Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Tram work disruption: 'Everything is pretty much on schedule'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

WHEN the Leith Walk traders hit by the tram work might have thought things couldn't get any worse, along comes the latest development that will see the introduction of a one-way system – and the bad news for Easter Road residents is that the traffic going in the opposite direction is coming their way.
No-one living or working along the tram route was led to believe the construction programme was going to be easy, but the level of disruption is surpassing all expectations. The network company TIE cannot be blamed as it appears everything is going
pretty much to schedule and it is simply doing what it has to do.

Unforeseen circumstances, such as the plunging pound and the soaring cost of materials, may yet push the final bill beyond even recent estimates, but the evidence so far is that the work is being as well-managed as possible.

Of course it remains of no comfort to those bearing the brunt of the disruption, but it remains the case that Edinburgh's public transport system needs to take a massive step forward if the city is to sustain the population growth projected for the next 20 years. By 2022 it is estimated that some 30,000 more people will be living in Edinburgh, and the immediate region will grow by 100,000 people. Given that most will work somewhere within the city boundaries, it is fanciful in the extreme to think that a transport system already at maximum capacity could cope with such an explosion.

The alternative was, of course, not to bother and let poor communication play its part in keeping a cap on expansion – there are those who do not believe it is good for Edinburgh to swell and for them the status quo was preferable.

Edinburgh has long punched above its weight for a city of its size, but it cannot stand still if its prosperity is to continue. In the digital age businesses are not tied to particular locations and it is the environment on offer which makes all the difference. And fast, clean and modern transport has a crucial role to play.

That is why it was encouraging that TIE chief executive Willie Gallagher finally aired his ambition to expand the tram line to incorporate a tram-train hybrid that could see the network running services round the South Sub and down the Waverley line, with an interchange at Haymarket. That is just the sort of imaginative thinking the city needs, but it also requires the same level of vision and energy from the politicians who in the past have found reasons not to do things rather than the opposite.

In recent days there have been signs of a new can-do attitude, with approval for the Caltongate scheme and the dramatic Haymarket hotel plan. Not everyone is happy but at least Edinburgh is not standing still.





The full article contains 491 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 June 2008 8:47 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh transport plans
 
1

Eliz,

Edinburgh 27/06/2008 16:56:15
Is this article a spoof? If not, it must have been written as a tie advert. Never read so much tosh in my life!
2

JulesF,

27/06/2008 17:01:56
'Not everyone is happy but at least Edinburgh is not standing still.'

No it's moving but at a 'Matrix' style pace !

3

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 27/06/2008 18:14:06
#1 - Agreed. TIE is a fine example of how not to project manage a major infrastructure project. Having lied to people about the level of disruption (remember no major road closures, max 7 sets of roadworks up to 200m each) when they must have known all along they had no chance of doing that, they now don't seem to care how much disruption they cause as their completion bonuses are at risk if this project is late. TIE is only interested in itself.

As for the comments re a transport system at capacity, Lothian Buses stated that they could have coped with forecast increases in population without wasting £700m+ on a train set for the vain.

Instead of regurgitating garbage from Wil-lie Gallagher this paper would have better served Edinburgh by doing a review of the business plan and how flawed it is.
4

Euan,

Edinburgh 27/06/2008 19:45:56
#1

Very well said.

Some quite outstanding b*llocks is evident throughout the very blinkered paragraphs of the said article.

#3

Very well said also.
5

Ian down under,

Kawerau 27/06/2008 23:13:25
#3 I'd be interested to see one of your omelettes. How do you do it and still keep everything inside the intact shell.

We really don't need trams, do we? After all the alternative of more roads, car parks and flyovers would cause no disruption at all. Have you ever seen a city which tried to do it all by car? Believe me it is not a nice sight and any disruption for the tramway would seem tiny in comparison.
I only get back to Edinburgh about twice a year and using a combination of buses and hire cars it strikes me just how more and more difficult the place is getting. I remember the jams during the 1970 Commonwealth Games and the place seems to be like that all the time now. I'm just lucky my family live in Longniddry which has a good train service to the city taking only 19 minutes. As for the interminable bus journey to the airport, it is not exactly a good advert for a modern, thriving city.
Get the trams in a full network, add some more suburban rail [the trackbeds are mainly intact] out to Gorebridge and Penicuik, an airport rail link and suddenly Edinburgh will come alive. If you don't believe me just go to any city which has reinstalled modern tramways and reopened suburban railways and you will see what I mean. Cities like Manchester and Dublin got some initial tramways and once people got a chance to use them whole suburbs and regions started clamouring for them. They actually work. also if oil prices keep on rising the opportunity is there to generate electricty by any sustainable means so they can have a long term future unlike petrol and diesel based transport.
6

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/06/2008 23:26:00
The joker who wrote the leader should get oot the News office sometime and try getting around the shambles that is the West End.
7

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/06/2008 23:29:49
Caltongate, the monstrosity to be built at Haymarket are praised by this diddy. Why not add St James Centre ?
8

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 00:35:41
Ian (5) - Manchester is listed as one of the tram systems that the NAO felt had not justified its expense.

Dublin goes directly past a huge hospital and university, etc.

Edinburgh was designed specifically to serve a regeneration area which had not been built and, given the current economic climate, is unlikely to be completed any time soon. The other stops are highly unlikely to generate sufficient patronage to justify both the construction or operational costs.

Tram schemes can be effective but the first rule of planning them is to put them where there will be a very high demand from the very first day of operation, irrespective of economic conditions. That will not be the case in Edinburgh.
9

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 00:44:38
#5 - If I don't need an omlette I don't go breaking eggs anyway. Well seen you do not live here and have to suffer the massive inconvenience caused to tens of thousands of people every day for no real benefit.

Are you aware that every single new build tram system in the UK has been an economic failure or that you cannot realistically compare greater Manchester and Dublin (both c.3 times the size) with Edinburgh? Or that for a total cost of >£700m (including hidden costs not shown by the liars at TIE) the incremental revenue (excluding costs remember) of the tram is less than 0.6% and that taking account of costs it will never, ever, make a return. This is the economics of the madhouse.
10

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 00:49:14
(3) GraemeH. Not only have Lothian Buses said they could cope with increased demand but also, regrettably, that they were never asked their opinion public transport solutions.

For those who think that buses can't cope, they should take a look at Curitiba, for instance, where over 2 million passengers are carried by buses a day and where the vast majority of residents travel by bus, rather than car.

For Edinburgh, of course, there could have been trolleybuses, smaller buses, more park and rides, measures to curb school runs, etc, etc, but sadly none of these were given any serious consideration whatsoever. And for those who will say that the Government grant could only be spent on trams, I gather that is absolute tripe: it was given toward public transport for Edinburgh. The problems was that our politicians decided to use the money to help the Waterfront project instead.

I don't know who is responsible for this nonsense article but I think I would rather trust the opinion of Lothian Buses. Clearly the EN journalists only speak to TIE and certain councillors. It's high time they did the public a favour and got out and found out what is going on. I suspect the EN may well rue the day it threw its support so heavily behind this project, particularly when they see the risk it is to be pose to Lothian Buses.
11

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 00:56:12
GraemeH (9) - I meant to say I have been hoping to catch you. Have you read the Appendix III - Revenue & Risk on TIE's website? If not, please do.
12

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 18:08:18
#11 - Sarah - I had read it a while ago - that's where my incremental revenues at 0.6% of cost comes from. TBH - this document, like so many others, is a bit of a joke. To exclude anyone who views trams as "bad" or "very bad" from their analysis shows the mindset.

But what it does show is just how little net revenue this farce is expected to generate for £700m+. We should not be spending such capital sums on projects with so little net economic return at a time when schools, hospitals, etc are short of funds.

It would be helpful if many of those who support the tram were to take the time to look at these reports and form proper conclusions about this project and just how small the benefits are.
13

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 19:51:18
GraemeH (12) And what are your thoughts on the scenarios examined (p23 - 27) and the consequent impact on TEL's (Lothian Buses) revenue?

It strikes me these scenarios are now all too likely and that the implications for Lothian Buses will be very serious indeed.

14

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 23:51:17
#13 - While I would expect Lothian Buses to scale bus services accordingly as growth comes through, or not as the case is, their profit growth will be impaired given the tram costs they have to bear. I do not think their survival will be at risk in any way, but it will reduce the dividends to the council which ultimately results in higher costs to council tax payers to make up the lost revenue.

But given this case is a real possibility - indeed it is more a probability now - it is further evidence of the weaknesses of the tram business plan which is predicated on expected, rather than proven, demand.

The more I read of this, the more I am amazed this scheme ever got off the ground. When someone worked out it was likely to cost £500m+ it should have been canned before a single spade was picked up.
15

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 29/06/2008 00:21:58
GraemeH (14) - I agree with what you say except that I think there will be no dividend for a very long time indeed. In fact, given the declining state of the economy and consequent implications for air travel and the N. Edinburgh developments, I suspect operating costs will exceed revenues significantly for decades to come, as illustrated in the report.

This would mean higher ticket prices on LB buses and trams and, depending on the scale of the losses (and assuming the Council will be unable to offer financial support), I should imagine there would need to be a rationalisation of bus services. If Phase 1B goes ahead (given very poor anticipated patronage), then these problems will be exacerbated.

And yet the politicians and this newspaper continue to support the project and TIE. I have long been a sceptic of the project but, having read this appendix only recently and realised the scale of the operational risk (on top of the existing construction risk), I truly despair.
16

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 29/06/2008 00:30:10
#15 - As an aside, were you aware that just prior to the election TIE signed a 15 year lease on an additional floor at their premises at Haymarket? Given the SNP were looking likely to get in and cancel both the trams and EARL (well one out of two is something) I can't help but feel this was front loading of costs to make it harder to cancel the projects. And given EARL was cancelled one must question whether this space is necessary at all.

I was also amazed when the offices were fitted out that TIE put in hardwood flooring. Having been to Goldman Sachs in London they don't have hardwood flooring! Nice to see TIE using taxpayers money so wisely.

But such vanity is to be expected from a mob who list key success stories on their website like Edinburgh Congestion Charge, Edinburgh Fastlink, Stirling Kincardine Rail Link (late and miles over budget) and EARL.
17

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 29/06/2008 19:51:17
(16) GraemeH - I have heard many similar examples of TIE's attitude towards the spending of public monies and that is part of what is wrong with so many of these arms-length companies. TIE, at virtually the second it was set up, began to recruit staff at an incredible rate - the more staff it has the more difficult it is to get rid of.

TIE must be starting to get worried: they have the tramline on their books but not alot else and, much as certain politicians seem to like them for being seen to deliver this dreadful project, it seems TIE is very unpopular with the less gullible general public.
18

shiftyworker,

Leith 30/06/2008 14:47:38
"...and the bad news for Easter Road residents is that the traffic going in the opposite direction is coming their way."

Guess how I found this out? At 7 am this morning when it started of course! 47 noisy buses an hour, around 800 per day, will be coming along my cobbled street for the next two weeks, oh joy.

Tie is falling far short of "simply doing what it has to do", and I want to know: who is responsible for keeping residents along the route informed about such disruptions?
A little warning would be appreciated to lessen the shock, but someone obviously couldn't be bothered, or forgot to even think about it. Another example of how they are stubbornly pressing on, come hell or high water.

And Ian #5 who chooses to live 12,000 miles away, wonders why Edinburgh is negative about the trams? Our council couldn't organise a drinking event in a brewery, that's why!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Would the council be right to consider raising bus fares to finance a tram extension?
Yes, it’s worth stumping up for this step forward
No, many bus passengers will never use the tram
Only if trams have space for wheelchairs and prams

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.