Taking the tram
At Holyrood, there鈥檚 gossip of an emerging deal over Edinburgh trams - at least, among opposition parties.
Looks like Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories might band together to amend an executive motion on transport due to be discussed tomorrow.
The deal could be - yes to the trams - but with a caveat that any extra cost lands upon the local authority, not the Executive; but only maybe to the Edinburgh Airport Rail link, unless problems of management can be sorted out.
Remember that ministers can go their own merry way, regardless of what parliament advises.
But I wouldn鈥檛 be at all surprised if, in the interests of wider harmony, the SNP Executive gives a grudging 鈥渁ye, OK鈥 to the trams - eventually.
As to EARL, it still looks in big trouble.
I'm 
Comments
With the Edinburgh Council in deep financial trouble, mismanagement by the former Labour administration that has resulted in a 拢10 million deficit and planned cuts in services, the new council simply cannot afford to pay the extra costs associated with the proposal to cap Scottish Executive expenditure on the Edinburgh Tram Line.
Under these circumstances any political decision to go ahead with tram project will result in deeper cuts in education, social provision, housing and environmental services as the council attempts to balance it's books. It would be political suicide to contemplate any increase in council tax to pay for this project.
This tram project has the potential to become a huge albatross around the neck of the capital.
My advice don't do it, just quietly bin the whole project.
So, the extra costs of the tram system in Edinburgh may fall to the Local Authority, and then presumably onwards on to those who pay Edinburgh Council Tax. Serves us all right for voting "No" to congestion charging.
If only we'd voted "yes" when we had the chance, then the coffers would already be full, the traffic would already have reduced, buses could use the bus lanes, and who knows, the already excellent bus system could have been expanded avoiding the need for an expensive tram system anyway.
Even better, the coffers would have been filled by those who don't actually live in Edinburgh (sorry Balerno, sometimes you just have to pay the price for your rural idyll).
It's all very well though, saying that Edin council should fund any shortfall, but with the demise of council tax, surely this'll just come out of the central local taxation pot anyway?
Tramtastic, Brian, the great film Trains, Planes & Automobiles spring to mind, a great comedy it is too.
Key question to pose here is say the SNP administration loses this vote and an ammendment comes in with a shortfall to be picked up by the citizens of Edinburgh. Does this mean that they will be faced with a potential higher rate of Local Income Tax / Council Tax, or will it mean that the fares charged will be so high that no one will travel on the trams and the buses will be packed like sardines, with the trams holding everyone up with nobody on board? Smells a bit fishy to me.
Looks like choppy waters ahead, but I am sure that Captain Salmond, will see out this particular storm.
If the SNP vote against the trams and the rest of parliament votes for them . Then if the budget for the trams runs over (which is highly likley) then the SNP can blame the opposition for financial mis-managment.A case of I told you so !
I have mixed feelings on this but when I think of the cost for both Trams and EARL being around 拢1.2 Billion I have to say NO.
Main reasons stated below:
There are areas of Scotland where emergency departments are facing closure due to a lack of funding.
There are areas of Scotland where people are living in dire poverty, poor housing and a lack decent civic amenities.
The road network in Scotland is a disgrace, pot holes everywhere costing the motorist a fortune in repair bills.
The money would be better spent helping those who need it most, get this stuff sorted then look at Trams and EARL.
What does Edinburgh needs trams for? I would have thought there is enough congestion as it is. Not unless Buses and cars are going to be reduced in the city. Government bodies are always going on about congestion; why do they always add to it and not reduce it in some way?
"What does Edinburgh needs trams for? I would have thought there is enough congestion as it is."
Asked and answered. Edinburgh is far too congested so we need trams to alleviate congestion. Seeing as you can get 200 people on a tram using about as much roadspace as 7 cars, it's not rocket science to work out that the roads will be a bit less crowded once trams are in place.
I am ambivalent about trams but I really can not understand the SNPs opposition to EARL. Surely any European capital city, at the beginning of the 21st century, needs a modern, fast, efficient rail link from its airport to the city centre. If there are problems with management - sort them out. Any of us who have done even a minimum of travel on the continent will be able to quote examples of efficent, interlinked transport networks (Geneva is a particularly good example). Surely the SNP wants to be at the forefront European transport development!?
Gary @ 8 - you can get 50 people on a Stagecoach express bus which uses as much roadspace as 3-4 cars, but that doesn't stop the Forth Road Bridge being chock-a-block when I come in from Fife in the morning. It's not rocket science to figure out that not every person is willing to give up the 'convenience' of using their own car no matter what other options are available - and the park-and-ride at Ferrytoll is definitely a good option.
Another issue: the ad I saw in Metro today proclaimed that the population in this area will increase by something like 50,000 - so are the roads going to be any less congested even if trams come in?
We need teleportation, pronto!
The Edinburgh tram debate has served to fill the campaign void previously occupied by the partially successful Edinburgh Opera House crusade; that crusade, championed as it was for all those years by those who perceived themselves as the worthies of Edinburgh, insomuch as they professed to have a greater understanding than those ratepayers and taxpayers who actually had to pay for their indulgences.
The trams are the capital鈥檚 twentieth century indulgence, it appears they may well have to be funded by Edinburgh Council Tax payers; I do not see these 鈥楨dinburgh worthies鈥 giving any more consideration to where the money comes from this time; the difference this time could be the direct accountability to Edinburgh Council Tax payers. We must not rule out the possibility of a campaign from a wider representation of Edinburgh鈥檚 tax payers.
EARL was conceived in a similar frame of mind as was the tram鈥檚 tragedy; the difference that can be clearly identified is in the immensity of their budgets, or more correctly by the projections of immense cost overruns as is common with all 鈥楪overnment contracts鈥 of this kind.
Its a bit of a joke to say any shortfall will be covered by Edinburgh Council. We all know that when the budget runs out (guaranteed)it will be a case of 'we have started so we might as well finish it off.
I personally wouldnt trust any comment from Tavish in the light of the proposal for the Aberdeen Western Perifferal route. Everyone was concerned about the proposal then out of public view its suddenly 2 roads all filtering into a single carriageway. Thats not a by-pass its more congestion from a 'Bampot' who has no real idea or commonsence.
It seems to me that the the Opposition MSP's are sitting there with the view that pushing this idea through and then showing the SNP Legislation to have lost control of budgets and thus question their ability to take charge is the plan.
I really hope that the Public is able to remember the history leading to this future mess and vote these people out. They are not representing the peoples best interests merely pushing their own Parties PR aims.
I presume these schemes were devised on the assumption that the good folk of Edinburgh would have long since approved congestion charging in their referendum, and therefore would be in a position to benefit from and help pay for such schemes.
That they chose not to, in my eyes, weakens their argument to the rest of Scotland that this is critical to the economy of the capital city and the country, despite Tavish Scott's indignant protestations.It also vindicates the SNP's position, to doubt the local support.
Edinburgh Council may need to revisit this issue to prevent any risk of cost overruns(with the pain of the Parliament building itself too fresh in the memory), and convince us of Edinburgh citizens' own commitment.
The trams in Edinburgh won't get anybody out of their cars, and that really is the killer point.
They'll only take people from buses. The people driving aren't doing so because they don't have a tram to get on, it's because the buses don't go where they are going - and neither will the trams.
The SNP seem to like referendums, why not one on the Trams? Edinburgh Council had one on the congestion charging, which was less problematic.
Hopefully as a weegie Im not barred from adding my tuppence worth!
Throughout all of this I have wondered what on earth the government has being playing at with the trams debacle. Surely if there are problems with the budget then you seek to address issues with that, not bin the entire project, aspecially after it has been so widey publicised. From a political perspective it seems negative, in contrast to the positive pubicity which the SNP were seeking to stoke up in the days after their election.
Its not promoting anything, just taking something away, or so the perception is. And no, the Second Forth Crossing Cannot ever make up for that. What a dreadful idea.
EARL however, I agree on. It seemed overly lavish. Sure Edinburgh Airport requires a rail link - just as Glasgow Airport is getting - but there are other ways of providing that which dont involve big tunnels under the runway surely.
Anyway, what about re-introducing more commuter trains in Edinburgh just like there is here in Glasgow. A Railway already runs round the outer suburbs of the city. surely it would be a prudent measure to re-open this, if were talking about reducing the capitals congestion issues.
The extra cost shouldn't land on the local council. It should land on all the businesses that support the trams. Then we can be sure that it won't go over budget. We will also see how much the businesses really want the trams.
Gary
And how many people can you get on a double decker bus which is about 3 car lengths long?
And although the tram might not take up more roadspace what about all the associated tracks? I think that the trams which i expect will be half empty will cause more congestion. Not to mention the months of construction work and installation of tramstops and ticket machines etc.?
And i used to live in a city which installed trams not so long ago which has much wider streets than Edinburgh (sydney) so i know what i am talking about!
If Edinburgh wants to get people off the roads then perhaps it should follow Glasgow's example and build a subway (paid for by Edinburgh council of course!)
Excellent news.
The execrable EARL project gets binned (tunnelling under runways? C'mon!) and the prospect of tram cost overruns falling on council tax payers should finally mean that Edinburgh's residents will get the long-denied opportunity to vote on the tram project, and likely consign it to the same oblivion as congestion charging.
It's time Edinburgh's councillors, of whatever political hue, started managing the city's fabric and finances properly, rather than wasting time on grandiose pie-in-the-sky schemes.
As to Number #8. How does that work, surely the same amount of people will still be travelling at peak times?
Just because you get 200 people in a tram means absolutely nothing. Put 200 people on a tram, and 200 people on buses, lay them beside each other, you have the same number of people and used the same space.
The tram can only follow a line, and a bus can go different routes, would'nt it be great if we all lived on the tram line, it would work then, but most of us DONT.
Trams will not work,
Is the opposition to the trams by the SNP solely on financial grounds or is there a sense that there is some other political motive behind their stance?
The question that should be asked is "how much does it cost NOT to build the trams". Public transport infrastructure improves access and attracts huge amount of inward investment and regeneration to an area. The financial returns go well beyond just the passenger fares.
To #19
A single tram will carry the same number of people as 120+ cars in rush hour. Which would you rather have in front of you? The tram, or the cars. Think about it!
For people who use the tram it's a fast, easy ride to the city centre with no worries about parking. For the motorist it means fewer cars on the road and more free parking spaces.
The overwhelmingly negative tone of the comments posted on this message board is, sadly, all too predictable. It seems that in every British city where a modern tram system has been proposed we hear the same tired old arguments being trotted out by those with insufficient imagination or experience to understand the real benefits that the trams would bring. The same anxieties would have been heard in Manchester 15 years ago; now the highly successful tram system has become a recognisable symbol of the the city and a catalyst to its regeneration. I doubt one would find many people in Manchester today who would support ripping out the trams that they have - nor in Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, Croydon or Dublin. In fact, what is proposed in Edinburgh has many similarities with the Manchester system - In the suburbs the trams will run on separate off-road tracks or along old railway lines, while in central Edinburgh the streets where trams will run are already restricted to car access or have bus lanes so trams aren't going to cause congestion. What many people fail to appreciate is the speed, convenience and capacity that a tram provides. This, together with their greater comfort and better image, provides a far greater incentive for motorists to leave the car at home than the humble motor bus can ever offer. One final point; many people often claim that trams will degrade the visual and spatial quality of the streets. This can be the case if not handled sensitively but, as a recent trip to Dublin convinced me, the introduction of a tram system can have a hugely positive impact on the quality of the public realm. The ubiquitous and unwelcome clutter of bollards, barriers, poles together with cheap and tatty surfacing materials had been swept away and in their place were clean, uncluttered surfaces and well designed and coordinated street furniture. Overhead wires were attached to buildings rather than bulky poles and did not detract from the scene. The current quality of the urban environment in many of Edinburgh's streets including Princes Street and Leith Walk is appalling. The tram will be the catalyst for the transformation of these spaces, no longer designed soley around the utilitarian needs of motor traffic, but instead providing a clean and civilised environment for people, one which is fitting for a city of Edinburgh's status and standing.
#23
Dublin still has the same congestion as always despite the trams.it wont work!!!
Paul Stewart (post # 16) mentions the desirability of re-opening the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway to local passenger trains. This is a practical proposition supported by all political parties and a whole swathe of local amenity groups, community councils, organisations and companies. It wouldn't cost a lot of money and the private sector company E-Rail have already raised 拢8.5m towards this - around a half to a quarter of the cost depending on the option chosen.
There's currently a Scottish Parliament e-petition calling for the re-opening of the line - available for signing at
A website on this issue can be accessed at
Personally, I find this focussing of resources on Edinburgh repugnant. It's hard to imagine a less deserving recipient of Executive cash!
Electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line, or upgrading the M8 to 3 lanes all the way would surely be a better use of funds - not to mention providing faster, wider escape routes to get out of the place!!
What does the author of posting 25 suggest as a better alternative to solving congestion? A tram system isn't going to make congestion any worse and it will provide a quick and reliable option for people to bypass the congestion caused by those too stubborn to get out of their cars. The era of redesigning city centres around full car access is over.
EARL - tunnelling under a runway is a gift to terrorists. Another station on the east coast main line which runs past the airport anyway would make more sense. Those from the West could change trains at Haymarket/ Waverley.
Trams - most of the people living in Edinburgh don't live near one of the proposed tram routes. I'm disappointed this has got the go-ahead. Further improvementin service frequency and buses running on greener fuels will be ruled out if the council has to find the funding shortfall. A few will benefit at the expense of the many
I don't see how the trams are going to be of any use to the vast, vast majority of the people of Edinburgh. It's certainly not going to benefit me, and I live nearer it than most people will: At the moment, I can get a bus within about five minutes to take me to the destination of the tramline. Stupid, stupid politics.