Trams - Labour party

[Boris]

Three words that describe OP perfectly.

 

Words that could also be used to describe some of the naysayers on this thread too!

 

It's an emotive subject and, much like the threads in the Terrace about "what ifs", we will not truly know the cost and benefits until the bloody things are actually finished.

 

Yes, there is hardship at the moment (well not really for me due to my location and the fact that I don't have a car) but at some point in time the roads would have to be dug up anyway for utilities work.

[Optimus Prime]

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?

 

Go for it, and i'll give you two for every one you can.

 

Less accidents on Tram than Cars, fact.

[Optimus Prime]

[/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.

 

Yeah and there is something highly ironic about voting for greater power but not using it to better yourself once you have it.

 

Wasn't trying to be pompous, arrogant or ignorant. But history suggests that the public always votes no on transport related issues. I give you congestion charging. Veto'd by the Edinburgh and Manchester public but implemented in London to great success.

[Optimus Prime]

Three words that describe OP perfectly.

 

Now, now, no need for insults. For the record i think he did describe me as that.

[Coco]

Words that could also be used to describe some of the naysayers on this thread too!

 

It's an emotive subject and, much like the threads in the Terrace about "what ifs", we will not truly know the cost and benefits until the bloody things are actually finished.

 

Yes, there is hardship at the moment (well not really for me due to my location and the fact that I don't have a car) but at some point in time the roads would have to be dug up anyway for utilities work.

 

The 'Business Case' which was scrutinised :nah:by the town councillors lays out the purported benefits of the tram line. Those include a supposed 1% reduction in congestion. It ignores some of the costs such as those which we are seeing at the moment eg the demand destruction in the city centre as a result of construction activity.

 

It also has a helpful 'Risk' section - which shows just how much money the tram line would lose the City if a) the Leith development doesn't happen Edinburgh Park isn't expanded c) there isn't another Royal Bank sized HQ at Gogarburn. All the risks are becoming evident facts.

 

In addition we know that the Scottish Government contribution is capped at ?500m. Edinburgh Council is responsible for everything above that. A single year's Council tax is roughly ?200m. We know that it is already above 'budget' and the question is just how much above. Is bailing out the idiots at TIE and the useless councillors a good use of a whole year's Council Tax?

[missed98]

Yeah and there is something highly ironic about voting for greater power but not using it to better yourself once you have it.

 

Wasn't trying to be pompous, arrogant or ignorant. But history suggests that the public always votes no on transport related issues. I give you congestion charging. Veto'd by the Edinburgh and Manchester public but implemented in London to great success.

 

The reasons Edinburgh said no to congestion charging weren't because they wanted status quo, it's because it was and i am repeating myself again, it was ill thought out and poorly planned. Scottish governments report on people's reaction to this backs me up. I firmly believe that a congestion charge aimed at commuters would have been successful (and still could be).

 

Using London as an example is way off the mark, there are fundemental differences.

 

a. People living in London on the whole use the excellent integrated transport system (buses, trains, underground) to travel to the city centre.

 

b. the congestion charge mostly affects people coming from outside London (commuter areas).

 

c. Car is not the quickest way to travel around london.

 

d. It's possible to travel to most areas of London (except the congestion charge area), without travelling through it and with little additional time or hassle.

 

For the record, i didn't call you pompous, arrogant and ignorant, i said your post was

[Optimus Prime]

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.

 

In terms of the "enlightenment" of the Edinburgh people. Edinburgh has not seen a project of this scale implemented, London on the other hand has on numerous occasions and the levels of public outcry reflect that.

 

If your attitude is as made out in point 2 i assume that you advocate no more transport infrastructure projects in Edinburgh?

 

I do believe that TIE could have sold it to the people far better through a vastly improved marketing campaign to engage the citizens of Edinburgh more. This combined with the disgraceful scaremongering role the Evening News has played has created this attitude towards Trams.

[Optimus Prime]

The 'Business Case' which was scrutinised :nah:by the town councillors lays out the purported benefits of the tram line. Those include a supposed 1% reduction in congestion. It ignores some of the costs such as those which we are seeing at the moment eg the demand destruction in the city centre as a result of construction activity.

 

It also has a helpful 'Risk' section - which shows just how much money the tram line would lose the City if a) the Leith development doesn't happen Edinburgh Park isn't expanded c) there isn't another Royal Bank sized HQ at Gogarburn. All the risks are becoming evident facts.

 

In addition we know that the Scottish Government contribution is capped at ?500m. Edinburgh Council is responsible for everything above that. A single year's Council tax is roughly ?200m. We know that it is already above 'budget' and the question is just how much above. Is bailing out the idiots at TIE and the useless councillors a good use of a whole year's Council Tax?

 

The Leith development will happen, Edinburgh Park is expanding as we speak and RBS have already built their HQ.

[Optimus Prime]

The reasons Edinburgh said no to congestion charging weren't because they wanted status quo, it's because it was and i am repeating myself again, it was ill thought out and poorly planned. Scottish governments report on people's reaction to this backs me up. I firmly believe that a congestion charge aimed at commuters would have been successful (and still could be).

 

Using London as an example is way off the mark, there are fundemental differences.

 

a. People living in London on the whole use the excellent integrated transport system (buses, trains, underground) to travel to the city centre.

 

b. the congestion charge mostly affects people coming from outside London (commuter areas).

 

c. Car is not the quickest way to travel around london.

 

d. It's possible to travel to most areas of London (except the congestion charge area), without travelling through it and with little additional time or hassle.

 

For the record, i didn't call you pompous, arrogant and ignorant, i said your post was

 

A) Exactly! So why be against a intergrated transport system incorporating buses, trains and trams in Edinburgh. (Before anybody say's it there are train services running within Edinburgh albeit limited and i do agree with expanding this service as well.)

 

And rightly so. Edinburgh should have looked at a two question referendum over the inner and outer ring, that i agree with.

 

C) Depends on your journey but neither is it in Edinburgh.

 

D) Again that depends on your journey route.

[Coco]

The Leith development will happen, Edinburgh Park is expanding as we speak and RBS have already built their HQ.

 

Edinburgh Park is expanding

 

Have you noticed what has happened to RBS and HBoS recently?

 

Leith development will happen

[Optimus Prime]

Edinburgh Park is expanding

 

Have you noticed what has happened to RBS and HBoS recently?

 

Leith development will happen

 

So the building work there is just in my imagination then........

 

I have noticed but they still exist and still have an HQ at Gogar, which will be serviced by the new Tram route.

 

I do believe that is well underway, unless of course Ocean Terminal, the Scottish Government building, the Scottish Gas HQ, the new Telford College, the new Morrisons and numerous other residential and commerical developments are again just a figment of my imagination. (yes some of these aren't technically in Leith but are part of the same Masterplan area and will all be serviced by the Tram)

[bighusref]

Go for it, and i'll give you two for every one you can.

 

Less accidents on Tram than Cars, fact.

 

First part, your end is far easier, as with the use of the wonderful internet, you could find hundreds of cities with trams, I would need to trawl through city after city after city to find options.

 

Second part, how is it a fact? I assume since you say "fact" you can back that up. Oh and before you produce these facts, remember that in 1997 it was said there were around 600 Million cars in the world and percentage wise trams better have next to no accidents to better any car accident percentage.

[Optimus Prime]

First part, your end is far easier, as with the use of the wonderful internet, you could find hundreds of cities with trams, I would need to trawl through city after city after city to find options.

 

Second part, how is it a fact? I assume since you say "fact" you can back that up. Oh and before you produce these facts, remember that in 1997 it was said there were around 600 Million cars in the world and percentage wise trams better have next to no accidents to better any car accident percentage.

 

 

Point 1 - And I wonder why that is?

 

Point 2 - In turn please find me a statistic that say's Tram systems cause more accidents than Automobiles. I await this stat with great interest.

[The Brow]

Go for it, and i'll give you two for every one you can.

 

Less accidents on Tram than Cars, fact.

 

try telling that to this man!

 

[missed98]

In terms of the "enlightenment" of the Edinburgh people. Edinburgh has not seen a project of this scale implemented, London on the other hand has on numerous occasions and the levels of public outcry reflect that.

If your attitude is as made out in point 2 i assume that you advocate no more transport infrastructure projects in Edinburgh?

 

I do believe that TIE could have sold it to the people far better through a vastly improved marketing campaign to engage the citizens of Edinburgh more. This combined with the disgraceful scaremongering role the Evening News has played has created this attitude towards Trams.

 

No, i advocate well thought out, well planned and well executed projects. I've already said i would welcome a congestion charge, i'll add that i would welcome an alternative transport system as well.

 

I don't read the EEN at all, ever, so can't comment. Public outcry is so high, because people cannot see the overall benefit of this 1 tram line. I noticed you didn't respond to my long term plan post. Perhaps people would be more supportive if they knew where ECC were trying to take us. That's unlikely, since i don't think they know.

[missed98]

A) Exactly! So why be against a intergrated transport system incorporating buses, trains and trams in Edinburgh. (Before anybody say's it there are train services running within Edinburgh albeit limited and i do agree with expanding this service as well.)

 

And rightly so. Edinburgh should have looked at a two question referendum over the inner and outer ring, that i agree with.

 

C) Depends on your journey but neither is it in Edinburgh.

 

D) Again that depends on your journey route.

 

first point, on congestion charging, London had their integrated transport system BEFORE they brought congestion charging in. As said above, i'm not against an integrated transport system, 1 tram line is not an integrated system.

wit

C And D, that's just plain wrong. Unless you happen to be travelling between 2 bus stops or train lines, car is the quickest way to get round Edinburgh.

 

D to an extent, however, the vast majority of areas in London are easily accessible by car without going through the congestion area. That's not the case in Edinburgh.

 

Of course the most obvious example of this is trying to get to our new hospital, something which should be very close to the top of priorities for a so called integrated transport system.

 

To get there by car, i have to either go through the city centre or all the way round by Seafield and onto the bypass. to go by bus, i need to take 2 and i believe it takes around 70 minutes, i can to get PRI quicker !!!!!

[The Mighty Thor]

A) Exactly! So why be against a intergrated transport system incorporating buses, trains and trams in Edinburgh. (Before anybody say's it there are train services running within Edinburgh albeit limited and i do agree with expanding this service as well.)

 

A proposed 'integrated' transport system should by definition improve the overall transport network within the City of Edinburgh.

The TIE system actually worsens the transport network of Edinburgh considerably by firstly reducing the major transport corridor from west to east Edinburgh via the city centre which affects the excellent bus system, it further reduces the ability of the city's tax paying car owners to traverse the city in a reasonable manner. The amount of money being spunked on this whiter elephant will ensure that there's no further funding to do any other projects which may actually improve the city's transport network ie the trains.

 

What's being overlooked in this argument is that the commonly held misconception is that the tram will 'service' Edinburgh Park/Gogar/Airport. You actually have to live somewhere near the tram line for this to be of any benefit. How many people employed in Edinburgh Park/Gyle/Gogar actually live anywhere near the tram? As a percentage? 2%? 5%? I'd be shocked if it was anywhere near that number. What about the huge numbers of people coming in from East/Mid/West Lothian?

 

There is no integrated thinking. Only a scattergun approach to meeting the latest project that may be de rigueur amongst the free spending public officials.

[Adam Murray]

Go for it, and i'll give you two for every one you can.

 

Less accidents on Tram than Cars, fact.

 

And when there is an accident, or some other incident on the tram route, just where does the tram divert too?

[Optimus Prime]

A proposed 'integrated' transport system should by definition improve the overall transport network within the City of Edinburgh.

The TIE system actually worsens the transport network of Edinburgh considerably by firstly reducing the major transport corridor from west to east Edinburgh via the city centre which affects the excellent bus system, it further reduces the ability of the city's tax paying car owners to traverse the city in a reasonable manner. The amount of money being spunked on this whiter elephant will ensure that there's no further funding to do any other projects which may actually improve the city's transport network ie the trains.

 

What's being overlooked in this argument is that the commonly held misconception is that the tram will 'service' Edinburgh Park/Gogar/Airport. You actually have to live somewhere near the tram line for this to be of any benefit. How many people employed in Edinburgh Park/Gyle/Gogar actually live anywhere near the tram? As a percentage? 2%? 5%? I'd be shocked if it was anywhere near that number. What about the huge numbers of people coming in from East/Mid/West Lothian?

 

There is no integrated thinking. Only a scattergun approach to meeting the latest project that may be de rigueur amongst the free spending public officials.

 

First bold - Wrong, the whole of the western section is completely off road. (Haymarket Yards - Airport)

 

Second bold - Wrong, not a misconception. As i've previously stated, the first section of the network is being proposed for the optimum section of movement through the city. Please feel free to give me an alternative route which incorporates a higher movement of people into and out of the city and which provides stops at as many key locations within the city. As i've stated Rome wasn't built in a day, you simply can't build an entire network for the whole city in one go.

[The Mighty Thor]

First bold - Wrong, the whole of the western section is completely off road. (Haymarket Yards - Airport)

 

Second bold - Wrong, not a misconception. As i've previously stated, the first section of the network is being proposed for the optimum section of movement through the city. Please feel free to give me an alternative route which incorporates a higher movement of people into and out of the city and which provides stops at as many key locations within the city. As i've stated Rome wasn't built in a day, you simply can't build an entire network for the whole city in one go.

 

OK i'll accept the point on Haymarket Yards to the Airport. It has the potential to alleviate congestion in the Roseburn and Corstorphine areas. I doubt it will but it has the potential to do so.

 

Second point - It is a total misconception. The first section? (that presumes that there will be others, at the current cost of one i doubt it!) By that i presume you mean the proposed line? If so i totally fail to see how one line of tram will optimise movement of a high number of people through the city unless of course everyone lives in Leith and wants to go to the airport. Leithers are renowned for their love of travel.

 

Your point about moving a mass number of people with various stops at key locations already exists. Lothian Buses. There's 650 of them transporting 120 million passengers around the city and it's surrounds. Think of the development of the service that a fraction of the ?512 million tram budget could provide the 120 million passengers that use the service? The Council are the majority owners of Lothian Buses but now want to sell their stake to fund a bloated project to provide one single tram line. Are you endorsing that as sensible?

 

You can't build a network in one go? No you can't. Especially when you can't afford and in reality don't need one.

 

Here's the 'vision' from the tram website

 

Our Vision

 

Line 1, currently being constructed, is part of a planned tram network connecting the city of Edinburgh. tie are presently seeking permission to build a further line serving Newington and Liberton ? connecting the University and Edinburgh Royal Infirmary to the city centre. Future plans may include a connection from the city centre to the shores of Fife, using the Forth Replacement Crossing.

 

World class public transport is a cornerstone of good environmental and energy policy; it means cleaner air, lower emissions and reduced congestion. It benefits the local economy and makes affordable travel accessible to the widest possible range of people. Our vision is of an Edinburgh at the forefront of public transport innovation, benefitting all its citizens and visitors.

 

Part one of that tosh is fanciful.

 

part 2 already exists. 650 of them.

 

[Stuart Lyon]

Optimus Prime I challenge you to prove that the Dam Tram line follows the now defunct CERT line! I used to work for BT and the CERT plan always showed a stop outside the BT building. I don't recollect seeing the dam tram going through Edinburgh Park. Please prove me wrong?

[davemclaren]

Optimus Prime I challenge you to prove that the Dam Tram line follows the now defunct CERT line! I used to work for BT and the CERT plan always showed a stop outside the BT building. I don't recollect seeing the dam tram going through Edinburgh Park. Please prove me wrong?

 

Stops at Edinburgh Park Station and Edinburgh Park Central

 

http://www.edinburghtrams.com/index.php/local_update/by_tram_stop/?tram_stop=Edinburgh%20Park%20Central&route_section=Edinburgh%20West

[Optimus Prime]

Stops at Edinburgh Park Station and Edinburgh Park Central

 

http://www.edinburghtrams.com/index.php/local_update/by_tram_stop/?tram_stop=Edinburgh%20Park%20Central&route_section=Edinburgh%20West

 

Optimus Prime I challenge you to prove that the Dam Tram line follows the now defunct CERT line! I used to work for BT and the CERT plan always showed a stop outside the BT building. I don't recollect seeing the dam tram going through Edinburgh Park. Please prove me wrong?

 

 

[The Vulture]

GBP600m for trams does not seem feasible.

 

For that price they could subsidise bus travel for everyone. People would use buses if they were already prepaid.

 

Don't see why they can't build a new train line for the airport. The train goes past the back of the airport on it's way to the Forth Bridge so why don't they look at building a line from there to the airport ? So you have a train taken you into Waverley/Haymarket every 15 minutes, and if you are heading north a train to Inverkeithing and from there you change to get the train to wherever you're heading (e.g. Aberdeen, Inverness etc).

 

Set it up like Manchester Airport Train Station, where you can catch trains to all over the north of England, regular trains into Manchester Piccadilly and good connections to Crewe/Stoke if you are heading south.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

GBP600m for trams does not seem feasible.

 

For that price they could subsidise bus travel for everyone. People would use buses if they were already prepaid.

 

Don't see why they can't build a new train line for the airport. The train goes past the back of the airport on it's way to the Forth Bridge so why don't they look at building a line from there to the airport ? So you have a train taken you into Waverley/Haymarket every 15 minutes, and if you are heading north a train to Inverkeithing and from there you change to get the train to wherever you're heading (e.g. Aberdeen, Inverness etc).

 

Set it up like Manchester Airport Train Station, where you can catch trains to all over the north of England, regular trains into Manchester Piccadilly and good connections to Crewe/Stoke if you are heading south.

 

Having been in Edinburgh last week and seen this utter shambles, I would just add that trams work in Melbourne because the streets are wide. They are not wide in Edinburgh and will cause chaos.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

In terms of the "enlightenment" of the Edinburgh people. Edinburgh has not seen a project of this scale implemented, London on the other hand has on numerous occasions and the levels of public outcry reflect that.

 

If your attitude is as made out in point 2 i assume that you advocate no more transport infrastructure projects in Edinburgh?

 

I do believe that TIE could have sold it to the people far better through a vastly improved marketing campaign to engage the citizens of Edinburgh more. This combined with the disgraceful scaremongering role the Evening News has played has created this attitude towards Trams.

 

The key difference there is that London has always had the 'capital city' treatment from Westminster and has proportionately more spent on it. Edinburgh, despite its classification as a capital, has not.

 

As I say above, Melbourne is famous for its trams but as a planned city, it has that luxury. The key issue for Edinburgh has always been movements cross-town and how best to manage that, particularly as it is one of the few cities where the inner city is more des res than the outer suburbs thanks to its fantastic location.

 

Congestion charging would have helped in one sense if they had introduced the inner ring only as opposed to the outer ring on the bypass, like Durham has done. Again, though, would you trust politicians to spend the money effectively?

[portobellojambo1]

 

Doesn't mean it's right. Edinburgh people voted against congestion charging and that was a mistake' date=' it's been a massive success in London.

 

I assure you that when this network is up and running public opinion will change sharply and the people will embrace it and want more routes. Remember i said this.[/quote']

 

So, which is it you work for, the council or TIE. Has to be one or the other because you seem to have mastered the art of talking some fecking s h i t e in relation to this gross misuse of money. And one can only assume you have never been onto Edinburgh Park and talked to the people who work there, they are looking forward to the tram like a hole in the head.

 

Within this thread you have gone through the process of desperately trying to justify this abomination, and you are failing miserably.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Having been in Edinburgh last week and seen this utter shambles, I would just add that trams work in Melbourne because the streets are wide. They are not wide in Edinburgh and will cause chaos.

 

Trams work in many cities in Europe that have roads the same width or less than Edinburgh. There are many good arguements against having trams in Edinburgh, that isn't one of them.

[Sheriff Fatman]

How can anybody say that the bus service in Edinburgh is 'world class'. It is good if you happen to live and work on the 22 bus route, apart from that it is shockingly bad. The only small redeeming feature is it is cheaper than most other bus services.

 

If the trams mean that LRT can't run a 22 every 30 seconds and have to actually put the buses on routes where people have been getting a third class service, then bring them on I say.

 

Can I also say, what extra conjestion. I haven't noticed any extra traffic on the routes I use.

[Stewart MacD]

It will have to go some to even level out the extra CO2 emissions that come from hundreds of idling engines while stuck in traffic for the next 3 years.

 

Try using buses for that interim period.

[Coco]

How can anybody say that the bus service in Edinburgh is 'world class'. It is good if you happen to live and work on the 22 bus route, apart from that it is shockingly bad. The only small redeeming feature is it is cheaper than most other bus services.

 

If the trams mean that LRT can't run a 22 every 30 seconds and have to actually put the buses on routes where people have been getting a third class service, then bring them on I say.

 

Can I also say, what extra conjestion. I haven't noticed any extra traffic on the routes I use.

 

Congestion is currently falling because of lower economic activity.

 

This is in part of course caused by the collapse of the building industry which the Council thought would pay for their part of the construction of the line - ?45m. The Council are now in the position where they are responsible for what would appear to be at least ?250m worth of cost overrun. How should we fund that? Double everyone's Council tax?

 

Congestion is also falling because people are avoiding the city centre in order to avoid the tram line work.

[Stewart MacD]

Having been in Edinburgh last week and seen this utter shambles, I would just add that trams work in Melbourne because the streets are wide. They are not wide in Edinburgh and will cause chaos.

 

Funny, they seemed to work all right until 1956. It's the bloody private car that causes the chaos, as happens everywhere.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Trams work in many cities in Europe that have roads the same width or less than Edinburgh. There are many good arguements against having trams in Edinburgh, that isn't one of them.

 

Point taken. I suppose the argument I am making is about road space so how many of these cities had designated pedestrian zones which trams could run into, like Manchester? Edinburgh doesn't have this either.

[Stuart Lyon]

Optimus Prime - just finished eating my humble pie re the Edinburgh Park stops!

[Optimus Prime]

Optimus Prime - just finished eating my humble pie re the Edinburgh Park stops!

 

I think not as a previous poster has stated there are in fact not one but two stops at Edinburgh Park. Have a look for your self:

 

http://www.edinburghtrams.com/

 

Would you like a fork or a spoon for that pie?

[Optimus Prime]

Having been in Edinburgh last week and seen this utter shambles, I would just add that trams work in Melbourne because the streets are wide. They are not wide in Edinburgh and will cause chaos.

 

The key difference there is that London has always had the 'capital city' treatment from Westminster and has proportionately more spent on it. Edinburgh, despite its classification as a capital, has not.

 

As I say above, Melbourne is famous for its trams but as a planned city, it has that luxury. The key issue for Edinburgh has always been movements cross-town and how best to manage that, particularly as it is one of the few cities where the inner city is more des res than the outer suburbs thanks to its fantastic location.

 

Congestion charging would have helped in one sense if they had introduced the inner ring only as opposed to the outer ring on the bypass, like Durham has done. Again, though, would you trust politicians to spend the money effectively?

 

AS I've said time and time again on this post the western section on the route is entirely off road, the spur from Roseburn to Granton is off road, Princes Street is one of the widest boulevards in the world (wider than any street in central Melbourne) and the roads between granton and leith were design with the future inclusion of a tram system in mind. The only section where there is any space constraints is Leith Walk but it is certainly managable and can work with other modes of transport.

 

I think your argument falls down on Melbourne being a planned city when you consider Edinburgh had a tram network in the past.

 

I agree with congestion charging it was a mistake not to bring this in but this would have just been one part of an wider transport initiative including tram and park and ride etc.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Congestion is currently falling because of lower economic activity.

 

This is in part of course caused by the collapse of the building industry which the Council thought would pay for their part of the construction of the line - ?45m. The Council are now in the position where they are responsible for what would appear to be at least ?250m worth of cost overrun. How should we fund that? Double everyone's Council tax?

 

Congestion is also falling because people are avoiding the city centre in order to avoid the tram line work.

 

Funny that the routes I use avoid the city centre and there isn't a noticable rise in congestion.

 

The way some people are talking you would think that the economy in Edinburgh has ground to a halt. The economy is not even down to the level that it was in the '80s, and is unlikely to get that bad. I remember damn sight worse congestion in Edinburgh back then than anything I have experienced in the last year (even on those rare times when I do go through town at rush hour).

[Optimus Prime]

GBP600m for trams does not seem feasible.

 

For that price they could subsidise bus travel for everyone. People would use buses if they were already prepaid.

 

Don't see why they can't build a new train line for the airport. The train goes past the back of the airport on it's way to the Forth Bridge so why don't they look at building a line from there to the airport ? So you have a train taken you into Waverley/Haymarket every 15 minutes, and if you are heading north a train to Inverkeithing and from there you change to get the train to wherever you're heading (e.g. Aberdeen, Inverness etc).

 

Set it up like Manchester Airport Train Station, where you can catch trains to all over the north of England, regular trains into Manchester Piccadilly and good connections to Crewe/Stoke if you are heading south.

 

This project was in the pipeline, it was called EARL (Edinburgh Airport Rail Link) and would have connected Edinburgh Airport with the centre of the city, Glasgow and Fife but the SNP decided to scrap it.

[Miller Jambo 60]

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.

 

The cooncil are a joke, and this fiasco is a waste of money.

Edinburgh is run by

 

 

 

CLOWNS

[Optimus Prime]

Funny, they seemed to work all right until 1956. It's the bloody private car that causes the chaos, as happens everywhere.

 

You are quite correct. Trams were removed in Edinburgh because the age of the automobile was see as the way forward. We now know that this is not the way forward and is doing the city and the world more considerable harm.

[Sheriff Fatman]

[/b]

 

This project was in the pipeline, it was called EARL (Edinburgh Airport Rail Link) and would have connected Edinburgh Airport with the centre of the city, Glasgow and Fife but the SNP decided to scrap it.

 

The trouble with EARL, as far as I remember, was that it included a tunnel under the runway at Edinburgh Airport that would have cost a prohibitive amount to construct. There were other solutions, but the original planners, nor the SNP, ever bothered to look into them fully.

 

The SNP's transport plan , at the time of the election, seemed to be one that if it involved improving Edinburgh's transport links, scrap it, and if it involved Glasgow or a road that serves 2 people and a dog bring it forward.

[Optimus Prime]

Optimus Prime - just finished eating my humble pie re the Edinburgh Park stops!

 

 

One more thing, you've beautifully highlighted my earlier point about the lack of knowledge a lot of people in Edinburgh have about this project but choose to condem it anyway. You don't even know the route.

 

Before i get accused of being arrogant etc, i have already stated that i think this is down to two factors. TIE has made an error in their public relations campaign for this project and could have engaged the people of edinburgh far better. Secondly the Evening News' disgracefully negative coverage.

[Optimus Prime]

The trouble with EARL, as far as I remember, was that it included a tunnel under the runway at Edinburgh Airport that would have cost a prohibitive amount to construct. There were other solutions, but the original planners, nor the SNP, ever bothered to look into them fully.

 

The SNP's transport plan , at the time of the election, seemed to be one that if it involved improving Edinburgh's transport links, scrap it, and if it involved Glasgow or a road that serves 2 people and a dog bring it forward.

 

I'm not sure i can recall a tunnel section but i'm not sure so i'll not comment.

 

You are correct with your second statement. They were hell bent on seriously restricting investment in Edinburgh across all spectrums (including sprapping Tram and EARL) and directing it to their powerbase in the north of the country. The fact that they are a minority government spared Edinburgh in terms of forcing the SNP to strike deals thus keeping the Tram.

[Coco]

Funny that the routes I use avoid the city centre and there isn't a noticable rise in congestion.

 

The way some people are talking you would think that the economy in Edinburgh has ground to a halt. The economy is not even down to the level that it was in the '80s, and is unlikely to get that bad. I remember damn sight worse congestion in Edinburgh back then than anything I have experienced in the last year (even on those rare times when I do go through town at rush hour).

 

What is your point? That there isn't congestion in Edinburgh?

 

If there isn't congestion in Edinburgh why are the Council preparing to blow up their balance sheet on a tram line to reduce congestion by 1%?

[Sheriff Fatman]

What is your point? That there isn't congestion in Edinburgh?

 

If there isn't congestion in Edinburgh why are the Council preparing to blow up their balance sheet on a tram line to reduce congestion by 1%?

 

There is congestion, it is not as bad as it was in the '80s. The council are wanting to get measures in place before it gets that bad again. The measures they put in place since the '80s (all those bus lanes, green lanes, traffic systems in the New town, and moving parking away from the centre of town, and even the city by-pass) have worked up until now, but more is needed. I do find it hilarious that many of those that are moaning about the trams are exactly the same people who constantly whinge about most of the other measures put in place. It says to me that they are car drivers who couldn't give a stuff about other road users, but expect to do what they want when they want. I really think the council should just suspend all traffic and parking restrictions for a month and see what happens. The city centre would grind to a halt within a week and all the whiners would have a new subject to bump their gums about.

[Stuart Lyon]

Optimus Prime - OK I was wrong and admitted it on that one point relating to stops in EP.

 

Still think the majority of the congestion is caused by the Council blocking off roads, one way systems etc.

 

I don't disagree with parking restrictions but these too have been introduced in an un-professional manner in the area where I live. The extension of the CPZ was so badly done that they had to introduce emergency parking restrictions to remove serious road hazards and to allow buses to enter one road in particular. They now want to extend it again so we will see what chaos that produces.

[Coco]

There is congestion, it is not as bad as it was in the '80s. The council are wanting to get measures in place before it gets that bad again. The measures they put in place since the '80s (all those bus lanes, green lanes, traffic systems in the New town, and moving parking away from the centre of town, and even the city by-pass) have worked up until now, but more is needed. I do find it hilarious that many of those that are moaning about the trams are exactly the same people who constantly whinge about most of the other measures put in place. It says to me that they are car drivers who couldn't give a stuff about other road users, but expect to do what they want when they want. I really think the council should just suspend all traffic and parking restrictions for a month and see what happens. The city centre would grind to a halt within a week and all the whiners would have a new subject to bump their gums about.

 

I think that most of the measures taken since the late 1980s, including the tram line project, were with the aim of creating congestion. Two benefits of that 1) to penalise drivers and 2) to create job opportunities for officials and consultants/opportunities for cronies to get their snouts in the trough.

[Boris]

I think that most of the measures taken since the late 1980s, including the tram line project, were with the aim of creating congestion. Two benefits of that 1) to penalise drivers and 2) to create job opportunities for officials and consultants/opportunities for cronies to get their snouts in the trough.

 

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!!!

 

I don't disagree with penalising drivers though. Quite right!

[Sheriff Fatman]

I think that most of the measures taken since the late 1980s, including the tram line project, were with the aim of creating congestion. Two benefits of that 1) to penalise drivers and 2) to create job opportunities for officials and consultants/opportunities for cronies to get their snouts in the trough.

 

Thanks for proving my point, congestion is down but of course that is incidental to council officers wanting to conduct nepotism and penalise those poor innocent car drivers who aren't criminals even when they break laws.

 

The entire world is trying to get those poor innocent, never speeding, never illegally parking, not in the slightest selfish car drivers. Christ even believers of the Illuminati aren't that deep into conspiracy theories.

[Coco]

Thanks for proving my point, congestion is down but of course that is incidental to council officers wanting to conduct nepotism and penalise those poor innocent car drivers who aren't criminals even when they break laws.

 

The entire world is trying to get those poor innocent, never speeding, never illegally parking, not in the slightest selfish car drivers. Christ even believers of the Illuminati aren't that deep into conspiracy theories.

 

Of course more car, bus and van etc. journeys are the main factor behind increases in traffic congestion. Just people going about their daily lives. What have parking violations or speeders got to do with it?

 

The secondary reason for more congestion is because of the actions of the Council in their attempts to increase congestion.