is a terrible statement Frank and highlights a lack of understanding on this topic. Transport infrastructure is expensive its a fact of life, again I've mentioned this earlier (and before you say it, yes it's cost more in Edinburgh than it should've done). You cannot just sit there and do nothing as the city expands, you have to be proactive and implement infrastructure improvements otherwise the city won't function. Again I'm going to use London here but why are they spending ?16bn to build a new railway line through the city if they have an extensive tube network already?

 

"By fantasist I mean that you keep saying that things will happen because they need to but the financial reasons now mean that its not going to happen for a long time." - We'll Frank take a look around the city, you'll see bridges popping up, track being laid, stations rising out the ground. It may have taken time but it will be happening in the short term not the long term.

 

Airport Link - We'll whether you like it or not the traffic flow from the airport/ingliston into the city centre and vice versa is the single biggest movement in the city so yes it does need to be a priority.

 

Edinburgh Park - I'm please for your brother. But it will make it easier for a great deal of people to get to Edinburgh Park who are currently not within striking distance of Waverley. Without knowing where you brother lives it may even give him an easier route in rather than going to Waverley. If it doesn't for him it will for a lot of people.

 

Stadiums - No you can't argue that, Tynecastle and Easter Road are less than a third of the size of Murrayfield and the people movement required is not on the same scale regardless of the frequency of use.

Edited by Dave de le Noir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Optimus Prime

 

Stop using his name in every post. It makes you sound like a patronising, insufferable bore.

 

If your arguments represent the kind of soporific thinking going on inside the council, then it's no wonder this entire plan has been a disaster.

 

I would love to see the data the council used to decide this simply had to be done. Thinking that business folk flying into Edinburgh took the bus into the city centre? Really?

 

Believing tourists were put off by a 30 minute (at worst) bus ride? Has anyone in the council ever travelled to a major city?

 

Edinburgh Airport is the source of most of the traffic heading into the city? Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on that one. Does that include traffic coming in from Glasgow or the Gyle Business Park?

 

How far out were they extrapolating Edinburgh's population, economic and traffic growth from 2000-2006 and concluding that this was an essential project?

 

That's before we get to the execution and the political nonsense that saw it bullied through, the comical contract negotiated by third-rate lawyers, the failure to realize that, as the ******* government you actually hold a lot of cards when it becomes clear a contractor is trying to screw you over.

 

You give the impression that the entire thought process was governed by a box-ticking mentality and very little common sense. Utterly depressing.

 

"If your arguments represent the kind of soporific thinking going on inside the council, then it's no wonder this entire plan has been a disaster."

 

I don't work for the City of Edinburgh Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy Wiseau

I take your point, what I'm trying to do is separate the financial mess from the concept. The financial problems weren't caused by the concept but by the political climate at the time and some disastrous legal decisions. Regardless of the shambles the financial side of things have become the bottom line is Edinburgh needs to modernise its transport infrastructure to respond to its growth and be able to continue to grow. The city needs to compete on a commercial level and the various challenges that being a capital city brings. The airport is the most rapidly expanding airport in the UK, it will outstrip Glasgow in a couple of years. The surrounding infrastructure needs to respond to this. Rapid transit is the way of doing this.

 

The EEN granted have had a hell of a lot of ammunition to chew over no doubt about it. However there has been a tendency to put a negative spin on a lot of aspects just to continue the damming of this project (Chapsticks earlier post is a case in point). The EEN should be taking a more responsible role in all this, by all means scrutinise the financial situation but also look a bit more objectively as to why this is being done in the first place i.e what I said in the last paragraph. The EEN has only served to pour more fuel on the fire and helped create a ultra negative attitude within the city. I'll be interested in how they will report when the thing is actually up and running and public opinion slow starts to soften Tommy.

 

 

Given the percentage of the public who will actually have the opportunity or the need to use the half line, I think you'll be waiting a fair old while for a softening of opinion.

 

I know what you're doing, but trying to separate the concept from the financial mess is completely futile. We are where we are, and the fact that it has become such an ungodly mess only serves to prove that, conceptually, it was highly flawed. The idea that this had to be done and the implication that no alternatives exist is all a bit "John McGlynn is as good as we can get" for my liking. Like John McGlynn, I thought it was a shit idea in the first place and knew it would end in tears, but I take no pleasure from being proven correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Optimus Prime

 

 

 

 

Given the percentage of the public who will actually have the opportunity or the need to use the half line, I think you'll be waiting a fair old while for a softening of opinion.

 

I know what you're doing, but trying to separate the concept from the financial mess is completely futile. We are where we are, and the fact that it has become such an ungodly mess only serves to prove that, conceptually, it was highly flawed. The idea that this had to be done and the implication that no alternatives exist is all a bit "John McGlynn is as good as we can get" for my liking. Like John McGlynn, I thought it was a shit idea in the first place and knew it would end in tears, but I take no pleasure from being proven correct.

 

As I said we'll see what happens when it's physically up and running and how the general public react to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matthew Le Tissier

Should have built a monorail :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

Another ?3m loan to the half tram line plus the Council on the hook for the forthcoming losses and the maintenance/replacement costs which will amount to losses of at least ?34m over the next 15 years.

 

And not even the whisper of paying back on the billion pounds which the half line has cost - including the ?30m or so of annual funding cost which Council taxpayers are going to bear. And all on the basis of the partisan garbage forecasts that the pet consultants have provided as required.

 

And then the propaganda department at the Council style the news of this financial disaster as being about integration of bus and tram.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/1254/council%E2%80%99s_new_transport_company_to_fully_integrate_bus_and_tram

 

Scandalous.

 

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/39756/item_no_8_2-edinburgh_tram-preparing_for_operations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

Another ?3m loan to the half tram line plus the Council on the hook for the forthcoming losses and the maintenance/replacement costs which will amount to losses of at least ?34m over the next 15 years.

 

And not even the whisper of paying back on the billion pounds which the half line has cost - including the ?30m or so of annual funding cost which Council taxpayers are going to bear. And all on the basis of the partisan garbage forecasts that the pet consultants have provided as required.

 

And then the propaganda department at the Council style the news of this financial disaster as being about integration of bus and tram.

http://www.edinburgh...te_bus_and_tram

 

Scandalous.

 

http://www.edinburgh..._for_operations

 

Exactly.

 

The councils own figures show the route is not financially viable and any sensible business would cut their losses and can the project. Not our council with their vanity project that so many councillors have staked their reputations on.

 

If the SNP government keep a council tax cap, god knows where the council will get the finance from to keep this going. One thing for sure, it seems they are quite willing to drag LRT buses down with the tram project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walter Kidd

Don't want to get into a full blow debate here but i'll state the following:

 

The trams will run to the airport.

 

The trams will be cost effective once operational.

 

There will be a demand for more once the initial network is up and running.

 

Time will prove me correct on all three.

. Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harrykim

How many got backhanders?

 

Probably the same people who got backhanders from Big Oil and Big Auto in the fifties when so many cities ripped up tramlines for buses (and cars).

I'm in Sydney now and they've been talking for years about light rail/trams and spending millions on reports and feasibility studies. We now have one line running principally to the casino.

Additions are being built oh so slowly, with the new tory state government cancelling the "Greenway" - cycle/walking track alongside the track (an old goods line).

Sydney seems tom be vying with Edinburgh for a title in the bureaucratic inefficiency stakes. More millions being wasted when it's painfully obvious that there is a good case for light rail here without so many committees of car-lovers sitting on their bums.

 

Melbourne has a great tram system - the world's largest. Sydney used to have the Southern hemisphere's largest network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMaganator

Don't want to get into a full blow debate here but i'll state the following:

 

The trams will run to the airport.

 

The trams will be cost effective once operational.

 

There will be a demand for more once the initial network is up and running.

 

Time will prove me correct on all three.

 

They are to run at a loss for the first 15 years. In the news yesterday.

A complete farce from start to finish.

Bankers rightly got it in the neck for their failings - council members should too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren

They are to run at a loss for the first 15 years. In the news yesterday.

A complete farce from start to finish.

Bankers rightly got it in the neck for their failings - council members should too.

 

They do, people can vote them out, should they choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toxteth O'Grady

 

 

 

They do, people can vote them out, should they choose.

 

And replace them with other useless tossers.

 

Until we have 'None of the Above' as an option on the voting paper :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood

 

 

 

They are to run at a loss for the first 15 years. In the news yesterday.

A complete farce from start to finish.

Bankers rightly got it in the neck for their failings - council members should too.

Jenny Bawes is the biggest ######.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moogsy

People still defending the trams :vrface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

whats the cost of a trip on the tram ?

will bus passes go up giving people the use of the trams even tho it wont run anywhere near their houses?

how will it help the people of crammond /d mains /silverknowes get to the airport they dont even have a bus route to get them there (airport) unless they head into town then head out ?

could they not have put on an extra 20 airport buses and have ran them down to ocean terminal instead of stopping at waverley bridge?

 

defend it all you want but to the vast majority of people I speak to its an over-priced poorly thought out idea that will be a mill stone around the city tax payers for decades to come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

whats the cost of a trip on the tram ?

will bus passes go up giving people the use of the trams even tho it wont run anywhere near their houses?

how will it help the people of crammond /d mains /silverknowes get to the airport they dont even have a bus route to get them there (airport) unless they head into town then head out ?

could they not have put on an extra 20 airport buses and have ran them down to ocean terminal instead of stopping at waverley bridge?

 

defend it all you want but to the vast majority of people I speak to its an over-priced poorly thought out idea that will be a mill stone around the city tax payers for decades to come

 

Exactly. I had the same argument above with those defending the trams earlier. It is absolutely **** all use to those of us in North West Edinburgh and will never be extended out that way. You will have to make do with a half-hourly 41 bus service into town I'm afraid as there aren't enough votes in it for Labour down your way.

 

If the real break even price for a tram is ?20 for a ticket then they should charge ?20 for a ticket. There should be no subsidies for a line that is not viable. In no way should this be linked to LRT buses profitability or council tax bail-outs.

 

People say we can vote out these ****wit councillors but the reality is that too many of the population are thick as pigshit and vote at council elections on national issues. Otherwise the trams would have been canned after the last council elections. Only Jenny Dawe got her just rewards at the ballot box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster

There should be no subsidies for a line that is not viable.

 

Based on that would you shut down the Glasgow Subway, the majority of Scotrail, sleeper trains etc..?

They all receive massive subsidies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

Based on that would you shut down the Glasgow Subway, the majority of Scotrail, sleeper trains etc..?

They all receive massive subsidies.

 

So you are saying that the Glasgow Subway and Scotrail are loss-making companies like this tram company is going to be for the foreseeable future? I'm not sure you have your facts correct.

 

Scotrail uses profits from the Edinburgh-Glasgow line to subsidise less attractive lines but that is completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

Why is it the airport bus is timed to take 33 mins from airport to waverley yet the tram will be allocated 35 mins to do the same journey - this info came from a bus driver -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Lyon

Loss making for at least 15 years and to think only a few weeks ago they were talking about a tram line to Dalkeith! You couldn't make this stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster

 

So you are saying that the Glasgow Subway and Scotrail are loss-making companies like this tram company is going to be for the foreseeable future? I'm not sure you have your facts correct.

 

Scotrail uses profits from the Edinburgh-Glasgow line to subsidise less attractive lines but that is completely different.

 

Yes. The Scottish Government's subsidy to Scotrail is greater than the total passenger revenue.

Without the subsidy they would not be able to afford the operating costs and maintenance.

 

The Glasgow Subway is also subsidised. Hardly any people use it. It doesn't provide any real transport benefit and is more of a novelty.

 

At least the teams go to the airport, where does the Subway go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

 

 

The 22 is an excellent bus service, one of if not the best in the city. As i said in my earlier post the tram isn't there to replace bus services more to compliment them and give the transport system a backbone. I'd be very surprised if there are any changes to the 22 service as it's accessible to so many people.

Well the 22 service is being cut back but to sweeten us up that live on the 22 route - I'm in stenhouse- they kindly gave us new number 1 buses which is great if you want a long journey to the city centre

You also say its to compliment the buses then why is the next new idea the council have is to have buses running west along George st and east along Queen st leaving Princes st to the trams , doesn't seem integrated to me that plan

Edited by 3fingersreid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harrykim

Why is it the airport bus is timed to take 33 mins from airport to waverley yet the tram will be allocated 35 mins to do the same journey - this info came from a bus driver -

 

You'd rather the tram didn't stop for passengers anywhere on the way to the city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

Yes. The Scottish Government's subsidy to Scotrail is greater than the total passenger revenue.

Without the subsidy they would not be able to afford the operating costs and maintenance.

 

The Glasgow Subway is also subsidised. Hardly any people use it. It doesn't provide any real transport benefit and is more of a novelty.

 

At least the teams go to the airport, where does the Subway go?

 

The Glasgow subway is far more useful than the trams will be. Not living in Glasgow I don't know if you are counting the Subway as different from the overground services to Mount Florida etc. In which case, I'd argue you need to count those together as they are an integrated transport system.

 

Your argument that hardly anyone uses them is bizarre. Whenever I've used them they were as busy as your average tube train in London or Newcastle.

 

You ask where the Subways go in Glasgow - Buchanan Street for the bus station and Queen St Station, plus Central Station. I've also used it for going to and from the SECC, O2 Academy, and Oran Mor music venues. There must be a fair number of people using those lines for daily commutes to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

You'd rather the tram didn't stop for passengers anywhere on the way to the city?

thats not what I`m saying and fine you know it, after all the buses not only stop for passengers on main roads - where people can easily access them btw - but the buses also have to fight the other vehicles on the road yet a tram has no obstacles and takes longer great idea that eh especially at the cost of it

 

as to the cost of the trams what about the the hidden cost , roads being used that werent designed for the volume of traffic and require millions of pounds of repair businesses losing out on footfall customers leith walk who arent even getting the tram and especially Shandwick Place 18 months to do that small stretch of road total joke, or the houses on leith walk that have suffered subsidence because of the digging

 

we only got this forced on us because the council leaders who were in charge when it was started tried to get 3 zones of congestion charge put thru on a public vote but were told to shove it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster

The Glasgow subway is far more useful than the trams will be. Not living in Glasgow I don't know if you are counting the Subway as different from the overground services to Mount Florida etc. In which case, I'd argue you need to count those together as they are an integrated transport system.

 

That's Scotrail not the Subway.

How is the Mount Florida service integrated into the subway? Central isn't connected to the subway you have to walk to a separate station.

 

Your argument that hardly anyone uses them is bizarre. Whenever I've used them they were as busy as your average tube train in London or Newcastle.

 

I grew up in south London and the tube is bursting full of passengers. It's in a different galaxy.

London is 10th in global passengers. Glasgow is 135th.

London gets double the passengers in a day that Glasgow gets in a year.

 

I had around two other people in my carriage from St Enoch to Cowcaddens.

 

You ask where the Subways go in Glasgow - Buchanan Street for the bus station and Queen St Station, plus Central Station. I've also used it for going to and from the SECC, O2 Academy, and Oran Mor music venues. There must be a fair number of people using those lines for daily commutes to work.

 

Most of that is within walking distance. The line is only about 2 miles in diameter.

 

But you want to scrap the trams which go to the airport and Murrayfield that tourists will use? Especially for the Six Nations.

 

Btw what Subway station serves the SECC? It's not near any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

That's Scotrail not the Subway.

How is the Mount Florida service integrated into the subway? Central isn't connected to the subway you have to walk to a separate station.

 

 

 

I grew up in south London and the tube is bursting full of passengers. It's in a different galaxy.

London is 10th in global passengers. Glasgow is 135th.

London gets double the passengers in a day that Glasgow gets in a year.

 

I had around two other people in my carriage from St Enoch to Cowcaddens.

 

 

 

Most of that is within walking distance. The line is only about 2 miles in diameter.

 

But you want to scrap the trams which go to the airport and Murrayfield that tourists will use? Especially for the Six Nations.

 

Btw what Subway station serves the SECC? It's not near any of them.

 

especially for the six nations :cheesy: 3 yep 3 games a year maybe add 2 autumn tests and thats a great reason for the overspend

 

its not the principle of a tram its what its COST has been even the most ardent supporter of it has to accept that surely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy Wiseau

I like to think I am open to other points of view and can understand arguments even if I disagree with them (I sometimes choose not to show it on here right enough :lol: ), but I genuinely do not understand those defending the tram. I just don't get it at all, baffling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

That's Scotrail not the Subway.

How is the Mount Florida service integrated into the subway? Central isn't connected to the subway you have to walk to a separate station.

 

I grew up in south London and the tube is bursting full of passengers. It's in a different galaxy.

London is 10th in global passengers. Glasgow is 135th.

London gets double the passengers in a day that Glasgow gets in a year.

 

I had around two other people in my carriage from St Enoch to Cowcaddens.

 

Most of that is within walking distance. The line is only about 2 miles in diameter.

 

I thought I made it clear I don't live in Glasgow and use their transport facilities when I'm going to Hampden or gigs. By integrated I meant all the overground and underground rail systems that cover the extent of Glasgow and Strathclyde. I don't think you can separate these.

 

When I've travelled on the lines in Glasgow its had a fair number of people on it - not much different to some lines in London off peak was my comparison.

 

But you want to scrap the trams which go to the airport and Murrayfield that tourists will use? Especially for the Six Nations.

 

Btw what Subway station serves the SECC? It's not near any of them.

 

Central station serves the SECC - a couple of stops on the low-level train.

 

The figures released the other day prove the trams are not financially viable for a half-line and your argument comparing a complete integrated transport system in Glasgow. It will be about a century before they could get anything like Glasgow's over and underground systems, and it can't be justified when there are alternative means of transport.

 

What does Murrayfield have to do with the trams? People going there will mostly be coming from areas not served by the tram such as Corstorphine and have to get buses. It only hosts about 6 events a year anyway, and a tram route should be for more priority traffic such as park and rides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster

 

especially for the six nations :cheesy: 3 yep 3 games a year maybe add 2 autumn tests and thats a great reason for the overspend

 

its not the principle of a tram its what its COST has been even the most ardent supporter of it has to accept that surely

 

The construction of the line has been a disaster but I believe we can salvage something from this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

The construction of the line has been a disaster but I believe we can salvage something from this mess.

I`d really like to think we can recoup something from it but I believe its gone too far, that said I hope I`m wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster

I thought I made it clear I don't live in Glasgow and use their transport facilities when I'm going to Hampden or gigs.

 

Me too. I was up there for Hampden last year.

 

By integrated I meant all the overground and underground rail systems that cover the extent of Glasgow and Strathclyde. I don't think you can separate these.

 

Not the same. Different companies/quangos.

I'm talking about that orange model railway that goes in a circle.

 

When I've travelled on the lines in Glasgow its had a fair number of people on it - not much different to some lines in London off peak was my comparison.

I assume you are talking about Scotrail suburban services and not the Subway.

 

Still not true.

Personal anecdotes do not trump the numbers.

 

Central station serves the SECC - a couple of stops on the low-level train.

 

Still not the Subway.

 

The figures released the other day prove the trams are not financially viable for a half-line and your argument comparing a complete integrated transport system in Glasgow. It will be about a century before they could get anything like Glasgow's over and underground systems, and it can't be justified when there are alternative means of transport.

 

Neither is most public transport.

?300m a year taxpayer subsidy for Scotrail.

?6bn a year total UK rail subsidy.

It's a line to the airport which will save us having to build a heavy rail link.

 

What does Murrayfield have to do with the trams? People going there will mostly be coming from areas not served by the tram such as Corstorphine and have to get buses. It only hosts about 6 events a year anyway, and a tram route should be for more priority traffic such as park and rides.

 

Traveling supporters from the other teams.

England & Wales fans coming up on the train and getting the tram to Murrayfield.

France, Ireland & Italy fans coming from the airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3fingersreid

Me too. I was up there for Hampden last year.

 

 

 

Not the same. Different companies/quangos.

I'm talking about that orange model railway that goes in a circle.

 

 

I assume you are talking about Scotrail suburban services and not the Subway.

 

Still not true.

Personal anecdotes do not trump the numbers.

 

 

 

Still not the Subway.

 

 

 

Neither is most public transport.

?300m a year taxpayer subsidy for Scotrail.

?6bn a year total UK rail subsidy.

It's a line to the airport which will save us having to build a heavy rail link.

 

 

 

Traveling supporters from the other teams.

England & Wales fans coming up on the train and getting the tram to Murrayfield.

France, Ireland & Italy fans coming from the airport.

 

the England and Wales fans could have stayed on the train and the others could have come in by train from the airport given the railway track runs right past the stadium but surely to god weve not spent this amount of money catering for just rugby fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

Me too. I was up there for Hampden last year.

 

 

 

Not the same. Different companies/quangos.

I'm talking about that orange model railway that goes in a circle.

 

 

I assume you are talking about Scotrail suburban services and not the Subway.

 

Still not true.

Personal anecdotes do not trump the numbers.

 

 

 

Still not the Subway.

 

 

 

Neither is most public transport.

?300m a year taxpayer subsidy for Scotrail.

?6bn a year total UK rail subsidy.

It's a line to the airport which will save us having to build a heavy rail link.

 

 

 

Traveling supporters from the other teams.

England & Wales fans coming up on the train and getting the tram to Murrayfield.

France, Ireland & Italy fans coming from the airport.

 

You have completely ignored my points about the integrated rail systems in Glasgow you are trying to compare our half-line tram route with, so I'll assume you accept your argument if false.

 

As others have said, the business model for the trams can't be justified as a tourist gimmick for 3 to 6 games a year at Murrayfield.

 

Your figures on subsidies for Scotrail are irrelevant. ?300m is relatively small in business terms to operate non profitable services in rural areas. I'd imagine some of this could be covered by grants from Europe.

 

The argument about having a line to the airport is completely half-arsed. Please explain what benefits it provides over the two or more airport buses currently running. Visitors flying in may not even stay in Edinburgh or the city centre. There are a number of hotels that are near the airport and the west of Edinburgh outwith the tram route - the Marriot and Holiday Inns for example.

 

This would have been so much cheaper if the council had simply diverted the fife train line via the Airport and canned the idea of trams from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dunks

I work in Glasgow and can assure you that the transport system is no more or less integrated than any other city in Scotland.

 

The subway does not serve either of the two main rail stations - Central and Queen Street. It comes close to Queen Street and has a walkway to the next street - hardly integrated.

 

The subway does not serve the bus station. The nearest stop is a fair walk away from the bus station.

 

The two main stations are not connected to each other. For those travelling through Glasgow by rail, you need to get from one station to the other - another hike.

 

Not even close to being integrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster

You have completely ignored my points about the integrated rail systems in Glasgow you are trying to compare our half-line tram route with, so I'll assume you accept your argument if false.

 

When I say Subway I mean Subway.

I don't mean Scotrail or busses in Glasgow.

You don't want Lothian busses to have anything to do with the trams despite being owned by the same PTE but you want to lump the Subway in with Scotrail which are completely different companies.

 

I argued that the Subway has no real transport benefit.

But it's kept around because of the history and because it's part of the fabric of the city.

 

As others have said, the business model for the trams can't be justified as a tourist gimmick for 3 to 6 games a year at

 

Public transport is not a business.

 

Your figures on subsidies for Scotrail are irrelevant. ?300m is relatively small in business terms to operate non profitable services in rural areas. I'd imagine some of this could be covered by grants from Europe.

 

You don't think ?300m of taxpayers money (annually I might add) is a lot but you are freaking out over the trams operating at a loss?

What business terms? Scotrail would not exist if it was a real business.

 

The EU will give us a ?1m grant for refurbishing a station. Not ?300m a year for rail subsidies.

European rail subsidies (Germany & France) are much larger than over here.

 

It is relevant as it ties into my overall argument.

Public transport is a public service that rarely makes any money but is kept around because it is useful and reduces the number of cars on the road etc..

 

The argument about having a line to the airport is completely half-arsed. Please explain what benefits it provides over the two or more airport buses currently running. Visitors flying in may not even stay in Edinburgh or the city centre. There are a number of hotels that are near the airport and the west of Edinburgh outwith the tram route - the Marriot and Holiday Inns for example.

 

Most major modern cities are expected to have some kind of airport rail link.

 

This would have been so much cheaper if the council had simply diverted the fife train line via the Airport and canned the idea of trams from the start

 

This ain't about hindsight or dwelling on past mistakes. It's about what we do going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

When I say Subway I mean Subway.

I don't mean Scotrail or busses in Glasgow.

You don't want Lothian busses to have anything to do with the trams despite being owned by the same PTE but you want to lump the Subway in with Scotrail which are completely different companies.

 

I argued that the Subway has no real transport benefit.

But it's kept around because of the history and because it's part of the fabric of the city.

 

I give up. Utterly pointless argument you are trying to make, distinguishing between different companies providing related services.

 

If someone wants to get to their destination quickly e.g. to the Oran Mor from Queen Street Station, then they will walk over the road and get the subway. Likewise for people working in Glasgow trying to get to their work quickest.

 

Do any of the passengers give a toss who provides the service - Scotrail or SRT? I doubt it.

 

Public transport is not a business.

 

 

 

You don't think ?300m of taxpayers money (annually I might add) is a lot but you are freaking out over the trams operating at a loss?

What business terms? Scotrail would not exist if it was a real business.

 

The EU will give us a ?1m grant for refurbishing a station. Not ?300m a year for rail subsidies.

European rail subsidies (Germany & France) are much larger than over here.

 

It is relevant as it ties into my overall argument.

Public transport is a public service that rarely makes any money but is kept around because it is useful and reduces the number of cars on the road etc..

 

Scotrail only gets a subsidy to cater for lines to rural areas that are not profitable but politically sensitive. That is completely different from a non-viable tram system which will do half a line, is over budget and won't make a profit for more than 15 years.

 

If Scotrail didn't get a subsidy it would only operate the profitable lines.

 

There is no chance of the Trams being extended to actually serve a purpose because the money is gone.

 

Most major modern cities are expected to have some kind of airport rail link.

 

 

 

This ain't about hindsight or dwelling on past mistakes. It's about what we do going forward.

 

The project is bust and its time to take a reality check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo66

Traveling supporters from the other teams.

England & Wales fans coming up on the train and getting the tram to Murrayfield.

France, Ireland & Italy fans coming from the airport.

 

Just so we can see what we are talking about here. The capacity of each tram is 332 and the frequency is 10 minutes. Scotland -v- Wales at Murrayfield attracts 67,000. Realistically, how many of those fans will be able to get the tram to Murrayfield without having to turn up more than 1 hour before kick off? I make it somewhat fewer than 4,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alba gu Brath

Just so we can see what we are talking about here. The capacity of each tram is 332 and the frequency is 10 minutes. Scotland -v- Wales at Murrayfield attracts 67,000. Realistically, how many of those fans will be able to get the tram to Murrayfield without having to turn up more than 1 hour before kick off? I make it somewhat fewer than 4,000.

 

And cars take, what 4 or 5 passengers?

 

I think a combined approach is the way forward.

 

The trams fiasco has been a mess - however, I like the idea of them on principal. Most European cities have them and they seem to be well used. I'm sure once they arrive and are eventually extended that people will use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

And cars take, what 4 or 5 passengers?

 

I think a combined approach is the way forward.

 

The trams fiasco has been a mess - however, I like the idea of them on principal. Most European cities have them and they seem to be well used. I'm sure once they arrive and are eventually extended that people will use them.

 

Murrayfield is served by the 26, 31, 1, 22, 12, and numerous other bus services.

 

When do you think there is a realistic chance of the trams being extended? Certainly not for 15+ years after they launch going by their own figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
topcat

You have completely ignored my points about the integrated rail systems in Glasgow you are trying to compare our half-line tram route with, so I'll assume you accept your argument if false.

 

As others have said, the business model for the trams can't be justified as a tourist gimmick for 3 to 6 games a year at Murrayfield.

 

Your figures on subsidies for Scotrail are irrelevant. ?300m is relatively small in business terms to operate non profitable services in rural areas. I'd imagine some of this could be covered by grants from Europe.

 

The argument about having a line to the airport is completely half-arsed. Please explain what benefits it provides over the two or more airport buses currently running. Visitors flying in may not even stay in Edinburgh or the city centre. There are a number of hotels that are near the airport and the west of Edinburgh outwith the tram route - the Marriot and Holiday Inns for example.

 

This would have been so much cheaper if the council had simply diverted the fife train line via the Airport and canned the idea of trams from the start.

 

There were proposals to reroute the Fife and Glasgow lines through a new rail hub at the Airport which would have made more sense and allowed Edinburgh to become a minor hub serving practically all of Scotland. It would however have messed over Glasgow Airport and so it didn't happen and we get the trams

 

Does anybody know how well our compatriots in the west are getting on with their ?290 refurbishment of the Glasgow Underground?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12687499

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alba gu Brath

Wonder if any of our leaders at council or government level in the past decade or so have noticed a railway line running adjacent to the airport?

 

Surely a siding and purpose built station between South Gyle and Dalmeny wouldn't cost that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke

 

The business case is a fluid document, it's not set in stone, revisions to reflect changing circumstances are common place and part and parcel of such a process.

 

You consistently get your wires crossed between the concept and the financial aspects of the project. Yes the financial side of things have been a mess there is no getting away from that. .Firstly you have to put this in the context of the political situation at the time where a Labour led scheme was put in limbo by the election of a minority SNP government who were opposed to it (they were in favour of using the money to upgrade A9 the to Inverness!). This led to a serious amount of behind the scenes bargaining between all the political parties causing a great deal of delay and cost. The upshot being the tram went ahead in exchange for Labour support on other SNP polices.

 

The crucial error in this whole process however is with the contractual situation the council got themselves into with the lead contractor. The blame for the bulk of the costs lies with the council?s legal department who were incredibly naive in terms of the contracts they signed. They're far less experienced legal team were basically turned over by a multinational company who could call in some top lawyers (and they did) from around the world. The contractor sensed this weakness and exploited it by laying out a contract full of loopholes and time penalties which the council didn't spot. There is a huge question mark over the morality of this from the contractors point of view but you are dealing with a firm who are in it to make money, that's the reality of the situation. From this you had a situation where the council were getting billed left, right and centre for additional costs etc which led to the long stand off between the council and the contractor which saw a downing of tools and legal action. This further leads to increased costs and other knock on costs in terms of traffic management/utility issues etc. I'm in no way trying to defend this, I'm just laying out some of the facts and issues the Evening News (i'll get to them in a minute) wouldn't have raised in their ultra negative coverage.

 

The concept however is a different story and a form of rapid transit through our city is something that is desperately needed. The bus service is running at capacity, a look at Princes St during rush hour clearly shows this. The tram is not there to replace the bus service but to act like a backbone to compliment the service. The route will act as a release valve for some of the congestion hot spots on the west side of the city i.e Gorgie and Corstorphine. There are also numerous environmental advantages which I won't bore you with from having a fully operational tram service easing the burden on the bus service.

 

One of the common arguments put forward by those against the project is that the route will only serve a small percentage of the cities population. This is true but can you give me another viable single route that will serve more people while providing a link from the city centre to the airport? The fact is Rome wasn't built in a day and you need to start somewhere. The current route provides the best exposure, linking the airport, Edinburgh Park, Murrayfield Stadium, Haymarket Station, Waverley Station and the central business district. In time maybe more routes will follow, (I personally think once this route is implemented there will in time be a demand for more from the Edinburgh people) hopefully lessons will have been learnt from previous financial mistakes.

 

Another error from the council/government has been the way they have sold the project to the people of the city. Their PR team has been nonexistent and allowed publications like the Edinburgh Evening News a free run at damming the project. There has been no (or very little) attempt by council/government to explain to the people why this is required?, why are we going through these huge disruptions? what is the purpose and the future vision? The EEN certainly won't be doing this, they are an absolute disgrace in terms of their role as the local publication for this city While there is a lot to point the finger at there has never been an attempt to look at the question posed above. The EEN has a long standing anti council agenda and they're primary interest is using the tram project to make life uncomfortable for the council. They will grasp every opportunity to create a negative story about the trams while a more balanced look at the project would be a more responsible attitude for a publication of its status.

 

In summary big transport infrastructure projects cost money and a lot of it. Ok this one has cost more than it should've done but the idea that it should turn some kind of profit in the long run is frankly ridiculous. Somebody has raised the Channel Tunnel as an example, i'll give you another one. There is currently a huge transport construction programme going on in London at the moment. It's called Crossrail and it's costing ?16bn. There is no hope that this will ever recoup its costs however there is a general understanding that this project is required to move the city?s transport infrastructure forward. This is across the board between the major political parties but crucially the people get it, they see the need in it being built. It?s causing massive disruption across the centre of the city but the public generally support it as they see the long term benefits. Why does London have a tube network? Why didn't they just rely on a decent bus service? Why does just about every major city have a form of rapid transit? Edinburgh needs to look at the long term benefits, appreciate that the city is a moving beast and constantly evolving and plans need to be put in place for the future growth and fluidity of the city. The trams will happen, they will be of benefit and the majority of the general public will see this in time.

I agree with that. In time they will be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coco

Wonder if any of our leaders at council or government level in the past decade or so have noticed a railway line running adjacent to the airport?

 

Surely a siding and purpose built station between South Gyle and Dalmeny wouldn't cost that much?

 

500 million for the EARL scheme.

Edited by Coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren

Wonder if any of our leaders at council or government level in the past decade or so have noticed a railway line running adjacent to the airport?

 

Surely a siding and purpose built station between South Gyle and Dalmeny wouldn't cost that much?

 

We could call it Edinburgh Gateway and have a tram to the airport from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

We could call it Edinburgh Gateway and have a tram to the airport from it.

 

I think this fell down because it was too cheap and the Council wanted something more complex to meet their vanity. They were so confident of getting a line running to Ocean Terminal and have money spare to begin a second one elsewhere.....

 

Next time go to the zoo and put the chimps in charge of projects - the results can't be any worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarneyBattles

Some people really think that a project which is 3 years late, massively over-budget, is the most expensive single line rail system in the world (make that half a line), has resulted in hundreds of small traders going bust and which has brought misery to Edinburgh residents for 6 years is a good idea?

 

It'll be scrapped in 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2

 

It'll be scrapped in 5 years.

 

I think the opposite is true. 5 years time and debate over extending to Leith and that loop to Roseburn or South over the North Bridge may be happening.

 

Dublin has been the model to look to and after great success that's been expanded. Still think it should've been completed to Leith. Afterall it was contractual not technical fault at the projects heart. Had they not ersed up contracting the project we'd have the full airport to Leith route right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chester™

I think the opposite is true. 5 years time and debate over extending to Leith and that loop to Roseburn or South over the North Bridge may be happening.

 

Had they not ersed up contracting the project we'd have the full airport to Leith route right now.

 

I think the latter part is why the former part wont happen. The council will be steering well clear of it for a good while and I cant see them returning to the project as soon as 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
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...