Trams - Labour party

[Ivanauskas33]

Whether the trams are good or bad the setting up of them seems to be poorly handled. My uncles friends in Adelaide was saying the trams there had to be upgraded, and no one really noticed that there was anything going on. I think they worked through the night and everything to get it done with minimal fuss.

[Deevers]

Put quite - simply mega money wasted for very questionable benefits to the people of Edinburgh generally. The vast majority don't want this - an example of "true democracy" at work - the Labour Party and the Lib Dems - the prime mover in this farce should hang their collective heads in shame, at the profligate waste of public money.

 

The money spent on this would have been far better spent on an airport rail link and bringing back the south suburban railway.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Just to remind people, one tram line = ?500 Million. I wonder how much a new set of buses would cost to run the same route?

 

It's terrible value for money at half a Billion pounds and the final price will no doubt be much more than that.

 

It will be the ruin of many a business before it is completed and cost others substantial sums.

 

I've just looked at it's route map and from the Airport into Town it is never more than about 100m from the railway line, seems mental to me.

[speedbump]

Put quite - simply mega money wasted for very questionable benefits to the people of Edinburgh generally. The vast majority don't want this - an example of "true democracy" at work - the Labour Party and the Lib Dems - the prime mover in this farce should hang their collective heads in shame, at the profligate waste of public money.

 

The money spent on this would have been far better spent on an airport rail link and bringing back the south suburban railway.

 

Thos 2 projects should be forced through as well!

[blairdin]

If reports are to be believed, the trams are already significantly over budget and behind schedule.

 

Behind schedule is a pain in the ass, but nothing more.

 

But where will the extra money come from, given the Scottish Government have rightly made it totally clear they'll not be contributing any more? There has to be cuts in public services in Edinburgh to make up the shortfall. Now, I don't live in Edinburgh, but my parents and much of my family do and they live in the north west of the city, far from the tram route being constructed. They do live close to the shelved line 1b but I can't see that going ahead any time soon. With so many residents going to get so little use from the tram, is it fair that they foot the bill?

[Boris]

With so many residents going to get so little use from the tram, is it fair that they foot the bill?

 

You could make that point about a whole host of council services. For example, I don't go to the Hogmany Party on Princes Street, yet still have to foot the bill for that via my Council Tax yet there is little or no advantage to me as a result.

 

I guess we have to simply crack on with the work and hope that the benefits of the trams will be apparent once they are up and running.

[Coco]

The aims of the tram line are to:

 

1) give useless local politicians something shiny to show that they are reversing global warming yet encouraging more people to use the airport

2) provide the developers of Benidorm on Leith with a transport link to the worst development in Edinburgh for decades

3) create congestion in order to give the council officials/transport consultants something to do/cash for their trough.

 

It should be cancelled immediately. It is hundreds of millions of pounds over budget already. There should be a full inquiry into where the money has been wasted and to follow a series of sackings/criminal prosecutions/public floggings.

[Boris]

The aims of the tram line are to:

 

1) give useless local politicians something shiny to show that they are reversing global warming yet encouraging more people to use the airport

2) provide the developers of Benidorm on Leith with a transport link to the worst development in Edinburgh for decades

3) create congestion in order to give the council officials/transport consultants something to do/cash for their trough.

 

It should be cancelled immediately. It is hundreds of millions of pounds over budget already. There should be a full inquiry into where the money has been wasted and to follow a series of sackings/criminal prosecutions/public floggings.

 

I don't disagree that there needs to be scrutiny and accountability of these public funds, but something has to be done that prevents the congestion caused by private cars on our roads.

 

The idea of creating transport links to one of the poorest areas of Edinburgh in an attempt to stimulate economic activity is laudable.

[Optimus Prime]

1. We should be trying to stop the mass circulation of people. That is one of the reasons we continue to pump so many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We should be encouraging people to live closer to their place of work. That is what tends to happen in France - partly because most people like to go home for lunch.

 

2. We already have direct links. This will provide another direct link. all the evidence suggests that this will increase traffic flows, not decrease them.

 

3. That would be an unmitigated disaster. What exactly do we want to increase the size of our city for? Edinburgh is big enough as it is. Have you been paying attention to what has happened over the last 10 or 20 years? Politicians have been trying to convince us that year on year growth is a good thing and sustainable. No it's not. The resources of the earth are finite.

 

4. Bollocks. Virtually every bus service goes along or through Princes Street. They don't need to and this could be easily sorted with a little bit of planning. If you want to take a bus from Morningside to Trinity, you have to go through Princes Street, but only because that is the way the routes are set up.

 

5. Only if people use the tram. You seem to think that is a given. The vast majority of residents won't, because the tram doesn't take them home. A large proportion of tourists are met by tour guides and buses and this will continue because it's a cheaper, quicker and more reliable option than any other. Business travellers will still use taxis in large numbers, because that will remain more convenient.

 

6. Guesswork, pure and simple.

 

1. Sounds very nice but in the real world that's not how things operate.

 

2. Sorry what evidence is this?!? The Tram will ease pressure on the main western corridors in the city by connecting the city centre to the Airport/Gyle/Ingilston Park and Ride through an off road network. This will automatically cut direct need for at least 3 bus services and will have a knock on impact on others.

 

3. Well believe it or not Edinburgh is increasing and you need houses to put people. The current economic situation has knocked the Leith development a bit but i will happen. Greater volumes of people put extra strain on the transport system and an increase in bus provisions is not possible because......

 

4.Not bollocks i'm afraid. I do this for a living and in simplistic terms the level of buses on the road (depending on the size of the city) gets to a certain point where anything above that level ceases to being of benefit and just adds to congestion. Edinburgh is pretty much on that mark and needs a release valve very soon.

 

5. People will use it when it's there simple as that. Experiences in other cities (another poster made reference to Dublin) back this up. If you think people are going to boycott it or something like that then you are being rather naive.

 

6. Well given that the only option appears to be more buses and as i've explained this would bring about gridlock to the cities. This would only make the environmental problem worse.

[BlackJAC?]

I don't disagree that there needs to be scrutiny and accountability of these public funds, but something has to be done that prevents the congestion caused by private cars on our roads.

 

The idea of creating transport links to one of the poorest areas of Edinburgh in an attempt to stimulate economic activity is laudable.

 

I say Edinburgh council should consult Kim Jong-il on how to effectively deal with traffic congestion. North Korea may be many things, but no one can accuse them of having congested roads and highways.

 

Commies ftw.

[joe kickass2]

Vanity project to massage collective egos. A wet dream that they will be mentioned in all the right places.

 

I love the quote earlier about how businesses haven't suffered much as only two have had to close. Hundreds of people have suffered in business many making losses, laying off staff, taking on more debt. Most of these are small businesses between haymarket and the bottom of leith walk. If regeneration was the aim they are going a funny way about it.

 

I cannot remember traffic actually being that bad before they started ar5ing around with road closures and having a bus company free for all.

 

Maybe do something controversial like make Edinburgh car friendly - open up the roads, create more parking spaces, bin the excessive traffic wardens. Have employers use flexible working hours so people don't have to start/finish all at the same time. You know, things the people actually want, that'll generate prosperity.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't disagree that there needs to be scrutiny and accountability of these public funds, but something has to be done that prevents the congestion caused by private cars on our roads.

 

The idea of creating transport links to one of the poorest areas of Edinburgh in an attempt to stimulate economic activity is laudable.

 

Correct.

 

It really does amaze me that people honestly think that TIE and the Council are just throwing money at something they've not thought through for some kind of ego trip. There have been lots of studies done on the transport situation in Edinburgh and the conclusion is that the status quo is not an option. Scrapping projects such as these (and the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link) will just lead to gridlock and a transport/environmental disaster. There are many highly educated intelligent people working on this project who know the benefits it will bring to the city long term. The problem comes when you get greedy contractors on board who just want to squeeze as much money from you as possible.

 

The Evening News really has a lot to answer for in terms of the way they have portrayed this project to the people of Edinburgh. There is a lot of talk on this forum about the agenda that Glasgow based media have with Hearts but as far as i'm concerned the agenda the Evening news has against it's own council and progress for it's home city is nothing short of scandalous. If you want public floggings may i suggest you start with the chief editor of the Evening News.

[joe kickass2]

Correct.

 

It really does amaze me that people honestly think that TIE and the Council are just throwing money at something they've not thought through for some kind of ego trip. .

 

 

Because nobody goes into politics as an ego trip.

I'd say ?500,000,000.00 plus is throwing money at something.

[Boris]

I say Edinburgh council should consult Kim Jong-il on how to effectively deal with traffic congestion. North Korea may be many things, but no one can accuse them of having congested roads and highways.

 

Commies ftw.

 

Ah, but the congestion at the time of the Beloved Leader's parade is a nightmare!

 

 

SCUD launchers everywhere!

 

And as for parking...well thanks to all those phalanxes of loyal workers beautifully choreographed, you can just forget it!

[Toggie88]

Hate to say I told you but:

 

"We will also pilot a new scheme to tackle congestion during the school run. In Edinburgh school pupils will be given free bus travel before and after school to encourage greater use of public transport. This will include ?4 million investment in modern buses, as a more effective alternative to the Edinburgh Trams scheme."

 

SNP Manifesto 2007

[joe kickass2]

Correct.

 

There are many highly educated intelligent people working on this project who know the benefits it will bring to the city long term. .

 

If you put it that way they sound like an elitist bunch of patronising eco-poseurs.

 

There are many more who have taken off the green goggles and seen what a pigs ar5e they are making of our city.

[missed98]

Correct.

 

It really does amaze me that people honestly think that TIE and the Council are just throwing money at something they've not thought through for some kind of ego trip. There have been lots of studies done on the transport situation in Edinburgh and the conclusion is that the status quo is not an option. Scrapping projects such as these (and the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link) will just lead to gridlock and a transport/environmental disaster. There are many highly educated intelligent people working on this project who know the benefits it will bring to the city long term. The problem comes when you get greedy contractors on board who just want to squeeze as much money from you as possible.

 

The Evening News really has a lot to answer for in terms of the way they have portrayed this project to the people of Edinburgh. There is a lot of talk on this forum about the agenda that Glasgow based media have with Hearts but as far as i'm concerned the agenda the Evening news has against it's own council and progress for it's home city is nothing short of scandalous. If you want public floggings may i suggest you start with the chief editor of the Evening News.

 

It doesn't amaze me at all. Take the congestion charge fiasco, now in principle i have no objection to this, but as usual our esteemed leaders got the whole thing wrong imo. the vast majority of congestion on our roads is caused by commuters from outwith the city, why couldn't the congestion charge be placed across the bypass, Barnton and the A1 then? After all, most peole living and working in the city use the busses to get to work. The reason i object to it, is that it is very difficult to get around Edinburgh in your car without going through the city centre, therefore penalising city dwellers every time they do use the car. Edinburgh residents pay higher house prices and higher council taxes than most of the commuters, why should we be penalised again for a problem not of our making?

[Coco]

It doesn't amaze me at all. Take the congestion charge fiasco, now in principle i have no objection to this, but as usual our esteemed leaders got the whole thing wrong imo. the vast majority of congestion on our roads is caused by commuters from outwith the city, why couldn't the congestion charge be placed across the bypass, Barnton and the A1 then? After all, most peole living and working in the city use the busses to get to work. The reason i object to it, is that it is very difficult to get around Edinburgh in your car without going through the city centre, therefore penalising city dwellers every time they do use the car. Edinburgh residents pay higher house prices and higher council taxes than most of the commuters, why should we be penalised again for a problem not of our making?

 

The Labour party/council officials created the congestion charge anyway with the extension to the parking tax zones.

 

This was in order to both increase revenues, bureaucrat job creation and reverse global warming. It also provided a photo opportunity by creating park and ride facilities for empty buses to trundle back and forward to all day.

[Optimus Prime]

Because nobody goes into politics as an ego trip.

I'd say ?500,000,000.00 plus is throwing money at something.

 

Not everybody who works for the Council/TIE have a political agenda.

 

Transport Infrastructure Projects cost money. Shock Horror! London is building a ?16 billion railway project called Crossrail and the reaction of the public is nowhere near as negative as the reaction in Edinburgh, why because they are used to huge transport projects and can appreciate the long term benefits of such schemes.

[missed98]

Not everybody who works for the Council/TIE have a political agenda.

 

Transport Infrastructure Projects cost money. Shock Horror! London is building a ?16 billion railway project called Crossrail and the reaction of the public is nowhere near as negative as the reaction in Edinburgh, why because they are used to huge transport projects and can appreciate the long term benefits of such schemes.

 

Oh and another thing, you mentioned earlier about the impossibility both operational and financial on large scale transport projects :-

 

The 52.1km (32.5 mile) Red Line will have 29 stations, four of which will be underground. It will run from Rashidiva to Jebel Ali passing the American University of Dubai. It is planned that the first phase will open in September 2009. The whole 52.1km is expected to take 60 minutes to travel, with an estimated 32,000 passengers per hour.

 

I'm not sure of the cost on this, but the green line is $1.2b, i've now looked it up and the red line is costing $4.2b.

 

 

The 22.5 km (14 mile) Green Line will have 18 stations from Al Ittihad Square to Rashidiya bus station through Deira City Centre and Dubai Airport Terminals 1 and 3. It will be progressively extended to serve the Deira and Bur Dubai central areas and Souks up to Burjuman and Wafi shopping centres. Interchange stations will be at Al Ittihad Square and Burjuman.

 

Now i'm not saying that Edinburgh needs something of this scale, but 1 line and remind me how many stops???

 

Dubai's population is around 1.5M, so just over double of Edinburgh, they've gone for 47 stops in total !!!

 

Now that's how you do a tram system

[bighusref]

Transport Infrastructure Projects cost money. Shock Horror! London is building a ?16 billion railway project called Crossrail and the reaction of the public is nowhere near as negative as the reaction in Edinburgh, why because they are used to huge transport projects and can appreciate the long term benefits of such schemes.

 

What is the point in ONE LINE though? Do it or don't do it IMO. Instead we rip the city centre apart for a bus that cannot turn off it's pre decided route and all for ?500 Million. How many schools could we modernise for ?500 Million? How many council houses could we build?

 

What a waste of money.

[Toggie88]

Just been told that the contractors now expect that phase one will be delayed by 18-24 months and that it will be ?100 million over budget - heard it here first.

[Optimus Prime]

Oh and another thing, you mentioned earlier about the impossibility both operational and financial on large scale transport projects :-

 

The 52.1km (32.5 mile) Red Line will have 29 stations, four of which will be underground. It will run from Rashidiva to Jebel Ali passing the American University of Dubai. It is planned that the first phase will open in September 2009. The whole 52.1km is expected to take 60 minutes to travel, with an estimated 32,000 passengers per hour.

 

I'm not sure of the cost on this, but the green line is $1.2b, i've now looked it up and the red line is costing $4.2b.

 

 

The 22.5 km (14 mile) Green Line will have 18 stations from Al Ittihad Square to Rashidiya bus station through Deira City Centre and Dubai Airport Terminals 1 and 3. It will be progressively extended to serve the Deira and Bur Dubai central areas and Souks up to Burjuman and Wafi shopping centres. Interchange stations will be at Al Ittihad Square and Burjuman.

 

Now i'm not saying that Edinburgh needs something of this scale, but 1 line and remind me how many stops???

 

Dubai's population is around 1.5M, so just over double of Edinburgh, they've gone for 47 stops in total !!!

 

Now that's how you do a tram system

 

Do i really need to point out the obvious flaw in your argument here...........

[Optimus Prime]

What is the point in ONE LINE though? Do it or don't do it IMO. Instead we rip the city centre apart for a bus that cannot turn off it's pre decided route and all for ?500 Million. How many schools could we modernise for ?500 Million? How many council houses could we build?

 

What a waste of money.

 

Crossrail is one line and involves mass demolition in the centre of London.

[missed98]

Do i really need to point out the obvious flaw in your argument here...........

 

Yes

[missed98]

Crossrail is one line and involves mass demolition in the centre of London.

 

Covering how many stops???

[Stuart Lyon]

Optimus Prime I quote from your post (N0 62)

 

"It really does amaze me that people honestly think that TIE and the Council are just throwing money at something they've not thought through for some kind of ego trip"

 

Isn't that what happened with the abandoned CERT project that seduced companies to relocate or take-on offices at Edinburgh Park?

[Optimus Prime]

Covering how many stops???

 

37, Edinburgh has 22.

[Optimus Prime]

Optimus Prime I quote from your post (N0 62)

 

"It really does amaze me that people honestly think that TIE and the Council are just throwing money at something they've not thought through for some kind of ego trip"

 

Isn't that what happened with the abandoned CERT project that seduced companies to relocate or take-on offices at Edinburgh Park?

 

And they will reap the benefits as the Tram route uses the same proposed CERT route.

[Optimus Prime]

Yes

 

Funding in Dubai compared with funding in Edinburgh is on a vastly different scale. It wouldn't be far streched to say it's like comparing the spending power of Hearts and Manchester City.

[bighusref]

Crossrail is one line and involves mass demolition in the centre of London.

 

37, Edinburgh has 22.

 

Fantastic. London are wasting money so we should do it too. I know that Edinburgh has this inferiority complex when it comes to London, it hurts that we would throw away money just to be like London.

 

I take it you ignored the rest of my post then?

[Optimus Prime]

Fantastic. London are wasting money so we should do it too. I know that Edinburgh has this inferiority complex when it comes to London, it hurts that we would throw away money just to be like London.

 

I take it you ignored the rest of my post then?

 

Well i'm arguing that it isn't a waste of money and is badly needed for our city to progress.

 

London is not wasting money. The difference is they can see the long term benefits, despite the cost and the disruption it will cause. The people of Edinburgh in general are just looking on the short term.

[missed98]

Funding in Dubai compared with funding in Edinburgh is on a vastly different scale. It wouldn't be far streched to say it's like comparing the spending power of Hearts and Manchester City.

 

That wasn't my point, you said it was an impossibility, it's not. It can be done. Financially i agree, much tougher for Edinburgh, but why operationally?

 

Plus, if you can use Crossrail (a ?16b project) to prove your point why can't i use a $5b to prove mine?

 

FWIW, i will benefit greatly from the tram system as i live in Newhaven and the bus service down here is absolute garbage, I just have no faith in our council to actually deliver us a successful project.

 

Edinburgh City Council has IMO spectacularly failed over the last 20 years to delivery any meaningful transport projects in Edinburgh. They messed up the park n ride, they messed up the congestion charge, they have continually added to congestion by closing off streets with no viable alternative. Good ideas, bad execution.

[Jambo66]

1. Sounds very nice but in the real world that's not how things operate.

 

2. Sorry what evidence is this?!? The Tram will ease pressure on the main western corridors in the city by connecting the city centre to the Airport/Gyle/Ingilston Park and Ride through an off road network. This will automatically cut direct need for at least 3 bus services and will have a knock on impact on others.

 

3. Well believe it or not Edinburgh is increasing and you need houses to put people. The current economic situation has knocked the Leith development a bit but i will happen. Greater volumes of people put extra strain on the transport system and an increase in bus provisions is not possible because......

 

4.Not bollocks i'm afraid. I do this for a living and in simplistic terms the level of buses on the road (depending on the size of the city) gets to a certain point where anything above that level ceases to being of benefit and just adds to congestion. Edinburgh is pretty much on that mark and needs a release valve very soon.

 

5. People will use it when it's there simple as that. Experiences in other cities (another poster made reference to Dublin) back this up. If you think people are going to boycott it or something like that then you are being rather naive.

 

6. Well given that the only option appears to be more buses and as i've explained this would bring about gridlock to the cities. This would only make the environmental problem worse.

 

1. So that makes it alright then? In the real world people are killed in car accidents everyday - is that alright as well?

 

2. So, ?500m (or ?600m or ?800m) to replace 3 bus routes. A staggering waste of money by any stretch of the imagination. Every time a new transport infrastructure project is announced, one of its selling points is that it will ease congestion. What actually happens is that there is a temporary decrease in congestion and then we get right back to where we were before.

 

3. This is only happening because we are letting it happen. There is no justification for it other than the self-aggrandisement of Edinburgh and its councillors. Big cities are not a good thing. It amazes me that people can't see this.

 

4. So what do you propose we do when the trams reach capacity? We have to stop this ridiculous notion that growth is good. Have you not spotted that we are destroying our planet at an ever-increasing rate?

 

5. I would be astonished if anyone boycotted the trams. However, the vast majority of people will not use it because it doesn't take them where they want to go. If we had a tram system in Edinburgh, then your point might have some validity. Given the cost of this project, do you care to guess how much it will cost to put in a system? Are we talking ?500-?800m per line - or are you going to try and convince me that future lines will be much, much cheaper?

 

6. The only option is not "more buses". We already have a suburban railway which actually goes through parts of Edinburgh where people live. Not only that, re-opening it to passengers would not result in 2 years of total chaos in the city centre. But don't let that get in the way of your blinkered views.

[Coco]

Well i'm arguing that it isn't a waste of money and is badly needed for our city to progress.

 

London is not wasting money. The difference is they can see the long term benefits, despite the cost and the disruption it will cause. The people of Edinburgh in general are just looking on the short term.

 

The ludicrous - and laughable - business case had the tram line reducing congestion by less than 1%.

 

'Long term benefits' - for at least ?600m? 1% reduction in congestion. And that is the laughable best case that the consultants could come up with?

 

Anyone able to come up with a suggestion that would be able to beat a 1% reduction in congestion for less than ?600m? Here's one - how about re routing the buses so that they don't all go along Princes Street?

[The Mighty Thor]

Correct.

 

It really does amaze me that people honestly think that TIE and the Council are just throwing money at something they've not thought through for some kind of ego trip. There have been lots of studies done on the transport situation in Edinburgh and the conclusion is that the status quo is not an option. Scrapping projects such as these (and the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link) will just lead to gridlock and a transport/environmental disaster. There are many highly educated intelligent people working on this project who know the benefits it will bring to the city long term. The problem comes when you get greedy contractors on board who just want to squeeze as much money from you as possible.

 

The Evening News really has a lot to answer for in terms of the way they have portrayed this project to the people of Edinburgh. There is a lot of talk on this forum about the agenda that Glasgow based media have with Hearts but as far as i'm concerned the agenda the Evening news has against it's own council and progress for it's home city is nothing short of scandalous. If you want public floggings may i suggest you start with the chief editor of the Evening News.

 

It shouldn't amaze you that people of superior intellect to the elected councillors will question a vanity project that is verging on the criminally obscene.

 

There are many highly intelligent people working on the project? Have you heard of self interest? The only long term benefits will be the trousering of eye watering sums of money which will provide a really nice long term pension plan for many of the 'consultants'.

 

I doubt the greedy contractors are any worse at the trough than any of the others involved but the issue is it's public money. It's a free for all with the council tax payers of the city of edinburgh grabbing their ankles and lubricating up.

 

It's the fault of the Evening News? Really.

 

This project should have been put to public referendum and had it been there wouldn't have been a single stone lifted in Edinburgh. It can't afford it and it doesn't need it, however now it will pay through the teeth for it for many many years to come, for ONE LINE. The others will never be built as by the time this one comes in at 60% + over budget there won't be money to change a lightbulb at the city chambers.

[The Mighty Thor]

Just been told that the contractors now expect that phase one will be delayed by 18-24 months and that it will be ?100 million over budget - heard it here first.

 

You are conservative on both estimates.

 

Speaking to a senior contractor they reckon 24-36 months delayed and up to ?300 million over budget.

[Coco]

You are conservative on both estimates.

 

Speaking to a senior contractor they reckon 24-36 months delayed and up to ?300 million over budget.

 

It is conceivable that the overrun on the costs for the line together with the expected significant running/operating/maintenance costs and losses could see the City in serious financial distress.

[Optimus Prime]

That wasn't my point, you said it was an impossibility, it's not. It can be done. Financially i agree, much tougher for Edinburgh, but why operationally?

 

Plus, if you can use Crossrail (a ?16b project) to prove your point why can't i use a $5b to prove mine?

 

FWIW, i will benefit greatly from the tram system as i live in Newhaven and the bus service down here is absolute garbage, I just have no faith in our council to actually deliver us a successful project.

 

Edinburgh City Council has IMO spectacularly failed over the last 20 years to delivery any meaningful transport projects in Edinburgh. They messed up the park n ride, they messed up the congestion charge, they have continually added to congestion by closing off streets with no viable alternative. Good ideas, bad execution.

 

Ok, if you think using Dubai as a realistic comparison then so be it, it's clearly on a different financial level as i've already explained. Operationally because if you put a whole network in throughout the city at the same time it would literally grind to a halt. Again as i previously said the London Underground network appeared over many decades.

 

I used Crossrail to justify public opinion and seeing long term benefits. I'm sure the Dubai project will also bring many benefits.

[Shanks]

The trams are one of the most stupid ideas ever put forward in Edinburgh, I still cant believe we are actually going ahead with it!!

 

It will be the death of this once fine city.

[missed98]

Ok, if you think using Dubai as a realistic comparison then so be it, it's clearly on a different financial level as i've already explained. Operationally because if you put a whole network in throughout the city at the same time it would literally grind to a halt. Again as i previously said the London Underground network appeared over many decades.

 

I used Crossrail to justify public opinion and seeing long term benefits. I'm sure the Dubai project will also bring many benefits.

 

Well, Dubai hasn't ground to a halt ! Edinburgh of course would grind to a halt, because our councillors would screw that up as well.

 

I said in my post i wasn't comparing the 2 projects. YOU said it was financially impossible to deliver it, it's not, Dubai are doing it, ergo not impossible. If you had said it's financially impossible for Edinburgh to do it, fair enough.

 

It's an important distinction because you were trying to claim that no one, ever had been able to develop a large scale project in one go and that justifies Edinburgh only putting 1 line in. I was merely showing that not to be true.

 

As for your last sentence, that's my whole point. People aren't complaining about Crossrail because they see the benefits of it. So why are people in Edinburgh complaining about ours? there's one of 2 reasons:-

 

1. People in London are far more enlightened than us Edinburgh folk, as we are all still living in the 60's and nowhere near as bright. As an aside, that's exactly what the councillors think of us.

 

2. People of Edinburgh are just as enlightened, smart and educated as the Londoners and don't actually see the long term benefits, because it's ill thought out, poorly planned and probably going to be poorly executed, just like everything else they get their hands on.

[Optimus Prime]

1. So that makes it alright then? In the real world people are killed in car accidents everyday - is that alright as well?

 

2. So, ?500m (or ?600m or ?800m) to replace 3 bus routes. A staggering waste of money by any stretch of the imagination. Every time a new transport infrastructure project is announced, one of its selling points is that it will ease congestion. What actually happens is that there is a temporary decrease in congestion and then we get right back to where we were before.

 

3. This is only happening because we are letting it happen. There is no justification for it other than the self-aggrandisement of Edinburgh and its councillors. Big cities are not a good thing. It amazes me that people can't see this.

 

4. So what do you propose we do when the trams reach capacity? We have to stop this ridiculous notion that growth is good. Have you not spotted that we are destroying our planet at an ever-increasing rate?

 

5. I would be astonished if anyone boycotted the trams. However, the vast majority of people will not use it because it doesn't take them where they want to go. If we had a tram system in Edinburgh, then your point might have some validity. Given the cost of this project, do you care to guess how much it will cost to put in a system? Are we talking ?500-?800m per line - or are you going to try and convince me that future lines will be much, much cheaper?

 

6. The only option is not "more buses". We already have a suburban railway which actually goes through parts of Edinburgh where people live. Not only that, re-opening it to passengers would not result in 2 years of total chaos in the city centre. But don't let that get in the way of your blinkered views.

 

This is just going round in circles now.

 

1) Don't see your point. But less cars on the road will lead to less accidents. Another benefit!! (Shot yourself in the foot there )

 

2) That's not the sole benefit but just one. "Temporary decrease in congestion"......not sure were you are going with that one but surely this is a good thing and it will be even less with a tram system.

 

3) It's called regeneration, making use of and improving an area that was once run down. Circumstances outwith Edinburgh's control have put a spanner in the works to some of the development.

 

4) I would imagine we would add to the tram network by building new routes throught the city. (Again i've been over this)

 

5) It is being constructed on the optimum cross sectional route for vehicular movement in the city. You got to start somewhere and this is the best palce to start.

 

6) I agree with you, this is an option and would supplement the cities transport infrastructure very well with and integrated system including buses, trains...........and trams.

[Optimus Prime]

It shouldn't amaze you that people of superior intellect to the elected councillors will question a vanity project that is verging on the criminally obscene.

 

There are many highly intelligent people working on the project? Have you heard of self interest? The only long term benefits will be the trousering of eye watering sums of money which will provide a really nice long term pension plan for many of the 'consultants'.

 

I doubt the greedy contractors are any worse at the trough than any of the others involved but the issue is it's public money. It's a free for all with the council tax payers of the city of edinburgh grabbing their ankles and lubricating up.

 

It's the fault of the Evening News? Really.

 

This project should have been put to public referendum and had it been there wouldn't have been a single stone lifted in Edinburgh. It can't afford it and it doesn't need it, however now it will pay through the teeth for it for many many years to come, for ONE LINE. The others will never be built as by the time this one comes in at 60% + over budget there won't be money to change a lightbulb at the city chambers.

 

Spot the Evening News reader.

 

If the Council put every decision to a public referendum Edinburgh would still be a castle with a moat round it. The public will always opt for the status quo.

[bighusref]

Well i'm arguing that it isn't a waste of money and is badly needed for our city to progress.

 

London is not wasting money. The difference is they can see the long term benefits, despite the cost and the disruption it will cause. The people of Edinburgh in general are just looking on the short term.

 

How? Many other cities worldwide survive without trams, yet it is "badly needed" here?

 

As for the long term benefits, only time will tell. Given you have (again) ignored the part of my post where I suggested that the money would be better going into things like council housing (something this city badly needs) Schooling upgrades and other necessities, I can assume you believe that this tram (singular) is more important. Your short sighted approach and frankly naive stance belittles any argument you may have.

 

As for the "Less accidents" bit in another post, are you saying that cars, trains, planes and any other travel machine can crash/cause a crash but a tram cannot?

[missed98]

Another point i want to make and something you've touched on Optimus, is long term planning.

 

Where is Edinburgh's Master Plan, the document that shows us what our transport system will look like in 30 years time, what are the steps involved, what will they cost, what are the timescales, where will the funding come from, what are the benefits etc..

 

It seems to me, Edinburgh City Council staggers from one project to the next without stepping back. Okay, we've not got the money for the other 2 lines, what do we do now. Do we:-

 

a. build the first line and worry about the rest later (ECC's preferred option for all projects), actually, the congestion charge is a classic example of this. Why not find out why Edinburgh people were so set against it and look to come up with a more viable and pallatable version? Scottish government have already looked into the reasons and published a report on it.

 

b. Step back, make sure the overall plan is still viable and set out what we need to do achieve it.

[missed98]

Spot the Evening News reader.

 

If the Council put every decision to a public referendum Edinburgh would still be a castle with a moat round it. The public will always opt for the status quo.

 

That's the most pompous, arrogant, ignorant statement you've come up with yet. Remind me what happened in the Referendum for a Scottish Parliament again.

[The Mighty Thor]

Spot the Evening News reader.

 

If the Council put every decision to a public referendum Edinburgh would still be a castle with a moat round it. The public will always opt for the status quo.

 

For the record i don't buy newspapers anymore. I read the EEN online occasionally.

 

You've put forward some reasoned debate and argument so far but that particular one is about as valid as the whole TIE project.

 

?512 million is eye watering. The real cost, which will top out at around ?800 million, is obscene.

 

The cost to benefit equation does not stack up no matter which angle you take. The City of Edinburgh cannot afford this at the budgeted ?512 million let alone the actual cost.

 

The latest idea to sell of the Council's major stakeholding in Lothain Buses is endemic of the desperation currently being felt in the city chambers. The irony in selling off their majority holding in one of Europe's best bus services to fund ONE LINE of a vanity project should not be lost on any citizen of Edinburgh. The Councillors that voted this through should be held publicly accountable and potentially criminally accountable when the full story of the profligacy finally comes out.

 

Yours

 

sometime EEN reader

[Coco]

Another point i want to make and something you've touched on Optimus, is long term planning.

 

Where is Edinburgh's Master Plan, the document that shows us what our transport system will look like in 30 years time, what are the steps involved, what will they cost, what are the timescales, where will the funding come from, what are the benefits etc..

 

It seems to me, Edinburgh City Council staggers from one project to the next without stepping back. Okay, we've not got the money for the other 2 lines, what do we do now. Do we:-

 

a. build the first line and worry about the rest later (ECC's preferred option for all projects), actually, the congestion charge is a classic example of this. Why not find out why Edinburgh people were so set against it and look to come up with a more viable and pallatable version? Scottish government have already looked into the reasons and published a report on it.

 

b. Step back, make sure the overall plan is still viable and set out what we need to do achieve it.

 

What they are aiming to do is the same as the project of the last 15-20 years which is to create congestion in Edinburgh.

 

Creation of congestion through as many ways as is possible means that there are lots of juicy opportunities for officials/consultants to spend money on themselves and their favoured mates.

[bighusref]

[/b]

 

That's the most pompous, arrogant, ignorant statement you've come up with yet. Remind me what happened in the Referendum for a Scottish Parliament again.

 

Three words that describe OP perfectly.

[missed98]

What they are aiming to do is the same as the project of the last 15-20 years which is to create congestion in Edinburgh.

 

Creation of congestion through as many ways as is possible means that there are lots of juicy opportunities for officials/consultants to spend money on themselves and their favoured mates.