Edinburgh Tram developments

[MCR247]

They might be if they end up screaming because they are late the concert because of the trams

 

[Mex]

Hi guys.

I'm not from the UK but I'm something of a transport enthusiast. I've been seeing articles about establishing modern trams/light rail in Edinburgh for a decade, but usually in the background. I've managed to find and take a look at the original proposals from over a decade ago and get an idea of what unfolded since.
I have to say (at the very least); I've not formed a very favourable impression.

Can someone please confirm the following;
1) The project has run horrendously over the budget forecasts and been scaled back from three lines to a truncation of one line (only serving the airport).
2) Someone in the Edinburgh local government actually bought 27 nice new trams & a depot from CAF (I presume to ensure the project would not be cancelled) when only 7 will actually be required. And that the trams will not be easy to sell to other cities due to a generous size/loading gauge.
3) The actual laying of the tracks in the old town has been a disaster with enormous delays and cost overruns due to subcontractors making mistakes (for whatever reason). Oh, and also due to tracks with the wrong profile actually being purchased and laid.

Ive only visited Edinburgh about a decade ago (not lived there), but I got the strong impression that the bus system was excellent. Especially the bus service from the airport. Was there any actual reason to upgrade to trams for that route?

The establishing of modern trams in the UK seems to be something of a mixed-bag in terms of success. Croydon, Sheffield and Nottingham seem to have been highly successful, and could easily justify funding for upgrades and extensions. Manchester seems overall successful but not to the same degree as the aforementioned, partly due to issues with the original Ansaldo rolling stock. Birmingham's midland metro looks like something of a failure.
But this Edinburgh attempt really looks like a complete debacle, and with little if anything positive resulting. The level of incompetence from whoever's responsible seems frankly criminal.
Is this funded from the Edinburgh local body government or has it had some level of state funding? Because if it has had the latter; Leeds could be justified in being rather furious in not getting the tramway they did their homework on.

You're being overly generous.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You're being overly generous.

Other opinions are available.





There is a culture in the UK (and in much of the rest of the world) which presumes that the local authority is incompetent. It is a culture which has been honed and developed to the very pinnacle of excellence in Edinburgh, (though several other cities follow closely behind - but perhaps none of those are in the UK with an incipient tram service).

The people who are best able to make the informed judgement that their local authority is incompetent in these cities or boroughs are usually the residents. These would be the residents who had elected the Council members who oversee the Council Officers, which (using the model of responsibility used in the private sector) suggests that by following the chain of decision making, the persons who are responsible for the incompetence of the local authority (where that is the predominat view), is the majority of the voting electorate.

In short - where residents (other than Council staff or Members) blame 'the Council', they would be better advised to consider blaming themselves.

 

[theageofthetra]

Will weekly Lothian bus passes be valid on the trams?

 

[overthewater]

There is a culture in the UK (and in much of the rest of the world) which presumes that the local authority is incompetent. It is a culture which has been honed and developed to the very pinnacle of excellence in Edinburgh, (though several other cities follow closely behind - but perhaps none of those are in the UK with an incipient tram service).

The people who are best able to make the informed judgement that their local authority is incompetent in these cities or boroughs are usually the residents. These would be the residents who had elected the Council members who oversee the Council Officers, which (using the model of responsibility used in the private sector) suggests that by following the chain of decision making, the persons who are responsible for the incompetence of the local authority (where that is the predominat view), is the majority of the voting electorate.

In short - where residents (other than Council staff or Members) blame 'the Council', they would be better advised to consider blaming themselves.

There only one person to blame and that Sir alex and the SNP, who took Transport Scotland out in 2007 and who brought them back in in 2012.....

 

[scotsman]

Will weekly Lothian bus passes be valid on the trams?

Yes, as already said, all season tickets (better known as 'Ridcards' - a smartcard ticket) will be valid on the trams.

 

[Mex]

Other opinions are available.





There is a culture in the UK (and in much of the rest of the world) which presumes that the local authority is incompetent. It is a culture which has been honed and developed to the very pinnacle of excellence in Edinburgh, (though several other cities follow closely behind - but perhaps none of those are in the UK with an incipient tram service).

The people who are best able to make the informed judgement that their local authority is incompetent in these cities or boroughs are usually the residents. These would be the residents who had elected the Council members who oversee the Council Officers, which (using the model of responsibility used in the private sector) suggests that by following the chain of decision making, the persons who are responsible for the incompetence of the local authority (where that is the predominat view), is the majority of the voting electorate.

In short - where residents (other than Council staff or Members) blame 'the Council', they would be better advised to consider blaming themselves.

The people of Edinburgh were asked, in a referendum, if they wanted the trams. They said no.

They were given no further opportunities to vote against the trams, as all the parties were in favour of the project... with the dishonourable exception of the SNP who claimed that they would stop it, but then went back on their word.

Seems to me the people of Edinburgh are not really to blame here.

 

[Zoidberg]

The Edinburgh Evening News is inviting folk to become encouraged that the line may be extended ...

From http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-deal-to-edge-route-closer-to-leith-1-3399882

St James tram deal to edge route closer to Leith

A MAJOR obstacle in the delivery of the mothballed £80 million tram line down Leith Walk looks set to be overcome, the Evening News can reveal.

It is understood key negotiations are taking place between city council officials and developers of the new £850m 
St James Quarter district about extending the tram from York Place and the building of a new stop at Picardy Place.

Initial talks have also centred on the developer part-funding the laying of track down Leith Walk.

The extension project would see a programme of costly underground utility diversions and enabling works taking place outside St Mary’s Cathedral.

This represents a sizeable chunk of the proposed expense of running the trams to 
Newhaven.

...

 

[edwin_m]

The people of Edinburgh were asked, in a referendum, if they wanted the trams. They said no.

The question they were asked was:

The leaflet enclosed with this ballot paper gives information on the Council's transport proposals for Edinburgh. The Council's ‘preferred’ strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the Council's ‘preferred’ strategy?"

Hence what was rejected was the full package including the congestion charge and the tram. As the congestion charge was included in the question, it is likely that this rather than the trams was uppermost in their mind when making their decision. I don't think this can be construed as rejecting the trams.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Ocean Terminal shopping centre will likely see itself disadvantaged if the trams aren't extended so I imagine they would be very interested in helping the tram get there as well. I've said time and again that as soon as the effect of the tram in passenger service is felt the demand will be for extensions here there and everywhere, just like Manchester. They have enough trams and the necessary infrastructure components are sitting in a warehouse doing no good to anyone.

 

[chiltern trev]

The Depot was under construction by the time the final collapse of the original scheme came, large areas of suitable land not earmarked for other development were not easily available in the North of the City or in Leith at the time, so the depot was built where it was cheapest to do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sorry to be a bit "cloak and daggerish" but Stagecoach already have people working within Lothian Buses.

The attitude of the Evening News has underwent serious change since there was change of personnel at the top, yes they go with the odd "parking on the tramlines" story but when push comes to shove their coverage is now firmly pro-council/tram as you will see once it does finally open.

From an old newpaper report http://www.scotsman.com/news/lothian-buses-could-be-sold-to-pay-for-edinburgh-trams-1-1775796

Lothian Buses could be sold to pay for Edinburgh Trams
Updated on the
29 July
2011
11:29

Published 28/07/2011 14:39

Print this
UNION leaders have issued a "hands off" warning amid fears Lothian Buses could be sold to help tram bosses plug a £170 million funding gap.

The Unite union fears selling the bus company or borrowing against its profits could be among the options put before councillors as officials look to find the necessary funds to build the project to St Andrew Square.




The union, which represents those who work for the council-owned bus company, has written to councillors urging them to vote against any proposals that would see the bus company fall into private hands or be saddled with debts from the tram project.




Rab Fraser, chairman of the Lothian Buses branch of Unite, said: "After the last council meeting our concern is where the money is coming from.




"Our position is clear - Lothian Buses must not be sold off to pay for the trams, our profits should not be squeezed to plug the funding gap, and the business must remain in the ownership of the people.




"Compromising Lothian Buses will only lead to increased fares and reduced services."




Council officials have spent the summer recess meeting with the Scottish Government over how they can find the money to complete the tram line as far as the city centre.




Industry experts believe around 150-200m could be raised from the sell-off of the bus company, but the council has previously ruled out any prospect of a sale.




The current budget for the tram project is 545m, but the council has already made arrangements to borrow an extra 55m.




Leaked figures ahead of a council report last month showed building to St Andrew Square would cost 773m - leaving a shortfall of more than 170m.




Councillor Andrew Burns, leader of the Labour group, said any proposal that would directly affect Lothian Buses would be "totally unacceptable". He said: "Lothian Buses is a publicly-owned company and will remain so. There's no prospect of our group supporting any sale of the company.




"We felt opening the line to Haymarket could be done within the existing budget.




"We were not prepared to support the option of going to St Andrew Square because it's going to require extra money."




It was initially hoped officials would be able to report back to councillors in August with ways of raising the money.




However, that now looks increasingly unlikely, with the council dependent on the Scottish Government to approve new ways of borrowing cash.




Councillor Gordon Mackenzie, the city's transport convener, said: "We've said in the past that there's no way we're going to sell off Lothian Buses."

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The establishing of modern trams in the UK seems to be something of a mixed-bag in terms of success. Croydon, Sheffield and Nottingham seem to have been highly successful, and could easily justify funding for upgrades and extensions. Manchester seems overall successful but not to the same degree as the aforementioned, partly due to issues with the original Ansaldo rolling stock. Birmingham's midland metro looks like something of a failure.

That's not my impression unless you mean just on technical matters.
I believe Sheffield, Nottingham and West Mids have all underperformed in cost/ridership terms against the original business cases.
The extensions to these systems have been very grudging and is based on sunk investment in the city centres.
It's also why Leeds, Liverpool and Bristol were not progressed.
Manchester did best of all financially, which is why it is getting major extensions.
Croydon has all the funding/ridership benefits of being part of TfL.
Happy to be disabused, but I think Manchester can be well pleased with its trams.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Manchester has the advantage that comparatively very little of it is street-running compared to the converted heavy rail sections, so the expensive and disruptive construction works that have plagued the Edinburgh system weren't needed. The use of so many old railway alignments has allowed the system to expand rapidly, proving the passenger numbers and benefits of further extensions and spreading the fixed cost of the system further and further to reduce the cost of extending it more.

The Nottingham and Midland systems haven't been able to be as successful as they could because they comprised only a single line from the city centre out to the outskirts, as the Edinburgh system sort of is right now but could have been even moreso if it had been curtailed at Haymarket. A single 'line' (city centre to the outskirts) can only really attract people who want to travel from one location to another on the single line; a series of lines attracts people who want to travel from one outskirts location to another as well as those only interested in the city centre section and so passenger numbers increase further. All three systems like this are going to be extended because their current state isn't stable - the NET is being extended to form three lines combining on top of the main railway station (always a bonus) while the Midland is being extended to go with the New Street redevelopment and then to serve the Eastside/HS2 development. The Edinburgh system will be completed bit by bit whenever funding is available (the St James Quarter development will pay for the Picardy Place tram/road setup, for example), especially when unlike other schemes all the trams and components necessary have already been purchased and are sitting idle earning no revenue.

 

[oldman]

The Ocean Terminal shopping centre will likely see itself disadvantaged if the trams aren't extended so I imagine they would be very interested in helping the tram get there as well.

Like most shopping centres of its kind, a large part of its customers come by car. There are also reasonable bus services from the adjacent areas of the city. Why would a tram from the city centre make such a big difference to their business?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Like most shopping centres of its kind, a large part of its customers come by car. There are also reasonable bus services from the adjacent areas of the city. Why would a tram from the city centre make such a big difference to their business?

I don't see not being provided with public transport being beneficial to a shopping centre, for one.

Then, there is the matter which makes people and businesses invest where long-term public transport has been provided. Any new shop or business or whatever in Edinburgh will now see the area served by the tram as being more attractive than places elsewhere. Because the tram doesn't serve Ocean Terminal, the centre will have a tougher time attracting new or returning trade, especially when the St James Quarter (served by the tram) is going to become so much better. The knowledge that the tram will almost certainly be extended does to some extent mitigate the long-term results of this but in the short term, businesses can invest in the area served by the tram already with the increased footfall it brings without having to worry about tram works for months or years ahead. It isn't a zero-sum game, where for every pound now spent along the tram route there is a pound less spent elsewhere, but the places with increased revenue due to the tram will see more growth than elsewhere and thus the return on investment will be higher.

There will also be some people for whom the extent of the tram line will be the places they are most interested in visiting. Because it will serve the airport and the railway stations, there will be visitors to the city who will naturally travel on the tram if possible rather than the bus because trams are novel and are a superior form of transport along their route. These visitors will be a lot less likely to venture outside the area served by the tram than they had been before when they might have used the bus - they might not even have used the bus before and been perfectly happy just in the city centre. Without places being on the all-important tram network, it will be quite a bit harder to attract customers who will want to travel on the tram. It's like how one of the reasons that areas in London served by the Overground have done so well is just because they are now all on the all-important Tube map where they hadn't been before.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't see not being provided with public transport being beneficial to a shopping centre, for one.

Whilst I'm sure trams may help, Ocean Terminal isn't short of public transport with 5 day bus routes and 1 night bus route.

 

[Zoidberg]

Whilst I'm sure trams may help, Ocean Terminal isn't short of public transport with 5 day bus routes and 1 night bus route.

I agree.

It's one of the easiest places to easily get to from most places within the city. Two buses at most will get most people there easily - and back again, easily.

Edinburgh has a very good bus service. Innit?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I wasn't suggesting that Ocean Terminal doesn't have adequate public transport; I was saying that providing it with more is never going to do harm and not providing it with more is not going to do any good.

 

[overthewater]

Edinburgh has a very good bus service. Innit?

But it still has alot of work still to be resolved, including the missing southern orbital route, missing link routes not via the Princess street along with better service to Fort kinnard and Edinburgh park.

 

[oldman]

I wasn't suggesting that Ocean Terminal doesn't have adequate public transport; I was saying that providing it with more is never going to do harm and not providing it with more is not going to do any good.

But you also said, a couple of days ago, 'I imagine they [Ocean Terminal] would be very interested in helping the tram get there as well'. I am sure they would like it to happen. I am sceptical about them wanting to contribute financially.

It remains to be seen how much impact the St James development will have. The present centre, John Lewis apart, is nothing special as a retail attraction.

 

[Zoidberg]

But it still has alot of work still to be resolved, including the missing southern orbital route, missing link routes not via the Princess street along with better service to Fort kinnard and Edinburgh park.

It's not perfect and I particularly miss the circular services 32/52. Apart from city centre to Edinburgh Park journeys, the tram line is not going to help with the shortcomings you mention.

 

[kylemore]

It's not perfect and I particularly miss the circular services 32/52. Apart from city centre to Edinburgh Park journeys, the tram line is not going to help with the shortcomings you mention.

Most of the "Circulars" if not all have been withdrawn and I wonder whether this has had the effect of artificially inflating carryings, as many journeys that previously could have been completed with one trip now require two trips, perhaps putting the much hyped "success" of Lothian Buses in a new light?

 

[oldman]

Most of the "Circulars" if not all have been withdrawn and I wonder whether this has had the effect of artificially inflating carryings, as many journeys that previously could have been completed with one trip now require two trips, perhaps putting the much hyped "success" of Lothian Buses in a new light?

It is true that 'some' once-single journeys now require two buses, but not 'many', and not enough to explain most of the passenger growth. The two main circles, 1/6 and 32/52, finished years ago. The last loop to go was the 7/33, a couple of years ago, but I can't see why more than a few people would have made through journeys on it.

 

[overthewater]

It's not perfect and I particularly miss the circular services 32/52. Apart from city centre to Edinburgh Park journeys, the tram line is not going to help with the shortcomings you mention.

The money should have been spent on these ideas instead of the tram. One has to wonder if the Edinburgh congestion charge had been voted in, would we have seen these improvements or even the Tram line 1b.

 

[CallySleeper]

I agree.

It's one of the easiest places to easily get to from most places within the city. Two buses at most will get most people there easily - and back again, easily.

Edinburgh has a very good bus service. Innit?

It's good, but there's obvious areas for improvement. It's nowhere near "superb" as at least one poster on here believes.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

The two main circles, 1/6 and 32/52, finished years ago.

...

Indeed, but I still miss the convenience afforded by the 32/52 service. Not to mention the financial advantage in paying for a single fare rather than multiple fares to make the journey nowadays. But the Day Saver is an excellent deal.

And apologies for continuing this off-topic aspect of the thread.

 

[90019]

I've been away for the past week, so I have a bit of catching up to do.
This may be a rather long post.

3) The actual laying of the tracks in the old town has been a disaster with enormous delays and cost overruns due to subcontractors making mistakes (for whatever reason). Oh, and also due to tracks with the wrong profile actually being purchased and laid.

The first time the tracks along Princes Street were laid, they sank into the ground within months, and had to be dug up and redone.
Clearly, despite the council using their favorite phrase ('lessons have been learned'), nothing had been learned, and the concrete along Shandwick place had to be redone.
Oh, and all the manhole covers along Shandwick Place have already had to be rebuilt, within weeks of the road reopening. :roll:

Basically, things are done on the cheap, so nothing lasts and the cost of repeatedly having to make repairs means that the long term cost is higher.

Ive only visited Edinburgh about a decade ago (not lived there), but I got the strong impression that the bus system was excellent. Especially the bus service from the airport. Was there any actual reason to upgrade to trams for that route?

Not really.
The Airlink serves the Corstorphine corridor, which has lots of hotels. The tram takes the Stenhouse/Broomhouse corridor, and serves very few hotels, other than those in the city centre, which the 100 also serves.

The main problem Slugger is that the diversion of utilities developed into a complete disaster. The Council and it's agencies desperately tried to blame the contractors however the evidence is that the said Council and it's agencies were largely to blame.

My personal experience is that the council are remarkably unaware of what there is underneath their own roads.

The best example is when they tried to replace the sewer under the road along from my house.
It's well known by everyone around here that the Wardie Burn runs under the road there (you can even hear it in places), and it's pretty well known that the whole area has lots of little sand patches underground.
Clearly the council knew nothing of this, as demonstrated by the fact the road collapsed not long after they started, and what was supposed to be a road closure for a few weeks ended up being 11 months, with a generator and pump running 24/7 for a large proportion of that to stop the road collapsing further.

Ongoing losses from this truncated section will eventually force the Council to privatise or part privatise Lothian Buses

Have a look on the side of the buses, where the company text is. You'll notice that it now says LTD rather than PLC.

The question I can't help asking is; Did Edinburgh really need a tramway full stop? (let alone the one line they actually built)

No.

Were the already existing public transport systems not up to scratch? And if they weren't; was a new tramway the best option?

The bus service is pretty damn good. But there will always be areas for improvement, that's a given.

You'll find a large body of opinion that says there was no need for the tram. The Lothian Buses system is superb, and on the bits where it all falls down (the congested city centre) the trams will be street-running so it won't help there.

What the Trams have managed to do is make it almost impossible to keep a bus on time through the city centre when they're out, and every time one passes through, it causes chaos and often gridlocks the East End, as well as causing large queues of traffic around the West End.

Seems like completely the wrong solution was selected.
Couldn't have they just organised lanes only for buses and taxis?

We have them, but a lot of them in the city centre have loading and parking bays in them, which make them useless outwith the peaks, and quite a few of them are fairly rubbish in the peaks too, as people park in them anyway.

Am going out for the 05:00 xGyle on the 31st, staying with the set to the airport from the City Centre and return. Any other forum members joining me?

Definitely not - I don't do early starts.
It's not without reason that I'm known amongst some in the depot as the backshift man.

It's one of the easiest places to easily get to from most places within the city. Two buses at most will get most people there easily - and back again, easily.

If you can get a bus into town, you can get to Ocean Terminal on two buses, and a fairly large chunk of the city can do it on one.

I wasn't suggesting that Ocean Terminal doesn't have adequate public transport; I was saying that providing it with more is never going to do harm and not providing it with more is not going to do any good.

Though given the choice from the City Centre, would you rather jump on a 22 that will take you pretty much to the door, or take a Tram that'll get you nearby, with a few minutes walk?

I've said time and again that as soon as the effect of the tram in passenger service is felt the demand will be for extensions here there and everywhere, just like Manchester.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ModernRailways]

You're very skeptical about these trams.

I can only see them being a huge success but hey ho let's wait and see.

 

[overthewater]

The real fun and games have yet to start. The trams operate past the bus station entrance, which is also the entrance to St James Car park.

If a tram comes along it resets the lights for the traffic turning right from Queen street into the bus station.

I dare say long queues will appear.....

 

[90019]

You're very skeptical about these trams.

I live in Edinburgh and spend my working day driving buses around the city.

So far, what they have achieved is turning a busy and cramped city centre into a regularly gridlocked and cramped city centre. They have increased traffic congestion noticably around certain pinch points, of which very little of the traffic is coming from areas served by the tram.
The people of Edinburgh said no, we don't want trams. The council ignored us and ploughed on with it anyway.


My skepticism is not without reason.