Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Wednesday, 4th November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Trams clear final hurdle at Holyrood

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

Published Date:
28 June 2007
WORK is set to start in earnest on Edinburgh's tram scheme after the Scottish Executive gave it the go-ahead.
The decision was welcomed today as a massive boost to the city and a major benefit to local residents and the Lothians economy.

The backing of the scheme marked a surprise turnaround by the SNP minority government after losing its first big vote in parliament on the issue.

But the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (Earl) looks doomed after Finance Secretary John Swinney last night said the plans had "had it" - despite the Executive agreeing to consider a further report on the scheme.

During a dramatic afternoon at Holyrood, it was also revealed that a "funding gap" for the Borders railway means that it will not be able to open in December 2011 as was previously hoped.

The SNP offered some good news to rail commuters by signalling its determination to cut journey times with the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line.

The Executive also reaffirmed its commitment to a new Forth crossing, with both options of building a tunnel or a bridge being left open for now. MSPs voted 81-47 in favour of an amendment by Labour's Wendy Alexander to press ahead with the trams and sort out difficulties with Earl flagged up by the Auditor General.

Moments later, Mr Swinney made the unusual step of announcing that the new Executive would bow to Parliament on the issue.

However, he later warned there would be no additional funds for the £594 million project.

The scheme to return trams to the Capital's streets had been hanging in the balance following the SNP's election commitment to scrap it in order to fund other transport initiatives.

The decision to continue with the scheme today received widespread support from local politicians, business leaders and transport bodies.
NO GO? John Swinney said EARL had "had it"
NO GO? John Swinney said EARL had "had it"


City council leader Jenny Dawe said she was "delighted" with the decision. She said: "Trams will give the Capital the vital tools to equip it for the future.

"This is now a brighter future where commuters, residents, businesses and visitors will enjoy quicker journeys, more investment in our city, more accessible public transport and cleaner air, just as they do in many of our competitor cities."

Work on the project is expected to resume almost immediately, after plans to begin digging up roads to divert utility pipes were shelved in the wake of the SNP's victory last month.

Willie Gallagher, executive chairman of trams company TIE, said the decision brought to a close a "worrying period of uncertainty" for employees.

"TIE and the City of Edinburgh Council can now get on with the job of delivering world class trams for Edinburgh," he said.

Business leaders welcomed the news as a major boost to the economies of Edinburgh, the Lothians and the surrounding regions.

Ron Hewitt, chief executive of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, said: "It is also a vote of confidence which sends a message to existing and potential investors in our Capital that we can make difficult decisions and deliver positive outcomes, that will ensure their investment is well placed and supported by an infrastructure fit for purpose for the 21st century."

He urged the Executive not to scrap the Earl project and said the high-speed link to the airport was "essential" to the future prosperity of the Capital.

Mr Stevenson said no new funding would be committed before the Executive reports back on Earl in three months' time - and Mr Swinney said later he believed the scheme was already "pretty dead".

He said the project faced practical problems such as having to tunnel under a "live" runway, and requiring trains that currently did not exist.

There were also problems with the lack of a project board structure and other issues.

"In the absence of all of that, I can't see where this project is going," he said.

Regional transport authority SEStran said today it was "extremely concerned" about Earl's future.

Its chairman, Councillor Russell Imrie, said: "The region needs a comprehensive, sustainable, transportation system to reduce congestion, tackle emissions of greenhouse gasses and ensure its economic future.

"We believe that successful implementation of the trams project and Earl can make a major contribution to achieving this goal.

"Earl will provide direct access to Edinburgh Airport by rail from most of Scotland, which is good news for all air travellers."

And Iain McMillan, the director of CBI Scotland, said: "We do not believe that the Auditor General's findings on Earl should necessarily be fatal to the project.

"Earl should bring significant economic benefits to Edinburgh and further afield."

Alex Salmond had come under intense pressure to rethink his opposition to the trams following the SNP's election victory.

TIE had warned that axing the trams would have cost around £100m, and supporters of the project said it would be like pressing the "economic self-destruct button" for the Capital.

A cross-party campaign was launched by politicians from the city's other four main political parties to urge the SNP "Don't trash our trams".

Councillor Phil Wheeler, the city's transport leader, said today: "This is great news for everyone who moves about our Capital.

"The absolute need for trams in Edinburgh has been demonstrated. They offer huge benefits in terms of capacity, reliability and our environment."

Friends of the Earth Scotland's chief executive Duncan McLaren also welcomed the news, saying:

"Having again received the backing of parliament, it is only right that the scheme should be allowed to proceed."



LATEST STATE OF PLAY ON TRANSPORT


Trams


The SNP Government has given the go-ahead for the project, ending weeks of uncertainty following the Nats' election win on the back of a commitment to axe the trams. MSPs backed a parliamentary amendment by Labour's Wendy Alexander yesterday to go ahead with trams, but within the budget set by the previous Scottish Executive.

Work will now start on building the tracks for a tram line from Edinburgh Airport to Leith via Princes Street. It is hoped the funding allocated to the project will also allow a spur line to be built from Haymarket to Granton.

Cost: £592 million, with £500m to be funded by the Scottish Executive and £45m plus any shortfall from the city council.

Completion date: Late 2010. If it is built, the Granton spur would be due for completion the following year.



Edinburgh-Glasgow Rail Line


Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson said electrifying the main line between the two cities was a "key priority". He said the Government was "absolutely determined" to pursue the project, following a key initial assessment report published yesterday by Transport Scotland.

Electrification would cut around six minutes off the journey time between Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Queen Street, by allowing diesel trains to be replaced with faster electric trains.

Cost: £264.9 million, including the part-electrification of other tracks in case diversions are necessary.

Completion date: Could be ready by March 2013.



Borders Rail Link


The Borders Rail Link is facing a funding shortfall and the opening date of 2011 is not achievable, said Mr Stevenson.

But the Executive remains committed to pumping in £115 million at 2002 prices, subject to a series of conditions being met on the business case, in terms of management strategy and integration. The link would see a 35-mile line running from Newcraighall in Edinburgh, through Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge, Stow, and Galashiels, before reaching the end of the line at Tweedbank.

Cost: The project is estimated to cost approximately £174.45m at 2011 prices, with £115m coming from the Executive. Other contributions from Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh councils.

Completion date: After 2011.



New Forth Crossing


The Executive will press ahead with plans for a new Forth crossing, with a bridge the preferred option - although a tunnel west of the existing bridge is still being considered. A series of public exhibitions setting out the pros and cons of the two options was announced yesterday.

Cost: A bridge would cost between £2.5 billion and £3.5bn, while a tunnel would cost between £3.6bn and £4.7bn at 2016 prices.

Completion date: Around 2016.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 June 2007 12:37 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh transport plans
 
1

Divot,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:07:21

I thought this was supposed to be good news day??

2

Skip McClendon,

On the line 28/06/2007 11:10:09

Darn it Divot....you beat me to it!

This is a black day for Edinburgh Taxpayers. A blank cheque has just been signed with YOUR tax money for a pure vanity project which will turn into a massive white elephant and a huge drain on the city's finances for years to come.

3

Partridge,

28/06/2007 11:12:02

'Business leaders welcomed the news as a major boost to the economies of Edinburgh, the Lothians and the surrounding regions. '

Will they say that when there is no one around with the disruption? They'll be squealling for compensation..

4

Leila,

28/06/2007 11:13:37

"Cost of trams: £592 million, with £500m to be funded by the Scottish Executive and £45m plus any shortfall from the city council"

Two days ago we read in this newspaper that the council is £10m in the red.

Where is the money coming from?

5

Skip McClendon,

On the line 28/06/2007 11:16:38

#5

- If you are an Edinburgh tax-payer, it will be coming out of YOUR Council tax or YOUR local income tax money. Look forward to Edinburgh's tax rises being double the rate of the rest of Scotland for the next few years to pay for this ridiculous white elephant.

6

S Hamilton,

Embra 28/06/2007 11:16:48

A black day indeed, to go with the black hole and huge cooncil tax increases all round. After all, remember the Parliament project overspend.

Do you trust the cooncil to bring it on budget, bearing in mind the deficit the Labour shower ran up in the last year.

Time to flit.

7

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:17:09

This is mostly good news but it suggests that the executive are willing to write a blank cheque for an additional Forth Road Bridge whereas they are capping the spending on the rail projects.

8

CBJ,

28/06/2007 11:26:21

Here comes another white elephant, next to parliament scam. SNP are same as labours

9

CBJ,

28/06/2007 11:27:19

During a dramatic afternoon at Holyrood, it was also revealed that a "funding gap" for the Borders railway means that it will not be able to open in December 2011 as was previously hoped. -------
There you go... all Edinburgh living people will see huge rise in council taxes... wasting tax payers money... better I leave edinburgh soon.

10

Black Five,

edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:28:12

The council should take a hard look at what they are about to do.I`ll bet this budget will be 400M over and that will bankrupt the City.The council taxpayers can`t afford to risk this and it must be put to a referendum by the taxpayers as we`re the ones who will foot the bill.I challenge the council to do this and they will find out that at least 90% of people are against it.This should not go ahead.

11

Black Five,

edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:30:10

What do you think you`d get for your house when the City is bankrupt?Best go while the goings good.

12

Gullable Joe,

28/06/2007 11:31:19

What a surprise....NOT

Was it always a "done-deal"....YOU BET

Will it reduce congestion in the city....NO

Total scandal. How on earth did they manage to get away with this one eh!. The last thing we need is more roads being dug up for a meaningless project which will cost about a £BILLION.

GET A NEW FORTH BRIDGE/TUNNEL BUILT INSTEAD WITH THIS MONEY!!!!

Thats what is really needed, AND an improvement on the A9 Trunk road.

Ah well, same old politics, whatever suits the tiny minority of them and not the huge majority of US.

13

Colin G,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:31:38

According to the Council website, Trams are "funded by the Scottish Executive, developers' contributions and other funds and are not connected to Council Tax".

Could A Councillor please explain given the decision yesterday how the existing funding gap is expected to be closed via developer contribution and 'other funds'? And what will happen when the costs of materials, labour, re-organisation of traffic, compensation to businesses, 'golden goodbyes' to sacked failed TIE managers (who fail to bring the scheme in on cost) etc all run out of control?

Council Tax in the year ended March 2006 brought in £205m. Obviously, if there isn't the replacement with a local income tax and the Scottish Executive doesn't give in on its commitment not to increase the funding for the tram, council tax will have to be raided. Which services are to be cut to fund this scheme which will provide misery in its construction phase, and then more congestion, reductions in economic growth, more pollution etc in its operating phase?

14

Dibs,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:32:58

Great! - increased Council Tax and I lose my job due to jobs cuts to pay for the overspend - happy days!

15

Disheartened,

city 28/06/2007 11:34:26

We need the trams now! to carry the hoards of people that need to leave this city before we are financially crippled because of this incompetent farce........

16

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 11:36:50

Stop winging you lot. Just accept that the trams are coming, all the doom and gloom over what is in reality a small sum of money, it is hardly going to bankrupt the city.
Will the £300m Aberdeen bypass to be built bankrupt Aberdeen ? No I don't think so.
Its about time Edinburgh spent some money on its transport.

17

CBJ,

28/06/2007 11:37:20

,...another rise in council tax... im out of Edinburgh

18

PJ,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:38:22

Sing along to the Talking Heads song Road to nowhere!

Were on a tram to nowhere
Come on inside
Taking that ride to nowhere
Taxpayers get taken for a ride

Maybe you wonder where you are
Because it came in over budget not that far
TIE ran out of money and track
To many Council backhanders to pay anything back

Were on a tram to nowhere
Were on a tram to nowhere
Were on a tram to nowhere

Of course it won't come in on time and budget, it is the council you are talking about!

19

foz,

28/06/2007 11:40:43

No project (small or large) I've worked on in the last ten years has arrived on budget. Something like this with unseen problems that the beancounters (consultants, Q.S's etc) have overlooked will inevitably make the final bill higher. Going to be far more difficult brushing this one under the carpet when costs spiral, unlike that rather small building at holyrood for half a billion quid. ERInfirmary cost half that for a large functioning hosp.

20

Help Ma Boab,

Sunshine on Leith 28/06/2007 11:41:23

Re where the money will come from, Edinburgh has a huge "emergency savings" account that they can access so they wont have to use CT money. Unless of course it spirals out of control, now come on surely that won't happen. we are great at building things on time and to budget, i bought something form IKEA the other day and it cost me what i wanted to pay for it and i built it in the time i had. how diffcuilt can it be?

21

Leila,

28/06/2007 11:41:28

#11: totally agree. I don't see how the council can take the financial risk. I suspect some legal advice might be in order.

22

Skip McClendon,

On the line 28/06/2007 11:43:32

#21

I wouldn't trust Edinburgh Council to successfully assemble an IKEA breadboard, never mind a tram set.

23

Gullable Joe,

28/06/2007 11:44:29

Perhaps there has been a grave printing error surrounding the tram fiasco.
Maybe in fact its a huge Tram-poline project.
This will enable commuters to bounce their way to work, removing carbon emmissions and congestion .

I am going to phone the council and ask them if this is the case, hang on...........

.....no answer, still on lunch break.

24

Dibs,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:44:29

#21

I think they have already spend that on the overspend from last year - 2006-2007. I read in the papers that it only has about £750,000 left in it unless you are talking about some other fund we know nothing about?

25

Peter 100,

28/06/2007 11:44:31

Give the Edinburgh public a referendum on this project

26

Danny Mather,

28/06/2007 11:53:53

at least we've heard the end of EARL. Bring on a viable alternative quickly!

27

Tommy Tank,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 11:55:23

All those SNP supporters who have been anti-trams - accept it - you've LOST!

This is great news. A big step forward for Edinburgh.

28

eric,

Lothian 28/06/2007 11:55:25

Bad day for the city,Smart move by snp.They will be proven correct ,Most folks comments in the scotsman over the months have been dead against it. So happy i moved out of Edinburgh years ago.

29

Randan,

28/06/2007 11:55:42

I predict the overspend is so bad the government have to step in.
Who will take that bet?
It's odds on!

30

Havin' a laff,

In Hysterics 28/06/2007 11:58:47

I can't believe how many amateur accountants and fortune tellers there are on here.

Why waste your time with your pointless, inaccurate and pathetic posts? If you all know the future so well, why are you not all down at the bookies making some money instead of winging and moaning on here?

#26. We live in a democracy, not some 'phone in reality TV show.

31

charliegreen,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 12:00:02

Looks like we could be ending up with a half built tram line.

32

lachlan,

28/06/2007 12:01:33

when the aberdeen bypass,the glasgow airport link and the M74 extension are all over budget who will meet the costs? aberdeen and glasgow?
edinburgh airport is the most accessable to the most of scotland and needs some form of rail link.

33

Hoops man,

28/06/2007 12:02:58

#21
About a couple of days ago, council admitted that they have spent most of it, try the scotsman or evening news for the report, was about cutting spending.
#28
Obviously you dont pay your cooncil tax spouting that garbage, or a disgruntled labourite who didnt win and has decided to throw the toys out the pram
#26
Yup it would help decide, we had it for the road toll charges, wouldnt be difficult to do it again, the measures are already in place, just different ballot papers

34

eric,

Lothian 28/06/2007 12:08:06

The Airport link is important But not any more important than Aberdeen or Certainly not Glasgows.At least The glasgow Airport rail loop has been thought out more sensible.Not at a Silly amount of money .Edinburgh can have a spur link,if we really must have one at all.As the Tramline will go past the Airport or will it.So why arent all these so called Big biz in Edinburgh digging deep to pay!

35

Anti-taxi Anti-tram,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 12:08:32

Well the SNP have lost any respectability they had gained during a good campaign before the election... that along with their spines!

Mentioned above, people have wasted a vote thinking that they'd stop this monumental waste of money going ahead. Plans to dual the A9 would have benefited a lot more to the Country than just a few dreamers in Edinburgh the Greens included who are quite happy to see the tram go to the airport but not the rail; Why... because it encourages more flying!!??

The last government and council that did not listen to the people were booted out. The problem comes now is that who do you trust when someone comes in promising the earth and delivering poop!!

36

mv,

28/06/2007 12:10:27

#5, "Where is the money coming from?...."

All the people in Scotland who pay tax, plus anybody living in Edinburgh will have to make up the difference between 594 & some huge number yet to be decided! The council are already 10 million in debt so expect to see no services by next year plus an increase of 8+% for council tax...

37

Angel,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 12:10:39

Waste o time, effort and money. Routes only serve north and west of the city. South and East suffer again.

38

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 12:13:32

Plenty of sour grapes on here today !

39

Anti-taxi Anti-tram,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 12:14:51

#31...

Already tried it but a bookie friend of mine refused as it was odds on that the budget would go massively over!

40

Andy Pandy,

Gdansk 28/06/2007 12:23:28

C'mon guys get with the program here - its good news day at the EEN. They're pretending and so can we.

The trams will be a huge success causing no disruption and reduce Edinburgh's commuting carbon footprint while generating a world-class capital cuty economy. And all in budget with no additional tax burden to the people of Edinburgh as well as benefitting the rest of the country.

We can all pretend I suppose.......

#31 You're right, but surely we all have the right to comment? Democracy - remember? But cheer up mate - it's good news day so smile and be happy

41

Colin G,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 12:28:19

On reflection perhaps we could see a contract where the Evening News, the Green Party, Margo MacDonald, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Waterfront developers, the Chamber of Commerce, TIE's 'consultants' and one or two of the trammites on this site get together and volunteer to cover every penny of overspend beyond the £545m of our money committed so far?

42

Car Driver,

28/06/2007 12:31:16

eric #29 every single comment from you is anti edinburgh and so are your comments under the name d paterson in the herald, your boring us to death, don't read edinburgh newspapers if things upset you so much

43

Boy Wonder,

28/06/2007 12:32:01

Let the public decide. I demand my right to vote NO to this major scheme that will cause chaos in an alreay chaotic road system in the Capital, for years to come!

So much for ONLY good news, EN. Good for who?? Not the local people!

44

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 12:35:13

#44 good news for public transport users, good news for the environment, good news for business, etc.

45

Calum10,

28/06/2007 12:37:00

If you are against the trams send an e-petition to the Scottish Parliament.

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/

46

,

28/06/2007 12:39:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Woody47,

28/06/2007 12:39:54

#31 What the hell do you think a democracy is? It has nothing to do with phone-ins. Democracy is supposed to listen to the wishes of the people so apparently you do not beleive in democracy.
Lets have a poll and really see what people want and not just some MP's who it would appear, IMHO, are only in this for what has already greased their slimey hands.

48

The Judge,

28/06/2007 12:40:07

Admin, spin & consultants have cost us over £100m so far, currently running at £5m a month or £60m a year, this project won't be anywhere near finished for the next 5 years, admin, spin & consultants will have cost us £400m+ alone. Simple question, how are they going to build a tramLINE for £200M? Simple answer, they won't be able to afford it. Edinburghs council tax will have to rise, unless they plan on cutting services.

If you are against the city council spending £500m+ of YOUR money for a single tramLINE its time to make your voice heard, write to your local councillors and make your feelings known, tell them if they vote to go ahead with this project you will never vote for them or their party again. Lets not sleepwalk our way to bankruptcy.

Scrap the trams £1500+ an inch is too high a price to pay for New Labours ego.

49

Scoop in the City,

28/06/2007 12:49:47

What a set of whinging tight wads on here. I hope you carry out your threat to leave the city ASAP. Why can't you just accept that you might be wrong for a change. If you had your way - we'd invest nothing in the city, just as long as YOU didn't have to pay.

Referendum - oh yeah right. A mistake that should never be repeated. You elect politicians to govern - because in general, the public do not have the time to learn the facts, the inclination to look into the future or the ability to consider more than the 'price'. If we had a referendum on whether to have street lighting or save the cost of the electricity - in Edinburgh, it would be close run thing.

Armageddon is not on its way. Relax.

50

JGC,

SQ 28/06/2007 12:51:45

A bridge being the preferred option???
I have an article from the Evening News last month saying a tunnel was the preferred option and would be CHEAPER and QUICKER.

But then a tunnel would go through Hopetoun House land, House of the Binns and a certain previous MP for Linlithgow's land...so they'd rather it was right next to thousands of South queensferry houses and a primary school...where's the justice?

51

Wicce,

Din Eiden 28/06/2007 12:53:55

What an unbelievable waste of money.

52

NorT,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 13:02:12

The Council and Tie should be made to have all the funding in place before the work progresses. They certainly don't have it at the moment as there is a large shortfall and who is going to pay for the ever increasing costs? John Swinney won't be giving them any more money.

53

connaughtboy,

28/06/2007 13:03:52

#28 Tommy

you seem to be missing the point. The Tram project changed radically yesterday. The cost overrun risk now lies with Edinburgh City Council rather than the Executive.

Before yesterday, the commitment from central funds was unlimited and probably greater than £1billion. Today the exposure is limited to £500m. I am more than happy with that outcome. The people of Edinburgh might take a different view today!

54

connaughtboy,

28/06/2007 13:05:33

#31 No bookie would take a bet on the cost overrun or else I would. They only take bets on uncertainty not fact!

55

Statsman,

28/06/2007 13:10:49

I am not looking forward to Edinburgh being bankrupted. I'd like to think the Council will have the sense to see this as too much of a gamble.

Unfortunately, I don't think most of the councillors are that bright.

56

Rod,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 13:12:29

#20 No project (small or large) I've worked on in the last ten years has arrived on budget.

Then you will be delighted to learn that the M9 extension will be delivered one month ahead of time. And within budget!

57

SunShine,

28/06/2007 13:24:35

I just walked past Holyrood and there is a white flag flying over it.

Barely 6 weeks gone and the SNP are reneging on on their manifesto pledges already. What a joke.

58

Allan M,

Livingston 28/06/2007 13:27:12

So it is going to cost £3bn+ for a new Forth Bridge or £4bn+ for a tunnel. Can anybody explain why Uk projects are always much more expensive than similar building projects in other parts of the world. The Millau Bridge in France, the highest in the world, only cost £272m and the new Hangzhou Bay bridge in China which is a mixture of cable stayed and viaduct along its 22mile length only cost £750m. the Millau was designed and built by a British team!

59

resident edinburgh,

28/06/2007 13:31:26

well done all the msp's who voted for the trams I have always thought the SNP were in favour of promoting Scotland or is it the Tartan Tory in them shinning through if the trams are good enough for Dublin Ansterdam and many cities in England then its good enough for our Capital.

60

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 28/06/2007 13:33:00

Hardly anyone knew about this project till the SNP won the election. The papers and others thought it was an issue to attack the SNP on. Some tourism bosses have manipulated the petty parochial politics that the Libs/Tories/Lab are still indulging in. Scotland needs a proper transport system linking the whole country. This is a train set...

61

Skip McClendon,

On the line 28/06/2007 13:39:25

OK, so the trams can clear "hurdles" at Holyrood, but how are they at dealing with potholes? They will encounter a great many of them on Edinburgh's streets. In fact, the huge number of potholes in Edinburry will grow even larger, as the road repair budget (currently £4.67p a year) are slashed even further to pay for the tram white elephant.

62

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 13:51:13

What I am sick of is all these people on here who say 'it is a waste of money blah blah'
To them any money spent on transport is a waste of money - spend it on schools, hospitals, more police etc is the usual cry.

Well the NHS and Schools already get hundreds of Billions of pounds spent on them, compared with a tiny tiny fraction of that amount spent on transport.

For once we get a half decent amount of money put into our public transport and suddenly according to some, the end of the world is here, the city is bankrupt, council tax will quadruple overnight, we are all leaving etc.
Really !

63

resident edinburgh,

28/06/2007 14:01:44

well said comment 65

64

Skip McClendon,

28/06/2007 14:03:11

Road Raga

On the contrary, I welcome investment in public transport of which I am an avid user.

But I want the schemes to be well-thought out, accurately costed, and value for money. Which this one isn't.

Spending half a billion pounds (even if this scheme stays within budget, which is unlikely) on a single tram line which will serve a tiny minority of Edinburgh's population (and a microscopic percentage of Scotland's population) is ridiculously excessive and extremely poor value for taxpayers' money.

65

Leila,

28/06/2007 14:06:43

#65: it may be a "decent amount of money" but the point is, it's not enough to pay for the tram scheme. It's at least £45m too little and the shortfall is almost certain to be more than that. So because it's not enough, the extra will have to come from Edinburgh Council AT THE EXPENSE OF other things like maybe schools, sport, refuse collection, parks maintenance, road repairs, not to mention there won't be investment in newer less polluting buses which most of us will still be using. And if you're an Edinburgh resident, you too will end up paying extra council tax. I hope you won't complain.

66

Woody47,

28/06/2007 14:14:23

To all those pro trams and telling us this is what the people want - Have a look at the current poll on this site. Are you telling me this is a fix or that we are all wrong? The truth is, the majority of people living and paying council tax in Edinburgh DO NOT WANT TRAMS!
Which part of this do you all not understand?

67

Tomsk,

Gay Man's Dundee 28/06/2007 14:15:07

Where does it all end? Certainly not in any democratic process. Neither the people of Edinburgh nor the people of Scotland as a whole want these trams. They have made their opposition known throughout, at the ballot box, in public forums and in polls. There is no way this issue would be put to a referendum because it would be slaughtered. But no matter, our Lords and Masters know better then we. You'll hae yir trams and ye'll like it.

68

subrosa,

28/06/2007 14:16:13

#60 Barely 6 weeks gone and the SNP are reneging on on their manifesto pledges already. What a joke.

Get your facts right. The SNP have done everything within their power to carry out their manifesto pledge on this. I do hope, in years to come, that all you Edinburgers in favour of this will not regret digging up your city for this. Seems to be a lot of snobbery about it. Dublin, Amsterdam etc get quoted and for some reason you feel you're missing out. What's wrong with being different? I'm fairy sure Rome doesn't think it's not a top city because they don't have trams. (I agree they have a metro but it's the buses that do most of the transportation there). How short sighted of Edinburgers not to keep a unique place and want to be 'like everyone else'.

69

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 14:25:26

#69 yes that right, lets run our transport policy based on a newspaper vote on a few hundred people.
And #67, according to the tramline map, it will serve Newhaven, Ocean Terminal, Leith Walk, Picardy Place, Princes Street, Haymarket, Murrayfield, Saughton, South Gyle, Edinburgh Park, gogarburn, Ingliston Park and Ride and Edinburgh airport. If you add up all the people who work or live within a 10 minute walk of that little lot, it is hardly a 'tiny minority' of Edinburgh's population !
If you are such an expert, where would you have the tramline go ? (polite answer only if possible)

70

Skip McClendon,

28/06/2007 14:31:11

I'd have it go to oblivion, but not back.

Trams would actually suit me, but I am trying to base my opinion not purely on my own self interest. I do not see the value to Scotland in installing a single tramline in Edinburgh.

Trams would be of personal use to me, while other projects such as the Forth Road Bridge or the Border rail link would be of little use to me. But I'd rather see those projects delivered than trams, as they will bring more benefit to Scotland as a whole.

There is a much greater need for a new Forth Crossing or a Border rail link, and that is where money should be spent first.

71

Archie MacPherson2,

28/06/2007 14:36:56

TRAMS CAN NOT HURDLE.

THESE PEOPLE ARE MISLEADING US ALREADY!

72

Woody47,

28/06/2007 14:47:25

#72 And you are basing your facts that people want trams on what?
An as for where should the tram line go? Anywhere that is NOT Edinburgh.

73

Partridge,

28/06/2007 14:59:53

#72 yes thats right most live within 10 minutes of the line, thats great if there was a stop every few minutes, but there is'nt,

It would also be great if we were going somewhere withing a few minutes of a stop on the line, but how many people work near that line? How many live near that line? Very little in comparison, Edinburgh is quite big you know.

74

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 15:07:52

Suppose we held a referendum on whether we should have income tax. They result would be 99.9% against income tax, 0.1% for. So does that mean income tax is wrong and should be dropped?

We elect councillors to make decisions for us, and since 46 of the 58 Edinburgh Councillors elected were pro-tram (and everyone knew this at election time), in my book that is a resounding democratic YES for trams.

As for congestion charging, there was always going to be a NO vote, after all who wants to pay more money. But that does not mean congegestion charge is wrong, that is why London did not hold a referendum on it. Simple !

75

Skip McClendon,

28/06/2007 15:16:08

#77

What a spurious argument that is.

Any sensible person knows that tax has to be paid to fund public services. We may not like it, but we all know it.

And income tax is the fairest system there is, with those earning less paying less and those earning more paying more.

There are two certainties in life - death and taxes. No mention of trams in there.

76

Stayright,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 15:19:14

Mr Salmond. You went back on your word-to scrap the trams project. A comment was made, voting SNP may have been a wasted vote. I think this comment may be correct. Almost immediately after SNP have been put in to govern in Scotland, they have lost peoples confidence and this writers future backing.

77

GrahamH,

28/06/2007 15:19:16

SNP have let the people of Edinburgh down after eloction promises to stop this were subject to a U turn. They have power to stop. They are in power, bick stops with them.

They believe they have been clever as the congestion and increased Edinburgh citizens rates will be something they will try to blame on local council BUT those people that voted SNP on sole issue of stopping trams (and there were many in Edinburgh) will never forget this stab in the back and being turned into political pawns.

78

Woody47,

28/06/2007 15:21:07

#77 If only everything was as black and white as you think. Using income tax as an example of whether there should be a referendum is petty. We do not have anything to take it's place at present but with the trams we already have an infrastructure we use. What we are talking about with trams is spending an incredible amount of money not including massive disruption over the next few years to give us ONE line. Your argument regarding councillors is a nonstarter as people voted for a party and not for everything that that party stood for.
Are you so afraid of having a poll? I believe that you would get a resounding NO vote.

79

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 15:23:32

I don't understand you logic #73.
You say that the trams would be of benefit to you, but you would rather have a 2nd forth road bridge, which would be of little or no benefit to you. Very odd !

It is very selfless of you to sacrifice Edinburgh projects, but I am sure the rest of Scotland can look after itself.

80

Skip McClendon,

On the line 28/06/2007 15:29:42

#82

What's not to understand? I want to see the whole of Scotland put before Edinburgh. I may live in Edinburgh, but my vision extends outside the city's boundaries.

The Forth Road Bridge is vital for Scotland's economy. Edinburgh trams are not. Simple enough for you?

My argument is based around what is best for the majority of people. You are saying I should put myself first? Is that what you are doing in your support for trams? Are you a Waterfront property developer, David Begg, or Ewen Aitken?

81

PJ,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 15:40:59

Well come ten years down the line, the tram line isn’t finished the cost has risen to £700 million and council tax has increased to pay for it. “We told you so!” will sound so sweet!

82

Merouane,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 15:50:37

#79 and #80. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. I presume you both have a political agenda that extends beyond the trams.

All the SNP members voted against the trams. They did what they said they would do if elected. If there had been a majority of SNP MSPs elected, the tram line would NOT be getting built. How is this stabbing anyone in the back?

They could have gone a step further and ignored the majority of Parliament, but that would probably have led to Labour and the Lib Dems trying to bring down the government and take their place. Either way you get the trams.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the MSPs and councilors who voted for it, not the SNP.

83

Goat Boy,

28/06/2007 15:54:07

#77 Road Raga

So, you are assuming that the politicians are always right (Well why not, they do!). Now that's an interesting assumption, bearing in mind that Government and local authority policy has landed us with this car dependent society they are now trying to fix. That was a good idea - at the time. They even took away the trains in some areas - was that a good decision? Do you remember industry? Government policy hasn’t helped that – it’s nearly all gone (But it has left loads of space for homes I suppose). And what about PFI? - great idea (NOT) - ask anyone involved with the schools in East Lothian. The Sheriff Hall roundabout (not a good decision). Selling off Council homes (nope - not good). If anyone else can add anything else, feel free.

See what happens when you believe the spin doctors.

I think that you will find that the some of the more negative aspects of the tram have been kicked under a carpet somewhere, in the hope that they would not surface (well, until it is up and running and the MSP have disappeared and can no longer be held responsible). But the problems haven’t gone away – just you watch.

84

Farmernot,

oan ma muckspreader 28/06/2007 16:04:12

Really smart piece of politics by Eck the 1st to question both the trams and EARL.....he knew he wouldn't get them both stopped so he gets a rethink on the airport link.....smart cookie.
Now Eckie......we in darkest Midlothian and the Boarders really don't want the Waverly line so its that or the new Forth Brig or A9 dualling.........I bet the Waverly gets binned in favour of the Brig and A9......happy days indeed.

85

Level Headed,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 16:05:50

Yesterday was a great day for democracy - I would rather have not had such a long period of uncertainty, though I at least note that the SNP could have ignored yesterday's vote and ploughed on unchanged. The fact they didnt probably does say something about their 'consensus' politics and i hope all other parties keep this in mind, everybody will have to make compromises in the next 4 years and not everybody will always be in the majority and get things their own way.

Here come the trams!!! ; )

86

Senga Jean,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 16:20:13

Is the SNP not a minority administration? So blame yourselves for voting for AN Other. What the SNP Government has been able to do is wonderful and would wonder why Labour/lib dem had not done much of it already. (I think a precast immersible tunnel is the best solution for the Forth Firth crossing)

87

Scoop in the City,

28/06/2007 16:22:47

I would guess that the majority of the people on here berating the vote for the trams, were the same people that voted against congestion charging. One of the major arguments that I heard then was that 'they' need to get public transport sorted out first.

You live in a city that is consistantly voted as one of the best places to live. It is one of the best places to live because previous generations invested in it - often against public opinion. Meadowbank, Commonwealth Pool, theatres, etc are just a few examples - but if you go back further, you'll find that parks, Princes Street gardens, roads - are all a result of public investment in the city.

If the SNP's policy on this and other transport plans, is their vision of what things could be like in an independant Scotland, then thank god that they will never get to that position. Independance might be a great idea - but if we had to endure an SNP government to get it, I'd rather not.

88

Merouane,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 16:27:22

Well said #89. I wasn't in favour of the trams and I fear the worst for my council tax in a few years time, never mind the disruption. But... the will of Parliament has to take precedence and so I'm glad that this has been the case. If people disagree enough with how their representative voted on this issue, they need to make that known at the next election.

89

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 16:31:54

I thought the Edinburgh Evening News was having a 'positive news day'

The City of Edinburgh has just had one of the worst days in it's history with the unfortunate news that the tram project has been given the go ahead.

We are now going to have to endure YEARS of transport misery, not only during the construction, but for the decades to come.

Businesses will suffer, congestion will be thicker than ever, and for what? - a tram line that benefits virtually no-one.

Couple this with crippling rises in council tax in order to pay for the £millions extra that it will cost.

Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens - Thanks for nothing, you bunch of ignoramuses.

90

Andrew Kent,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 16:40:28

WHY????

An enormous waste of money which will not solve Edinburgh's "Congestion problems" even if it did actually have them.

The MAJORITY of Edinburgh's residences would appear to be AGAINST the tram. I am very dissapointed that the SNP in the parliment and council have let us down for the first time.

91

Scoop in the City,

28/06/2007 16:50:32

93. Completely missed it - haven't you. The city is grinding to a congestion stand still. Something needs to be done to let people get around it and business to flourish. Maybe we could demolish some buildings and drive some major roads through the city centre? That's been tried and failed as anyone who tries to drive in or out of Glasgow in the morning will tell you.
Congestion charging? Been there. Cycle lanes? Don't think you'd like that.

It could be it is you and your like that are "thicker than ever". Perhaps you could remove your head from the sand and enlighten us with your solution to the transport problems in Edinburgh?

92

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 17:04:34

#95

I have missed nothing.

I drive around this city EVERY DAY for my work and I can tell you Edinburgh does not have a traffic congestion problem.

I can be anywhere in Edinburgh and the surrounding areas in between 15 and 30 minutes.

My head is well out of the sand. Edinburgh does not need a tram system.

What is needed, and it was what the SNP were supporting, are clean-engined buses and taxis and an improved road system around this city to put right what the idiots at labour put wrong.

Sounds like you are one of the ignoramuses I mentioned at the end of post #93

93

Goat Boy,

28/06/2007 17:07:32

Scoop in the city:

We need transport links with the neighbouring areas, where all the commuter traffic comes from. The trams will not resolve this issue. The Council has introduced controlled parking, and the streets are being returned to the people who live in Edinburgh.

They should have introduced congestion charging, but the Council went through the motions of pretending they were going to do something, in the knowledge it would fall at the first hurdle. And it did.

The trams will cause congestion in the other streets, as displaced traffic look for other routes. You can be sure of that.

Solution: We need to sort out the buses. The infrastructure is already in place, all we need is new, state of the art buses that will benefit everyone in the city (and the outlying areas). We need more railway links – to replace the ones that were scrapped (another political decision that has since come back to bit us in the ar#e). These solutions will benefit Scotland by extending effective communication links into the surrounding areas. The tram benefits a handful of people in Edinburgh.

The M8 through Glasgow was a political decision - May be not a good one – but a decision all the same, with similar intentions – to get the people of Glasgow moving.

94

Andrew Allan,

28/06/2007 17:08:16

Euan., #96.
When you add the trams, you could very well have traffic congestion within the next few years, and then they are going to have to start stopping alot of the cars.

95

IT bod,

28/06/2007 17:08:51

#95

You say - "The city is grinding to a congestion stand still"

It's not really

Nothing like a bit of drama to get your point across eh ?

However, if we undid some of the ridiculous traffic management "improvements" forced on us by the previous admnistration we'd be in an even better state

Anyway, back to trams......

The way I see it - I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't like to see an improvement in public transport in this city. The problem is, the proposed solution just isn't right. The tram huggers seem to think we're going to have an all-singing all-dancing 21st century transport network in place. Listen guys, we're not. We're having a single tram line. One that's costing us almost £600million.

Personally, I'm not anti-tram per se. I've seen tram networks working well in countries like the Netherlands - but that's the point. They have tram networks - joined up things that provide good coverage across the cities they've been implemented in - serving important locations such as hospitals, schools, commercial and industrial areas - taking people to and from places where there's a demand.

The proposed scheme isn't right for the city. Scrap it before it becomes Edinburgh's Other Disgrace

96

IT bod,

28/06/2007 17:11:13

forgot to say - my preference would really be to replace our bus fleet with buses fitted with low/no emission engines. that, in my opinion would work best for the city and it's people.

97

Andrew Allan,

28/06/2007 17:12:26

Goat Boy., #97.
Scotland is going to have to pay for this Tram with a reduction in progress for the rest of Scotland, again the big cities come first, and then Edinburgh complains 'their' money is going to help others around Scotland, well not now is it.

98

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 17:17:27

#98,Andrew.

You're right.

I've just not come to terms with that fact that the tram system really will cause HUGE congestion in this City.

It really does not bear thinking about.

99

Scoop in the City,

28/06/2007 17:18:37

#96 Well that's it then. You have decided because you can get around OK, there is not a problem.

Tell us about this "improved road system"? Just what (and more importantly, whose) buildings you will be knocking down to make way for it? Or maybe you want to just open up all the existing streets as a free for all? Never mind the people that might live there having to endure you speeding past their door. Never mind the people that actually like walking around the city centre - just as long and you can get where you want to go as quickly as you can.

100

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 17:19:22

#100

Totally agree.

Why these positive approaches have just been cast to one side in order to waste hundreds of millions of pounds on a next-to-useless tram line is beyond me.

101

Scoop in the City,

28/06/2007 17:30:09

104# You're right, it's beyond you. That's just my point.

102

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 17:31:37

#103

LOL!

I cant help but find funny the statement you said in your earlier post saying 'Perhaps you could remove your head from the sand'.

Bloody hell man, it is you that needs to take heed of your own words!

There are so many small measures that could be taken to alter Edinburgh's traffic system for the better, many of which have been unnecessarily meddled with by previous councils.

If you don't know them already, and I quote you, you must be 'thicker than ever'

OR, you don't even live in Edinburgh and have no idea what you are talking about anyway.

I think it may be a combination of the two..

103

Andrew Allan,

28/06/2007 17:43:25

INTER-nationalist., ##### From yesterday#####
‘…. Andrew Allan "This wouldn’t have anything to do with all those flashes of union flags I keep seeing all over our TV screens since the Scottish elections would it? Plus all of those programmes like ‘How we built Britain’, ‘The Great British Village Show’, and ‘Britain has talent’. You don’t think for one minute that nasty unionist establishment have been trying to brainwash us scrounging ungrateful lazy Scots into turning away from our nationalist ways do you."
Yes, I do believe you are right. All those programmes have been commissioned, scripted, filmed and aired in the past seven weeks. Damn. if only they broadcasting authorities had thought of this in April then that overwhelming SNP vote of one in six of the adult population would have been destroyed.
You are one serious nutter. You will feel right at home with the other SNP folk on here.’
INTER-nationalist, have you not considered that it might be you that is the ‘nutter’ and not I, personally I take it into consideration on a rolling basis, as it is said, only those who don’t consider the possibility of insanity within themselves, are the very ones who are likely to be inflicted with the condition.
As for your assessment on what I said about the possibility of brainwashing, you made a fundamental error, your timing. It was already thought to be a vote loser before the election, to emphasize British over Scottish, as when it was tried the polls showed a larger lead to the SNP, remember, there weren’t any national celebrations for the 300th anniversary of the act of union, and hardly a thing on the TV either. The outcome of the election, though important, wasn’t the main prize, it was the possible outcome of an independence referendum. These events on our TV sets were planned well before the Scottish elections. Take the David Dimbleby programme for instance, ‘How we built Britain’, when the Scottish edition was shown, it had t

104

Bob 2,

28/06/2007 17:49:11

The Evening News is getting a bit carried away with their Headline "Trams clear final hurdle at Holyrood",

they are only half way down the track,

they've still got to find the missing £42m
they've still got to get someone to do the Job that keeps the line on budget at £592m.

the worrying thing is its " We've overspent £10m Edinburgh Council that are in charge of this project"........phew nothing to worry about there then.............

105

Bob 2,

28/06/2007 17:51:15

question who are these people that vote Edinburgh a Best Place to life............min

106

Ferret Fur,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 18:05:27

For those calling for a referendum in the name of democracy.
a: We don't technically live in a democracy. If we did the 'people's will' would indeed be soveriegn. Scratch your heads a little & think who the Soveriegn is in this country.
b: Even if we did, that does not mean that there has to be a referendum. We are close to being a representative democracy & that would mean, as it does in practice, that we elect people to represent, but not directly reflect our views. For a pure democracy to work, we would have to vote on more than just a few issues. Why not vote on levels of income tax or our foregin policy stance towards Moldova or whatever? The answer is that direct democracy, ever since the time of Athens has shown that it is prone to ignorance, self-interest, apathy and short-term populism. What in any case makes it right? If 51% of the population voted that the other 49% should be exterminated does that mean that this is right? I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but it is what it is. People who imply that the political process is somehow being subverted by not having a referendum are just plain wrong.

107

Road Raga,

28/06/2007 18:06:05

#96 You say you drive around Edinburgh every day and apparently never see any congestion. Lucky you !
I got the no.27 bus earlier this week for my 4 mile journey to work, and it took 50 MINUTES due to congestion! In normal traffic it would take 30minutes, so that is 20minutes extra due to congestion, or over 3 hours a week wasted. And you say congestion is not a problem !
A horse and cart in the 1880s would have been quicker, and that is using a 'system using state of the art buses' . Shameful !

108

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 18:28:01

#112 Road Raga

Yes, I really do find I have very, very few problems in getting around Edinburgh in my van.

Interesting you state you take the No.27 bus to work.

By saying that, you are hardly going to benefit from the trams are you?, if anything your 50 minute journey to work is going to made even longer with all the chaos the tram project will bring.

If I were you, I'd invest in either a car, a jet pack or a helicopter to get around town.

109

Just a tax payer,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 20:23:47

This project will bankrupt Edinburgh City Council. We will see our community charge going through the roof and services cut to the bones. This project only benefit a very tiny minority and I am very ashamed that I voted SNP. The Edinburgh Tax Payers should have the final say on this project and NOT the opposition in Parliament and the "business leaders". We should have a referendum on this. If Business leaders want this horrendous tram, then let them PAY for it.

110

Goat Boy,

28/06/2007 20:42:41

Andrew Allan 101:

You're very right. I wrongly used the term Scotland when I should have used "Edinburgh's commuter belt".

How the politicians can claim the tram is in Scotland's best interests defeats me. This whole thing has been a political sham - and the politicians should be ashamed of how it has been progressed. This is 2007 not 1807.

111

Dr kipling,

edinburgh 28/06/2007 20:43:27

I voted SNP to stop this absolutely nonsensical project from going ahead. I can't believe we are to spend all that money (and probably much more ) on a tram project that won't reduce congestion to any great extent (backers own data!) and is only being built to serve a new elite in luxury apartments at the Ocean Terminal area, hence the backing by the so called business community (did they ask their workforce's opinion?) The SNP better put up a good performance because this U turn has certainly made me reconsider voting for them again. I feel the SNP have conned me out of my vote.

112

subrosa,

28/06/2007 21:22:14

#116 Why blame the SNP? They've done their utmost in this matter to call it to a halt but they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Can't you see that? Or are you eating too much cake and bumping your sugar level up too much?

113

Trust1,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 21:26:36

When are the people of edinburgh going to asked if they want the Trams or the extra financil burden?

114

Auckland Arab2,

28/06/2007 21:36:43

The SNP had 2 choices here - allow the vote to go through or face a no-confidence vote. They had little choice but to allow this, with a damage limitation clause on funding that protects their future budgets. It may not have been their preferred choice but it was the most pragmatic decision. To listen to the comments suggesting that they allowed this through deliberately because they want it to go over budget is just daft - the Unionist parties just would not let go of this and they had the numbers.

So if you are not hapy with the decision then dont blame the SNP, especially if you did not vote for them. This is a minority Govt and these sorts of things will happen.

115

Scoop in the City,

28/06/2007 21:39:56

#106. Let me assure you that I have live in Edinburgh most of my life - and see the traffic congestion each and every day. Where is this fantasy place that you inhabit when there is no congestion? I'd like to see it too.
Out of all the arguments posted on this site today - yours is probably the most fanciful. Euan from Lala Land - "there is no traffic congestion in Edinburgh".

PS: Your response to Road Raga illustrates exactly why there should never be referendums on things like this. You can't comprehend why someone would be in favour of anything that they don't directly benefit from.

116

Auckland Arab2,

28/06/2007 21:54:16

#121

Most people who live in Edinburgh would say that there is congestion. The question is - is it any worse than anywhere else, is it so bad that drastic action is needed, etc etc.

I'm not against the concept of trams, I just don't think this project represents value for money and its budget will blow out big time. No-one seems to be talking about the causes of congestion - the massive increase in people commuting into Edinburgh from outside of the city. People driving their children to school is one of the biggest causes - take a drive around Edinburgh at rush and then try the same journey again when its school holidays. The difference is amazing. Yet no-one is interested in talking about this.

Personally, having lived in London, Sydney and Auckland as well as Edinburgh, I don't think the price is worth paying. Unless you are prepared to suffer some really draconian measures (like only driving your car on alternate days) I think you will only scratch the surface of congestion with schemes like this. Any reduction in congestion will be overtaken by the net increase in cars caused by the growth of the city.

117

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 22:06:12

#121

I'm just back in from the pub.

Yes, you see what you consider to be 'congestion' every day.

So do I, except what I see is 'congestion' that really is not that bad. Compared to say London, it is NOWHERE NEAR something called 'congestion'.

Every City in the world has a 'rush hour', where people are moving to their places of work at a similar time, Edinburgh is no exception.

The thing is, you have been brainwashed into thinking that this is a serious problem which actually affects the city in a negative way.

Rubbish.

All this tram system is going to do is mess with peoples lives and the functionality of Edinburgh in a negative way.

It will cause so many delays to everyday life that it will soon be seen as a ball and chain on the neck of Edinburgh.

PS: There should have been a referendum on this, and had this happened, you know full well the trams would have been booted into touch.

118

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/06/2007 22:13:17

#122

Well said.

119

J Craighead,

28/06/2007 22:38:12

What is all this Good News rubbish - didn't they have to read George Orwell at school?

And why their obsession with 19th century modes of transport? If someone invented a tram that ran on pneumatic tyres would the EEN be calling them heretics?

And what about congestion? Anytime I've seen Princes Street congested with buses a siginifant number have been almost empty. Does not having trams imply that there would be more empty buses?

120

Julian,

28/06/2007 23:50:51

Euan,
To suggest that congestion in Edinburgh is not that bad and doesn't affect business is fanciful. I run a business doing call outs to people's houses and I can tell you that it is a problem. Paying people £10 an hour to travel 4 miles to the next job is a horrendous financial cost to the customer and probably part of the reason tradesman charge 50% extra in the City.

And where is your evidence that a referendum on trams would have gone against them? That's just supposition if you ask me. And if you're baseing it on comments on this website then think again.

121

Julian,

28/06/2007 23:54:40

#125 J Craighead,
So, if they had proposed an underground would that have been an obsession with 19th century transport as well?

And trams on Princes Street would imply less buses, not more empty buses.

122

Richard Lionheart,

29/06/2007 00:42:05

#126 Julian says “I run a business doing call outs to people's houses”.

Julian, have you stopped to think how your people are actually going to stop outside these houses when there is a tram line in the way 24/7/365?

How long will it take to get the vehicles back from the pound?

123

Richard Lionheart,

29/06/2007 00:47:43

#122 and #123

Well said.

Can I just add that Transport London claim that 40% of all congestion in the UK is in London.

124

Julian,

29/06/2007 01:49:24

Richard # 128. What, are you saying that off-peak parking is going to be banned along the tram line? I don't think so. And besides, about half the tram line doesn't even run along the road.

Even if they did stop parking along the line, there's such a thing as side streets where you park and then walk 100 yards to the house...something we already do quite a lot when the greenways are in operation.

As I said, CONGESTION is the big problem to businesses in Edinburgh who have to to the client to do their work.

125

Skip McClendon,

On the line 29/06/2007 09:43:09

#131

"there are far too many empty cars coming driving around edinburgh..."

Empty cars driving around?!? Aaaargghhh!!!!

There's a simple answer to congestion then! Get these ghost cars off the road!!! :-)

126

Leila,

29/06/2007 09:49:53

#130: I went to one of TIE's local consultation/exhibitions last night and apparently Leith Walk will only be for trams and buses and other traffic will have to go elsewhere (but they couldn't say where to). And Shandwick Place will be closed to everything but trams during the day. And they still can't say what changes there will be to bus routes.

127

Skip McClendon,

On the line 29/06/2007 10:01:37

Closing Shandwick place to buses?!? Now there's a GREAT idea...considering the number of bus routes that pass along there. Another example of great thinking from TIE, eh? We'll have one tram line serving a few posh flats linking to the city centre, while all the rest of us poor suckers using the bus (while paying for trams through our taxes) will get dumped miles away from where we want to go since the bus can no longer take us there! Now there's an innovative public transport "improvement" for you!

128

Skip McClendon,

On the line 29/06/2007 10:04:25

...I wonder how all those shops on Shandwick place, which rely heavily on bus users for trade, will feel when there are no longer so many potential customers using the street when the buses are re-routed...

And I thought the tram was supposed to be GOOD for the economy?!? ;-)

129

Anti-taxi Anti-tram,

damm the tram Edinburgh 29/06/2007 10:31:35

rs...

You're right on the button with the school run. Scrap the tram, buy the hydrogen powered buses for all including in that a good number for school buses for those pick ups out with a mile from school and hey presto... no more conjestion. Oh... fit the buses with green lane law breaker camera's, open up all the green lanes out of peak hours, remove short green lanes and ban the taxi's from using them!!

130

fimo,

29/06/2007 12:05:45

134 Leila:

That's not very good news for traders long Leith Walk, as it will remove some of their passing trade. It's really bad news if you live along Easter Road, Bonnington Road or Ferry Road - traffic will increase, as will congestion and pollution. These problems will be exacerbated further by the massive scale of development that is planned for Leith Docks.

If you or your kids are asthmatic or if you have any cardiovascular issues you should challenge this decision. This is absolute madness. If you live along these routes, you had better make your voices heard NOW. Once this scheme is in place, it will be difficult to tackle.

131

Goat Boy,

29/06/2007 20:46:54

Don't waste your breath - no one gives a toss.

It's just one more ****up the people of Edinburgh are going to have to live with.

132

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 04/03/2008 20:02:45
Usual toys out of prams from our non thinking friends I see.

Fact 1. Global oil supplies are peaking and set to decline (North Sea oil peaked in 1999 and is falling off at 8% per year despite record investment.)

Fact 2. Oil - now at $100/bbl will increase first to $500/bbl and then $1000/bbl over the coming decades. The cost of everything that has to be moved or that uses oil will also increase. Food for example.

Fact 3. Car congestion will fall rapidly as the price of oil rises.

Fact 4. You'll all be complaining then that there were far too few tram lines built and far too late.

Fact 5. Any airport rail link will be redundant within 20 years (price of oil and extreme cost of flying) and would never pay back the construction costs. Especially OTT schemes like EARL.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.