Edinburgh Tram developments

[NotATrainspott]

The difficulty is that you can't have tram and bus stops side by side, so whatever you do is not going to suit somebody. Given that the tram is of minor importance to public transport in Edinburgh, it's better that the buses have the more convenient stops.

Hopefully the southeast extension will never be built.

When a tram route is built, it becomes the primary means of public transport along that corridor. The reason it is planned to go along Leith Walk is because there are so many buses doing the same journey that it is efficient to replace them with longer electric trams. The same would become true of the corridor to the south east. Remember too that it is possible to split the tram line into several branches as it gets further from the city, serving more people while making the best use of the expensive city centre tram infrastructure. Also, given that both bus and tram are under one operator it is possible to arrange services so that efficient connections can be made.

Couldn't agree more. The city should not suffer any more disruption and grief to extend this municipal vanity project. There is a major inquiry going on into the whole fiasco that left us with half a tram line at the cost of a billion pounds. Once that reports, despite an orgy of document shredding in the council's offices,hopefully no one will let them anywhere near a major infrastructure project ever again.

The city has already seen the worst of the work, so to make a complete waste of all that (plus all the infrastructure and equipment waiting to be used) would be a travesty. The concept of a tram in Edinburgh serving the Leith or Royal Infirmary corridors is not a ridiculous one. TIE no longer exist and the people at the helm would never be allowed to touch the project again.

Seconded. I would also guess the publics already very limmited appitite for ny future projects will be suppressed by the promise of another 5 years of disruption from next year when the St James Quarter Redevelopment starts.

The public have now tried the tram and the evidence is there to say that they like it, very, very much. They've met their whole-year passenger number predictions and the only way is up. Now that people on Leith Walk can experience what it will be like for them to have a tram in service - remember, they'll be there for decades, centuries even - the short-term pain of the construction works is no longer an insurmountable problem.

Though amusing that the SNP said not a penny more would be given to the Tram network and have now agreed to fund their next expansion.

Given that the tram exists in some form, it is only sensible to properly complete it such that it makes an operating profit. That can only be done with the full route to Newhaven. The other branches can make the route even more profitable given that the most expensive parts of the scheme would see higher passenger numbers on the backs of relatively inexpensive infrastructure on the cycle path to Granton or on the route out to the south east. One of the other possibilities is that the idea of a congestion charge may return to the city now that people know the money would go towards extra successful tram extensions.

 

[oldman]

I have no problem with extending the tram to Leith and Newhaven, as it will bring some residential traffic to a service which does not have much at present. As long as someone else pays for it!

The problem is on-street running in an acutely congested city centre. An increased frequency on Princes Street would be horrendous, trams turning from Princes Street onto North Bridge would be horrendous, and what is going to happen on South Bridge, which is much narrower than Princes Street? Total closure to cars and an enforced ban on loading?

And actually the southeast route is not that useful. An area of tenement housing close to the city, some guest houses around Newington, a suburban shopping centre and the hospital. Not a great catchment. If you want to succeed you need to get into the schemes where people live.

The underlying problem is that Edinburgh lacks road routes avoiding the centre so both the East and West Ends are clogged with cars crossing the city. But how else do you drive from Morningside to Leith - via the bypass? The trammie answer is often that motorists would switch to the tram, and some would, but most would not.

I don't know what the solution is, but I sure know the tram was not it, and would not have been even if the implementation had been well-managed.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think this post says it all

 

[NotATrainspott]

I have no problem with extending the tram to Leith and Newhaven, as it will bring some residential traffic to a service which does not have much at present. As long as someone else pays for it!

Finishing the route that has already been legislated for is the best first step, especially as that process of legislation was expensive and time-consuming so it would be best not to have to repeat it. The line to Granton is somewhat segregated so there should be no real problems constructing or running it.

The problem is on-street running in an acutely congested city centre. An increased frequency on Princes Street would be horrendous, trams turning from Princes Street onto North Bridge would be horrendous, and what is going to happen on South Bridge, which is much narrower than Princes Street? Total closure to cars and an enforced ban on loading?

However, once trams start to take over from buses, their efficiency really starts to kick in. Instead of having a lot of buses, there can be a smaller number of larger trams which can then load and unload significantly faster due to their large number of doors and special platforms. The alternative to trams would have been some sort of long articulated trolleybus rapid transit system which would require the same sort of platforms and segregation/traffic diversion as a tram, without the energy efficiency and requiring more complicated overhead lines.

And actually the southeast route is not that useful. An area of tenement housing close to the city, some guest houses around Newington, a suburban shopping centre and the hospital. Not a great catchment. If you want to succeed you need to get into the schemes where people live.

No, if you want to succeed, you connect places where people live to places where people work to places where people play. Connecting the same type of areas to one another is not a bad idea but you need people to use the tram to get to work. The south east hosts much of the University, the hospital and the future BioQuarter which are all places with high commuting demand. The tram can then allow people to live in Leith or the west end area and commute to these places, in a way that buses simply cannot. If you want to build a huge student housing development outwith walking distance from the university, your business plan hinges upon there being easy transport from one to another. Buses simply cannot deliver the necessary assurance as they can be changed at a whim. Trams, on the other hand, are such a permanent piece of infrastructure that any developer would know for certain that their investment would never fail. Building the tram route will not solve problems immediately but it will allow things to happen in future that wouldn't be possible today and are positive for the city.

The underlying problem is that Edinburgh lacks road routes avoiding the centre so both the East and West Ends are clogged with cars crossing the city. But how else do you drive from Morningside to Leith - via the bypass? The trammie answer is often that motorists would switch to the tram, and some would, but most would not.

Over a long period of time, as the tram network grows and grows, the number of passengers able to use it (and the buses, as part of an integrated transport network) is going to increase. The council identified three basic lines to consider as a starting point for the network - Line 1 being the loop along Princes Street, Leith, Newhaven, Granton and Haymarket; Line 2 being Haymarket to the Airport and Newbridge and Line 3 being to Newcraighall via the South East. Once these are in place, the case for other new lines increases as well as the possible number of connections increases. Simultaneously, as it becomes less and less essential to use a car to get around the city, it becomes possible to have a congestion charge that will pay for more tram routes and would reduce congestion anyway. If absolutely necessary, that congestion charge money could even be spent on some form of inner-city road bypass like the Dublin Port Tunnel.

I don't know what the solution is, but I sure know the tram was not it, and would not have been even if the implementation had been well-managed.

Even if the tram is not a fantastic solution, it must be compared against the possible alternatives. If it is the least-bad option, then it is the only option worth considering. Realistically, the only alternative that would have most of the benefits with few of the drawbacks would be to drop the tram into a tunnel. This would cost rather a lot of money and cause rather a lot of disruption, but I would not be terribly opposed to if should the need arise.

 

[Haydn1971]

Rode the Edinburgh Tram yesterday, the trams and stops seem tidy, the ticketing was fairly easy to understand, but there needs to be a lot of work done on getting the tram prioritised over other traffic - the time we just sat waiting was pretty mediocre compared to my experiences here in Sheffield.

 

[edwin_m]

Part of the efficiency of the tram kicks in once the route becomes cross-city instead of terminating in the centre as it does today. If they extended the tram towards Leith then trams on Princes Street probably wouldn't be any more frequent, but they would be carrying people to the Leith route as well as from the Airport route (or vice versa). That's about twice as many people moved for the same amount of disruption.

However I still remain of the opinion that the tram needs to prove itself with several years of successful operation before any extension is seriously contemplated. This is for political rather than technical reasons.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm talking about time waiting in traffic whilst on the tram - not the frequency.

In particular around the Queensferry Street junction due to traffic congestion, the area around Haymarket for no particular obvious reason, plus the time from doors closing to setting off in the eastern urban section.

Sheffield has selective vehicle priority, this has been rolled out to buses both in Sheffield and much of West Yorkshire, I'd heard that the same techniques had been applied to the tramway. Used to be called Spruce, then it was rolled up into a solution by VIX, recently changed to ACIS if I recall correctly

 

[DaveNewcastle]

And actually the southeast route is not that useful. An area of tenement housing close to the city, some guest houses around Newington, a suburban shopping centre and the hospital. Not a great catchment. If you want to succeed you need to get into the schemes where people live.

I disagree.
Detailed responses would depend on the precise route and on future developments, but I see great benefit of a tram service to the Royal Infirmary (for staff as much as for visitors).

No, if you want to succeed, you connect places where people live to places where people work to places where people play. Connecting the same type of areas to one another is not a bad idea but you need people to use the tram to get to work. The south east hosts much of the University, the hospital and the future BioQuarter which are all places with high commuting demand. The tram can then allow people to live in Leith or the west end area and commute to these places, in a way that buses simply cannot. If you want to build a huge student housing development outwith walking distance from the university, your business plan hinges upon there being easy transport from one to another. Buses simply cannot deliver the necessary assurance as they can be changed at a whim. Trams, on the other hand, are such a permanent piece of infrastructure that any developer would know for certain that their investment would never fail. Building the tram route will not solve problems immediately but it will allow things to happen in future that wouldn't be possible today and are positive for the city.

Yes, and analysing the prospects in these terms, then I see an excellent mix of existing housing with low car ownership (Moredun, Inch, Gilmerton), potential development sites (south of the RIE to Danderhall and Millerhill), popular facilities (Cameron Toll, Campuses), and the potential to transform struggilng retail centres (the concentration of charity shops and used goods resellers on Nicholson Street identifies the failing economy).

I have a good assessment of the success of a tram service linking the south east to the City Centre and, hopefully, to other districts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In particular around the Queensferry Street junction due to traffic congestion, the area around Haymarket for no particular obvious reason, plus the time from doors closing to setting off in the eastern urban section.

There is certainly something not right around Haymarket.
Road traffic is stopped on West Coates (which the tram doesn't even cross) while an eastbound tram crawls up from the offices and into the passenger stop.

 

[oldman]

The line to Granton is somewhat segregated so there should be no real problems constructing or running it.

But would, presumably, require doubling the frequency down Princes Street causing gridlock. And you would have to retain a lot of the bus services to serve Stockbridge, the Western General, Muirhouse etc. It's a bit like the existing line missing out the large population around Stenhouse; it was built where it can be built easily rather than where it should be built.

Building the tram route will not solve problems immediately but it will allow things to happen in future that wouldn't be possible today and are positive for the city.

So we just have to be patient. It will be fine in the end. The trouble with the tram is that it is seen as a panacea by people who don't want to face up to the problems the city has. There are lots of things that could be done now: use CCTV to enforce parking and loading restrictions, stop taking road capacity in George Street and elsewhere for pavement cafes. Maybe some road improvements, shock horror. You can do a lot with a billion pounds.

If it is the least-bad option, then it is the only option worth considering.

Well that is a vote of confidence and no mistake! I get the feeling you graduated from the General Haig school of transport planning - if Plan A does not work, try Plan A, and if that fails we can always fall back on Plan A.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But would, presumably, require doubling the frequency down Princes Street causing gridlock. And you would have to retain a lot of the bus services to serve Stockbridge, the Western General, Muirhouse etc. It's a bit like the existing line missing out the large population around Stenhouse; it was built where it can be built easily rather than where it should be built.

The current 6tph service each way down Princes Street will double when the line to Newhaven is complete, with the current 6tph from the Airport terminating in the central platform at Ocean Terminal and an extra 6tph running from the Haymarket turnback siding to Newhaven. The line to Granton would then extend the Haymarket terminators, and eventually the waterfront connection between Granton and Newhaven would turn that service into a loop. Only once the line to the south east is open would there then be another 6tph down Princes Street which would probably then turn back once again in the Haymarket siding.

The lines have been/are to be built in the least unsuitable places that are practical. People will walk a few hundred metres to use a tram when it is a superior mode of transportation compared to the alternative - if not, why do people walk to train or tube stations if they could pop on a bus closer to them instead? Remember that the tram acts in tandem with the Lothian Buses network and as more routes are opened, the bus network will be reconfigured to work with it.

So we just have to be patient. It will be fine in the end. The trouble with the tram is that it is seen as a panacea by people who don't want to face up to the problems the city has. There are lots of things that could be done now: use CCTV to enforce parking and loading restrictions, stop taking road capacity in George Street and elsewhere for pavement cafes. Maybe some road improvements, shock horror. You can do a lot with a billion pounds.

The problem here is that your solution consists of making life easier for motorists to get around the city. Doing that might be good in the short term but what we've seen across the entire UK is that basing the transport policy of a city upon road traffic has helped get them into the mess they're in right now. If you enhance road capacity to make journeys faster, you will simply encourage people to drive to the point where there is no overall improvement to the city. That extra road capacity simply creates more traffic is quite a well-known effect and in a city like Edinburgh, that extra traffic just means more pollution and a lower quality of life. Discouraging people from driving and encouraging them to use public transport, especially electrified forms such as the tram, can only improve the city overall. As trams are the single most space-efficient street-running mode of transport, the total amount of space available on the roads does not have to decrease much in order to serve a huge amount of people who would otherwise need even more space if they used their own private cars or used buses on heavily-trafficked routes.

Well that is a vote of confidence and no mistake! I get the feeling you graduated from the General Haig school of transport planning - if Plan A does not work, try Plan A, and if that fails we can always fall back on Plan A.

What would your real alternative be then?

 

[duncanp]

As a former student of Heriot Watt University, I wonder if it would be profitable to build a branch line to serve the Riccarton Campus.

It would probably need to diverge from the existing line around Bankhead and then run up to the Calder Road and out to Sighthill and Riccarton.

The University has a large number of students who do not have access to a car, and are reliant on public transport. This line would also serve the housing scheme at Sighthill, the Sighthill Industrial Estate and the park and ride at Hermiston.

Running a tram through the Sighthill Industrial Estate might also attract investment and jobs to the area.

I realise this will probably never happen, but if you want to make the trams profitable you have to send them to where people live and work, as has been pointed out earlier.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As a former student of Heriot Watt University, I wonder if it would be profitable to build a branch line to serve the Riccarton Campus.

It would probably need to diverge from the existing line around Bankhead and then run up to the Calder Road and out to Sighthill and Riccarton.

The University has a large number of students who do not have access to a car, and are reliant on public transport. This line would also serve the housing scheme at Sighthill, the Sighthill Industrial Estate and the park and ride at Hermiston.

Running a tram through the Sighthill Industrial Estate might also attract investment and jobs to the area.

I realise this will probably never happen, but if you want to make the trams profitable you have to send them to where people live and work, as has been pointed out earlier.

A Riccarton branch was one of the components of the original West Edinburgh line proposed in the 2003 LRT study. There's a problem in getting over/under the City Bypass and the canal though which is the biggest sticking point. For this route to be possible, it will be necessary to have the right number of trams continuing through to somewhere else in the city which would likely be done through the South East line. Instead of terminating at the Haymarket sidings, I imagine half of them would run to the Riccarton spur and the other half would continue to the proposed Newbridge extension.

 

[ian1944]

Rode the Edinburgh Tram yesterday, the trams and stops seem tidy, the ticketing was fairly easy to understand, but there needs to be a lot of work done on getting the tram prioritised over other traffic - the time we just sat waiting was pretty mediocre compared to my experiences here in Sheffield.

You talk as if it's only car traffic not being prioritised over by the tram. There's little of that on the main part of Princes St, so giving the tram priority there would make the bus-users' experience even worse. Even now, I hop off in Leith St and walk to anywhere in the city centre when coming in from the east - it may not be quicker than staying on the bus as it limps along, but it certainly seems so, and what is not wanted is something even worse.

I don't know Sheffield in any detail, but I'm sure that it doesn't have one street used by most of the public transport in the centre, in the same way as Edinburgh. It was always my view that George St was the route for the trams, interfering with Princes St only once, at the west end, but did they listen?

 

[Haydn1971]

I don't know Sheffield in any detail, but I'm sure that it doesn't have one street used by most of the public transport in the centre, in the same way as Edinburgh. It was always my view that George St was the route for the trams, interfering with Princes St only once, at the west end, but did they listen?

It does actually... But as a genius idea, the tram was segregated for most of it (Commercial Street and High Street) and non bus traffic was restricted from entering the other bit (West Street)

Other parts of the network, such as Park Grange Road, City Road, Middlewood Road, and Infirmary Road had lots of things done to them or nearby to either restrict non bus traffic of encourage traffic to other parallel routes - extensive work was also done on giving the tram the highest priority - you don't spend £100M's on a rapid transit system to have them stuck in the same traffic as a bus would be.

 

[edwin_m]

It does actually... But as a genius idea, the tram was segregated for most of it (Commercial Street and High Street) and non bus traffic was restricted from entering the other bit (West Street)

Other parts of the network, such as Park Grange Road, City Road, Middlewood Road, and Infirmary Road had lots of things done to them or nearby to either restrict non bus traffic of encourage traffic to other parallel routes - extensive work was also done on giving the tram the highest priority - you don't spend £100M's on a rapid transit system to have them stuck in the same traffic as a bus would be.

The complaint soon after opening was exactly that, particularly on the Middlewood route outside the city centre. The buses were also able to take a more direct route whereas the trams do a big dogleg to serve the University. This might have been OK in a regulated environment but with no restraints on bus operators they were able to provide faster direct journeys. This may be one reason why Edinburgh went for fast direct routes rather than slower ones serving more patronage.

I believe some extra priority measures were added later. I have a copy somewhere of the late Peter Fox's writings which gave a lot of detail on why Supertram wasn't initially successful.

 

[Haydn1971]

Indeed, the tram was conceived in the regulated era, with a route designed to service large areas of local authority housing, people that didn't have cars in the 70's, coming of age in 94 at a time when the bus market was extremely competitive and the intended passenger demographic had significantly shifted.

 

[kylemore]

As it stands the Tram is an absolute basket case economically and is in danger of bringing down Lothian Buses - which is perhaps the real reason behind the very public infighting at Lothian Buses at the moment?

 

[90019]

As it stands the Tram is an absolute basket case economically and is in danger of bringing down Lothian Buses - which is perhaps the real reason behind the very public infighting at Lothian Buses at the moment?

Ian Craig is pro tram - the council like him and won't get rid of him, allegedly.

 

[kylemore]

Ian Craig is pro tram - the council like him and won't get rid of him, allegedly.

Ian Craig is there to bury the Tram losses and costs as far as possible in Lothian Buses, hence the desperate attempts by Hinds and those behind her to keep him in place. His opposition in Lothian see that and the danger this poses to what they have built up.
I am not anti-tram, far from it, however THIS PROJECT has done more harm to the cause of light rail in Scotland than anything the anti-rail/pro-roads shower could ever dream of.

 

[90019]

Ian Craig is there to bury the Tram losses and costs as far as possible in Lothian Buses, hence the desperate attempts by Hinds and those behind her to keep him in place. His opposition in Lothian see that and the danger this poses to what they have built up.

Alas, I can't really comment further on a public forum.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I am not anti-tram, far from it, however THIS PROJECT has done more harm to the cause of light rail in Scotland than anything the anti-rail/pro-roads shower could ever dream of.

That is true.

The passenger numbers on the line as it exists at the moment are higher than predicted. As the line was predicted to be revenue-neutral once extended to Leith, it would appear that the investment needed to complete it will properly stem the tide of losses and secure the future of the route and light rail in Scotland.

 

[kylemore]

Alas, I can't really comment further on a public forum.

A man in the know!

I'm not, but it doesn't take a "Philadelphia Lawyer" to work out what's going on.

 

[90019]

A man in the know!

I'm not, but it doesn't take a "Philadelphia Lawyer" to work out what's going on.

It goes deeper than you might think, and the way lots of little things are interlinked is most interesting.
I don't know a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, but the bits and pieces I've gathered from other people have made me realise that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

To be honest, the main thing that irritates me is that we don't know what's actually happened until it gets leaked and printed in the Evening News.

 

[Blindtraveler]

And its these self same articles that do nobody withing Lothian or indeed TFE Any good what so ever as the amazing reputation of the orgonisation is being brought down by it all. I hope as Im sure do many for new year new start, but lets see.

 

[90019]

And its these self same articles that do nobody withing Lothian or indeed TFE Any good what so ever as the amazing reputation of the orgonisation is being brought down by it all.

I'm quite glad that the Evening News has been printing this stuff, because without it, a lot of us who work for them wouldn't know what's actually been going on.

I hope as Im sure do many for new year new start, but lets see.

As do I, but it won't happen without more people leaving/being sacked/being resigned, and depending who goes, it might not be a good thing.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Im rather amazed that the first you guys here of it is when the evening news publishes something and for that reason fare play to them. Agreed that things will vary on who does or doesnt go.

 

[90019]

Im rather amazed that the first you guys here of it is when the evening news publishes something and for that reason fare play to them.

Oh, there were lots of rumours, but nothing official until things started to be leaked to the Evening News, and they're still not telling us very much.


We're clearly valued as a workforce*. :roll:


*By some of the senior management, going by my own experience.

 

[extendedpaul]

Please excuse me that this question is probably covered elsewhere in this thread but there are a lot of posts here !

My wife and I are visiting Edinburgh shortly, for me the trip is partly in order to travel on the tram system. A day ticket including Lothian Buses costs a very reasonable £3.50 but for the whole line including the airport it's £9.00.

Generally I like to do the whole of a journey but I note that the stretch between Ingliston and the Airport takes only 2-3 minutes which makes an extra £5.50 seem a lot of money.

Is there enough to see on that stretch to justify us spending an extra £11 ?

 

[90019]

Is there enough to see on that stretch to justify us spending an extra £11 ?

In a word; no.

 

[reb0118]

A day ticket including Lothian Buses costs a very reasonable £3.50 but for the whole line including the airport it's £9.00.

If you are arriving by train you can get a plusbus ticket for £3.00. This will offer much greater flexibility.

Generally I like to do the whole of a journey but I note that the stretch between Ingliston and the Airport takes only 2-3 minutes which makes an extra £5.50 seem a lot of money.

Very true, you're not missing much. If you ever arrive by plane some time in the future you can always chalk this part off. Through fares are available from the TVM in the departures area to all Scottish destinations.

Is there enough to see on that stretch to justify us spending an extra £11 ?

To confirm 90019's prognosis - not really.