Edinburgh Tram developments

[Avenger20]

The trams in Amsterdam are lighter, don't interface with bikes in the same way, and because of the amount of single line track and number of stops they're barely moving anyway. Can't remember for certain whether they run late at night, but my gut instinct is that they don't. I imagine it will probably be fine, particularly since they haven't yet done anything really stupid like tried to run the trams up South Bridge, but I wouldn't characterize it as risk-free.

Have you been to Amsterdam? I can assure you that trams (and everything else!) interfaces with bikes A LOT. There are bikes absolutely everywhere and also, yes there are late night trams in Amsterdam. Not on all routes, but they do run late night.

 

[Siemens Trains]

What are the trams like for Murrayfield events normally? The Scotland Rugby team have been playing between 5 and 7 sellouts a year since the trams opened quite a while ago and I've not seen many reports of problem for them.

For passengers travelling only a short distance, the trams don't seem very good for events at Murrayfield around kick-off and kick-out times. The low capacity of trams and congestion around the stadium mean the walk to/from somewhere like Shandwick Place is quicker and more pleasant. After all, you can't expect demand from say 10,000 passengers in 30 minutes to be absorbed by about 10 trams with a capacity of roughly 200 each. Actually 5 trams in each direction during these chaotic 30 minute periods is generous in my experience.
Maybe different for longer distances like the airport or Newhaven towards Murrayfield, where you may get the advantage of boarding the first tram that arrives, bagging a seat and nodding off for the journey.
But in fairness I don't think supporting events at Murrayfield was a major tram requirement. To serve it properly you'd need something like a London Underground station or Parisian RER, which is hardly worthwhile for a dozen events per year.

 

[Falcon1200]

Perhaps the issue on the occasion being discussed was simply that the tram operator had underestimated, or not checked in advance, the likely attendance at a friendly match between two non-local (or even Scottish!) teams?

 

[duncanp]

But in fairness I don't think supporting events at Murrayfield was a major tram requirement. To serve it properly you'd need something like a London Underground station or Parisian RER, which is hardly worthwhile for a dozen events per year.

Even if Murrayfield had a tube or main line railway station, it would struggle to cope with the crowds.

Wembley Park station on the London Underground has been built for handling large crowds, and even then you have to queue for up to an hour to get into the station after a football match or concert.

Similarly at Old Trafford on Manchester Metrolink, to the extent that people find it easier to walk to nearby tram stops on different lines.

When I lived in Edinburgh and when to matches at Murrayfield, I would usually walk South from the stadium towards Gorgie Road, away from the main flow of the crowds, and where it was easier to jump on a bus, or find a pub where you didn't have to queue for ages to get served.

 

[Siemens Trains]

Perhaps the issue on the occasion being discussed was simply that the tram operator had underestimated, or not checked in advance, the likely attendance at a friendly match between two non-local (or even Scottish!) teams?

Not really - the same arrangements for road closures etc were made as per any other sell-out event at Murrayfield. I doubt there's much more that could be done in terms of tram resources. The area is always mobbed with people, the tram route gets blocked, doors can't close, road junctions clogged up and so on. The service can't operate properly around match times, and it could never have enough capacity at peak times regardless of planning, as stated above.
The main difference is that last week's Man Utd vs Lyon game was the first Murrayfield event since the tram line was extended down Leith Walk. Therefore a good opportunity for staunch tram critics to highlight the overspend and imperfections on social media to a receptive audience. No offence intended by the way - I say that as a tram sceptic myself.

 

[InOban]

Surely the recent concerts were after the tram extension opened? The only difference was that the concerts were in the evening.
The tram service is aimed at encouraging people to park at Ingliston.

 

[Blindtraveler]

And for those unaware, the p and r site at ingleston was just about at capacity by mid morning on that day, I even saw it on FB down in Kent. Whilst this is a tram thread and I will unashamedly highlight the systems many faults and inadequacies it does perhaps pose a question about adequacy or lack thereof of Edinburgh's park and ride infrastructure, almost all of which was built a decade or so ago or in some cases more and in that decade the way the city is run and operated has changed massively.

I wonder if it's time for this to be looked at by the council and stakeholders and transport operators in a little more detail, regardless of any post-pandemic working pattern and therefore commuting and parking changes that there may have been, it seems to be coming clear that there is not enough park and ride capacity around the city for those who want to use it regardless of whether they are traveling by tram or bus or bike or hitching a ride on the back of a golden eagle

 

[NotATrainspott]

Park and rides are not really that good a use of public money. Ingliston won't be around forever, because the land around the tram is too valuable and is going to be filled up with actual housing and office developments. P&Rs can only really exist in a narrow band where there's good public transport links but where the land is sufficiently low in value that there's nothing better to do with it than use it to store empty cars for a day.

The city running out of P&R capacity isn't a problem so long as car drivers can't then go and dump their cars elsewhere in the city instead. If you want to drive your car to somewhere popular, you really should be accounting for the cost of parking it. If you're not paying for parking, then someone else like the taxpayer is doing so instead, even though they don't benefit from it. People are making decisions to drive vs using other transport modes. If those decisions were different, then we would be able to invest differently in other modes too. If parking becomes expensive and people are pushed onto rail or bus, then we can more easily justify investment in rail and bus services.

 

[SteveP29]

The main difference is that last week's Man Utd vs Lyon game was the first Murrayfield event since the tram line was extended down Leith Walk. Therefore a good opportunity for staunch tram critics to highlight the overspend and imperfections on social media to a receptive audience. No offence intended by the way - I say that as a tram sceptic myself.

The only problem I had with it was that nearly 2 hours after the game apparently ended, there was still a massive problem with crowd and traffic dispersal from Georgie Road where public transport had been redirected

And for those unaware, the p and r site at ingleston was just about at capacity by mid morning on that day, I even saw it on FB down in Kent. Whilst this is a tram thread and I will unashamedly highlight the systems many faults and inadequacies it does perhaps pose a question about adequacy or lack thereof of Edinburgh's park and ride infrastructure, almost all of which was built a decade or so ago or in some cases more and in that decade the way the city is run and operated has changed massively.

The problem I see with Edinburgh is that it is, in my opinion a two and a half sided city, where if you think of it as a square with 4 sides, you'd say that one and a half of those sides is surrounded by the sea, so that limits entry and exit points.
In fact, with the pentlands, you could probably argue that takes another 'side' away from the city, so everything gets directed to the south eastwards of the Pentlands and westwards between the Pentlands and the FOF.
I encountered the same problem when I still lived at home and worked in Sunderland, I call that a three sided city, the east of it being the North Sea.
In both situations, it limits the availability of access routes both into and out of the city and those routes fill up quickly. To provide more public transport options, you're having to go further and further out of the city, which tends to defeat the object

 

[Blindtraveler]

This is a really great analysis and should provide some necessary food for thought to some particularly those who don't know the geography well


With regards to the poster up thread who says that p and r capacity at ingleston won't be there forever, I would suggest that it will as the most likely development or redevelopment of that site would be by the airport or one of its associated businesses such as freight storage or hotel capacity just as an example, it would be full hardy to say the very least of whoever was in charge of the city orthodies and therefore the planning process at the time that said redevelopment is tabled for them not to specify that anything being built have several levels of underground parking or a multi-story as having spent all that money on a tram to take commuters into the city including those who interchange from bus services in that area there hardly going to want to remove its usefulness and give the tram haters another reason to criticize

 

[oldman]

The problem I see with Edinburgh is that it is, in my opinion a two and a half sided city, where if you think of it as a square with 4 sides, you'd say that one and a half of those sides is surrounded by the sea, so that limits entry and exit points.

The geography is interesting, although if you go round the south of the city beyond 10 miles from the centre the population is mostly sheep who don't want to travel to the city.

The main problem is within that ten mile radius, including Midlothian and west East Lothian. There just isn't a lot of road space. In particular getting from suburb to suburb is difficult which forces traffic onto radial routes or through the city centre. In addition there are no east to west routes to the south of the city which puts a strain on the bypass.

The upshot is that public transport is slow and unreliable and people stick to their cars and you have a vicious circle.

The transport convenor has grand ideas -

My focus right now is increasing public transport capacity from surrounding local authorities. This is about making it safer, faster and more reliable. By 2025 I hope to have the public transport capacity in place to make a real dent in Edinburgh’s congestion problem.

- but his main love is active travel and he hasn't a clue (I know him) about public transport.

 

[NotATrainspott]

This is a really great analysis and should provide some necessary food for thought to some particularly those who don't know the geography well


With regards to the poster up thread who says that p and r capacity at ingleston won't be there forever, I would suggest that it will as the most likely development or redevelopment of that site would be by the airport or one of its associated businesses such as freight storage or hotel capacity just as an example, it would be full hardy to say the very least of whoever was in charge of the city orthodies and therefore the planning process at the time that said redevelopment is tabled for them not to specify that anything being built have several levels of underground parking or a multi-story as having spent all that money on a tram to take commuters into the city including those who interchange from bus services in that area there hardly going to want to remove its usefulness and give the tram haters another reason to criticize

The International Business Gateway and West Town proposals are the relevant ones here. They are not about providing a few more airport-related buildings like hotels and storage. They are about building entire new districts of the city with a density largely matching that of Leith and other secondary centres. For now, the IBG plans don't include the P&R but the idea that it'll remain a plain surface car park when the land around it is all built up to 6 storeys is somewhat ridiculous. A multi-storey car park is a very expensive structure and it's extremely unlikely that the council will pay for one out of the goodness of their hearts, given how poor the business case for P&Rs really are.

The only way it might be able to work is if it costs money to park there, as is common for major MSCP P&R schemes on London commuter routes. People there just don't have the option of driving all the way instead, and most P&Rs will already be full with other commuters. The land around a station is normally much more profitably used to build housing, so car parks have to pay their way in order to survive.

We should be working out where people are coming from, and improve public transport from there. That might mean more P&Rs there but it should also allow more people to get to the station without needing a car at all. That's the only real solution for public transport access to the city centre.

Indeed, the fact that the entire exurban commuter population of Edinburgh is constrained into a few narrow corridors means that public transport should be even easier to develop. The combination of tram and enhanced local Borders Railway services (4tph to Gorebridge) should remove most justification for people from the south to drive into the city centre.

 

[och aye]

The geography is interesting, although if you go round the south of the city beyond 10 miles from the centre the population is mostly sheep who don't want to travel to the city.

That's a bit of a harsh way to describe the folk who live there.

 

[InOban]

You could always improve the economics of P&R by covering the site with solar panels - I think in France all supermarket cps are going to be covered in the next few years.

All new housing without the City boundary is at high density. If you want your detached 'executive houses'(!) you need to move to an estate further out.

 

[Blindtraveler]

If you are Edinburgh Council, I should imagine that p and r regardless of its basket case economics would look much better as a proposition if it was providing more passengers for the existing tram route and any in the future and removing congestion in the city centre which they are of course very keen to do although not all together for the right motivations in my own opinion, and so regardless of what's going to happen out west in the next five or 10 years a plan is needed now for the avoidance of a repeat of the situation described a page or so back where the current tram route simply did not cope. The side discussion on p and r is interesting but probably for another thread but the bit of it that's relevant here is if we're regularly going to see sites such as this being at capacity by mid-morning what are we going to do? The current transport convener and his love of active travel he is all well and good and till your asking people who have come from any of those areas out with the city that are too far to walk or cycle and also to all the people from much much further away who have been drawn to Edinburgh due to its international tourism and events programs plus the festival which are a high priority to the council



I find it highly concerning that the existing tram service struggled the other day and equally concerning that there were still traffic bottlenecks on the diversion routes for buses and other vehicles for such a long time afterwards, and no school run either as Edinburgh and Scottish schools finished a month or so back



Fully aware that there is no money and that the city is already mortgage for decades to come paying for all this, in terms of a future development proposition in the next couple of years for the tram, how easy or not would it be to install some more turn back infrastructure particularly on the city and western end of the root to allow higher frequencies or indeed a separate self-contained shuttle that would have absolutely no impact on the street running section?

 

[JamboCommuter]

As mentioned earlier in the thread the next proposed extension to the tram system is the spur heading towards Granton. Provision has been made so that trams coming from both east and west can switch onto the spur.

As also highlighted the planning permission granted for the route is now inadequate to include the desired active travel requirements. This may mean the cost of the spur is now prohibitive in terms of the widening of bridges etc.

However I wonder if there's still a possible solution to the issue of extra tram capacity being needed for the ever increasing number of events at Murrayfield.

Perhaps the initial section of the Granton spur could be built as far as the proposed stop at Roseburn Terrace? Access to the North and West Stands would be only a 10 minute walk. This would give the stadium a second tram stop which could be the turn around point for shuttle services into the city centre and also back out towards the park and ride.

Of course the cost of this would need to be found but the length of track would only be about 0.5 km. It also wouldn't be unreasonable to ask the SRU for a contribution!

As a final thought I used to live near Murrayfield and it was always a real pain trying to get home when a match was on. This was back in the days before the tram line and delays were caused by buses having to be diverted through busier streets. The problem probably seems much worse now because the stadium is used far, far more often than just for a couple of rugby internationals a year.

 

[NotATrainspott]

With those developments south of the airport, the council already know it has to go up to 16tph. The very expensive infrastructure they built is capable of much, much higher frequency than it is currently being used for. The limit on frequency has, until now, been the awkward single track terminus at York Place along with the demand and staffing numbers they can justify. The Newhaven extension is already meant to run at 12tph with a plan to go up to 16tph (4 and then 8tph terminating at Haymarket). Running the 16tph out to the Airport would be perfectly possible but only as part of the other plans for network expansion. Those 8tph terminating at Haymarket are meant to be extended up to Granton; sending them out to the Airport means you can't build the Granton branch without also building at least some of Line 3 to balance up the numbers.

If the P&Rs are too busy then the correct and natural response is to start charging for them. People are using them because they are convenient and save them time and money. Charging for them will help free up capacity for the people who really need them, as well as helping to make them more self-sustaining. If they can start to pay their way, then the cost of building more spaces (e.g. an MSCP) becomes easier to justify too. Parking is never free and a full P&R is a vivid demonstration of how a seemingly innocuous thing can end up causing quite a bit of pain. Would you rather a free car park that fills up unexpectedly or one that costs a little bit of money but you can plan your life around it?

 

[Falcon1200]

If the P&Rs are too busy then the correct and natural response is to start charging for them.

I disagree; If the P&Rs are too busy the correct response is surely to extend them (and provide a commensurate level of tram service), not charge for both them and using the tram, thus encouraging people back into using their cars.

 

[zwk500]

I disagree; If the P&Rs are too busy the correct response is surely to extend them (and provide a commensurate level of tram service), not charge for both them and using the tram, thus encouraging people back into using their cars.

You integrate the P&R fee into the tram fare, surely?

 

[Falcon1200]

You integrate the P&R fee into the tram fare, surely?

Which would still increase the cost; And how would it work for any more than one person arriving per car?

 

[Mal]

Fully aware that there is no money and that the city is already mortgage for decades to come paying for all this, in terms of a future development proposition in the next couple of years for the tram, how easy or not would it be to install some more turn back infrastructure particularly on the city and western end of the root to allow higher frequencies or indeed a separate self-contained shuttle that would have absolutely no impact on the street running section?

I think the problem with installing 'turn back' infrastructure would be the disruption to tram services and possible loss of passengers while the new points were being installed.

 

[Sunil_P]

Visited Edinburgh on July 13th, arrived at St Andrews Square stop around 2.50pm and was at Newhaven by 3.20pm. Left Newhaven around 3.38pm and got back to St Andrews by 4pm, so a bit quicker heading back into town.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I disagree; If the P&Rs are too busy the correct response is surely to extend them (and provide a commensurate level of tram service), not charge for both them and using the tram, thus encouraging people back into using their cars.

Extending the P&R costs money. Why is the council going to spend that money on an extended P&R vs any other travel investment? The business case is poor. The land around Ingliston is very valuable for other purposes; buying it would be expensive, and even if the council already owns it, the opportunity cost of not selling it for development is just as high. Building up with an MSCP is expensive too. Car parks cost on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of pounds per space. There are cheaper ways to remove a car from the streets of the city!

P&Rs only really make sense in that narrow band where the transport links are alright but the land isn't too valuable yet. But, as soon as a competing priorities appear, it's game over, unless you can start charging for it like around London.

Which would still increase the cost; And how would it work for any more than one person arriving per car?

Why should tram passengers who haven't foisted their car upon the city have to pay for passengers who have? Someone has to pay for parking. If it isn't the person who parked the car, then everyone else is paying instead, even if they don't benefit at all!

Similarly, the free parking at supermarkets is actually paid for by the people who walk, get the bus or a taxi (i.e. poorer people) who then pay the same for their shopping as someone who drove there.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why is the council going to spend that money on an extended P&R vs any other travel investment?

Because P&R encourages people to leave their car and take the tram into the city centre, instead of driving to an out-of-town shopping centre (with of course free parking)

The land around Ingliston is very valuable for other purposes; buying it would be expensive

Ingliston P&R appears to be surrounded, mostly, by fields!

Similarly, the free parking at supermarkets is actually paid for by the people who walk, get the bus or a taxi (i.e. poorer people) who then pay the same for their shopping as someone who drove there.

What percentage of the price paid for shopping is needed to provide free parking - A tiny, tiny fraction I would suggest.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Because P&R encourages people to leave their car and take the tram into the city centre, instead of driving to an out-of-town shopping centre (with of course free parking)



Ingliston P&R appears to be surrounded, mostly, by fields!



What percentage of the price paid for shopping is needed to provide free parking - A tiny, tiny fraction I would suggest.

Fields which are about to be developed into 6 storey buildings. Go and look at the plans for the IBG and West Town and then tell me that the land nearby is worthless.

From the city's perspective it would be better if people didn't drive to Ingliston and instead took the bus or train from where they started. Better services to accommodate that can only be done when the demand is there, and that demand won't build up if you just keep spending money on P&Rs.

It's not about P&Rs being inherently bad, but about them being a relatively limited solution to a problem. Once demand grows you really need to look at alternative options. For instance, P&Rs work pretty much anywhere you have free land where rail and road connections come together. Building more P&R capacity further out at e.g. Uphall might be a better use of funds, while delivering the same benefit overall. The further away the P&Rs, the less vehicle miles are driven to use them and the more demand there is for good public transport further out which might obviate the need for driving at all.

Out of town shopping centres aren't exactly thriving, so basing your public transport investment strategy on them isn't really a good idea. Also, remember that this P&R can maybe handle 1000 cars. Doubling it would give you 2000. That's only 8 trams' worth of people. It doesn't really make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Most of the people shopping in the city centre get there by active or local public transport, because they're the only modes that can get you the density of people you need.

 

[A330Alex]

The regional picture is also important in the P&R discussion. The City of Edinburgh Council is never going to spend many millions of pounds upgrading a P&R that is near exclusively used by drivers from other council areas. Those councils of course do not contribute towards transport pressures in Edinburgh. There is just far more important investment priorities within the city that benefit its residents.

Perhaps it can be considered after a congestion charge is introduced or as part of a wider regional piece of work such as the Bus Partnership Fund.

 

[edwin_m]

What percentage of the price paid for shopping is needed to provide free parking - A tiny, tiny fraction I would suggest.

If it helps, I read many years ago that the cost of building and maintaining parking comes to around £400 per year per space on average. Single-level may be cheaper, on the other hand that figure will have inflated over the years since. Taking that figure as read, a commuter driving alone to a P&R will have around £1.10 set aside from their fare to cover the parking, assuming other people use it at weekends. Shopping centre parking will have more people using it during the day, so the cost per user will be much less.

The regional picture is also important in the P&R discussion. The City of Edinburgh Council is never going to spend many millions of pounds upgrading a P&R that is near exclusively used by drivers from other council areas. Those councils of course do not contribute towards transport pressures in Edinburgh. There is just far more important investment priorities within the city that benefit its residents.

However, by providing the P&R, Edinburgh removes one car journey within its own boundaries into the city centre and back for each car that parks there. Considering costs such as road maintenance and the downsides of traffic congestion and pollution, this may be viewed as worth doing.

 

[JKP]

I have not seen any reference on this thread to the fact that two of the p+r sites are in Midlothian at Sherrifhall and Straiton. These sites are in my opinion too far out of the city. I have used the Sherrifhall site on a number of occasions. It was never very well used and Post Covid is even quieter. The buses take too long to reach the centre as they do a tour around the hospital grounds and have also recently been reduced in frequency. Added to this, the building housing the enquiry office and toilets never seems to be open. All in all depressing and needs a rethink.

 

[takno]

I have not seen any reference on this thread to the fact that two of the p+r sites are in Midlothian at Sherrifhall and Straiton. These sites are in my opinion too far out of the city. I have used the Sherrifhall site on a number of occasions. It was never very well used and Post Covid is even quieter. The buses take too long to reach the centre as they do a tour around the hospital grounds and have also recently been reduced in frequency. Added to this, the building housing the enquiry office and toilets never seems to be open. All in all depressing and needs a rethink.

It's a bit harsh to declare that the Sherrifhall site is in Midlothian - the majority of it is but the entrance appears to be within Edinburgh. In comparison to the Ingliston site it's also several miles closer to the city and the bus from it takes 10 minutes less than the tram from Ingliston to get to the middle of Princes Street. Straiton P&R is even closer to the centre, and although the buses from there take about the same amount of time as the tram, there are a lot of them, and the retail park is a convenient place for parking.

Both of them are at the edge of the urban conurbation, so situating them any closer to town would be both expensive and detrimental to their purpose, since traffic from outside the ring road would be driving down city streets to get to a closer P&R, and people from the urban area itself really should be walking to catch one of the many, frequent and reasonably-priced buses which saturate the city. If they aren't as popular as they could be then that is nothing that couldn't be addressed by a simple congestion charge.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

It's a bit harsh to declare that the Sherrifhall site is in Midlothian

It’s a good mile or so into Midlothian. The city boundary is at The Wisp.