Tram Update

[JamboJay]

Tramspotters suggest that the only way to help with the sorts of issues you mention are to spend at least ?600m and accept operating losses of ?20m per year on putting a tram line on the streets. I don't accept that.

 

If you don't accept it what is YOUR alternative, or do you think we should just ignore it and let the market dictate our transport solutions whatever they may be..

 

With regard to your point about long distance planning - it is only 40 years since a man first landed on the moon. The idea that tramspotters/council employees know what the structure of employment/economic activity will be in 25 years is laughable.

 

I'm still waiting for the flying car and domestic robot that we were all promised back in the sixties, I'm not holding my breath. Again not attempting to plan (sticking one's head in the sand, ostrich like, is no solution) we would end up like GK has suggested and live our lives as far as we could walk/cycle, oh and have you made any provision for your pension or alternative income once you retire its that kind forward planning, not rocket science

 

With regard to the Hubbert Peak - Edinburgh's use of tram will have no discernable effect whatsoever on the global use of oil or oil substitutes. In addition if oil prices rise hugely as a result of Hubbert's peak - the substitute sources of energy will see prices rocket too - making generation of energy for the tram line unsustainable.

 

Of the top of my head there are two forms of energy that are available requiring no use of hydrocarbons the Sun if that goes out well we dont have to worry about the cost of a tram system and tidal power, very predicable, easily available as long as the Moon & Sun still stay in the sky it'll work and it might just keep the trams on time.

 

If you want to know more about alternative power systems and their environmental impact may I direct m' learned colleagues to this chap's online book.

 

http://www.withouthotair.com/

 

It require some math/arithmetic but is easily understandable and has been reccommended from both sides of the fence as it were.

 

Oh I forgot to add I heard someone in California (?) has suggested that they have run an experiment that proves cold fusion , Ha see the above re flying cars and domestic robots

[Coco]

Of the top of my head there are two forms of energy that are available requiring no use of hydrocarbons the Sun if that goes out well we dont have to worry about the cost of a tram system and tidal power, very predicable, easily available as long as the Moon & Sun still stay in the sky it'll work and it might just keep the trams on time.

 

If you want to know more about alternative power systems and their environmental impact may I direct m' learned colleagues to this chap's online book.

 

http://www.withouthotair.com/

 

It require some math/arithmetic but is easily understandable and has been reccommended from both sides of the fence as it were.

 

Oh I forgot to add I heard someone in California (?) has suggested that they have run an experiment that proves cold fusion , Ha see the above re flying cars and domestic robots

 

The Council/TIE are spending at least ?600m and probably more on the tram line. It is designed to reduce congestion by 1% (compared to the situation if the Waterfront is built). Clearly the Waterfront is delayed and therefore there will be no reduction in congestion. 80% of passengers are envisaged to come from those who currently use buses.

 

Clearly as I posted above the planning case has gone - and the Council stands to have to fund at least ?45m (with no planning gain) and all of the cost overrun (the Chairman of TIE has admitted that the line is overrunning on cost). As the situation is worse than in the Lower Planning Growth case the annual losses from the line will be at least ?20m.

 

Clearly, the Council will have to borrow more (deferred tax) or sell assets or cut services in order to fund the construction and operation of the tram line.

 

My alternative - reduce measures which have increased congestion and invest in a higher quality more efficient bus network. Should leave room for a ?500m plus saving and annual profits rather than losses.

[JamboJay]

"reduce congestion and invest in a higher quality more efficient bus network."

That's a start but it seems to me that when Princes St was open all the congestion was bus related, especially at the mound with every bus trying to get into two stops.

(By the way has anyone checked GOOGLE maps recently, they've moved the Scott Monument to where the Ross Bandstand is, should we not have been told, anyway I digress)

I'm not sure if it is a ploy to reduce congestion, you might have noticed that LRT have changed the 22 from a single decker to a double decker but reduced the sevice from 5 minutes to 6/7 minutes. Is this a better use of resources?

 

On other transport examples that were deemed 'too costly and not required at this time' how about the Forth Road Bridge, IIRC it was Fife that pushed it really hard to get access to the Central Belt but it was a very expensive shot in dark. The other is a bit more contentious but the Channel Tunnel has finally moved into profit, and I expect it will continue to make money for the next 25-50 years, but whether it will pay its original

build costs is a moot point, but would you rather not do these transport enterprises because the cost seemed too much.

On the other hand a very poor use of money in trasport is 'Concorde' that certainly would not pass any economical test even when it was designed, but that was not its raison detre.

[Coco]

"reduce congestion and invest in a higher quality more efficient bus network."

That's a start but it seems to me that when Princes St was open all the congestion was bus related, especially at the mound with every bus trying to get into two stops.

(By the way has anyone checked GOOGLE maps recently, they've moved the Scott Monument to where the Ross Bandstand is, should we not have been told, anyway I digress)

I'm not sure if it is a ploy to reduce congestion, you might have noticed that LRT have changed the 22 from a single decker to a double decker but reduced the sevice from 5 minutes to 6/7 minutes. Is this a better use of resources?

 

On other transport examples that were deemed 'too costly and not required at this time' how about the Forth Road Bridge, IIRC it was Fife that pushed it really hard to get access to the Central Belt but it was a very expensive shot in dark. The other is a bit more contentious but the Channel Tunnel has finally moved into profit, and I expect it will continue to make money for the next 25-50 years, but whether it will pay its original

build costs is a moot point, but would you rather not do these transport enterprises because the cost seemed too much.

On the other hand a very poor use of money in trasport is 'Concorde' that certainly would not pass any economical test even when it was designed, but that was not its raison detre.

 

Forth Road Bridge and the Channel Tunnel (and even Concorde) were able to draw on a far wider group to bear the cost. The cost overruns and operating losses in Edinburgh on the trams are going to be borne solely by the Edinburgh public.

 

As for the buses - making them more efficient would not just be technological but also improving the network - meaning that every journey did not need to feature a sightseeing slow trip along or across Princes Street.