Making it as far as York with his ragtag army was a triumph for William Wallace. Making it only as far as York Place with their ragtag trams would be a humiliating failure for Edinburgh Council.
Thankfully, despite headlines suggesting otherwise, the Edinburgh Trams team insists that the full line to Newhaven will be built. There is no doubt that the project is struggling to avoid hitting the buffers though.
Of the financial and aesthetic mess that Edinburgh’s streets find themselves in, it is the lack of surprise that grates the most given that one aspires to be as optimistic as possible about what Edinburgh can achieve. I do believe that the genuine outrage that owners of small businesses (in Leith particularly) must feel is fully justified and should be acted on. Some streets in that part Auld Reekie were positively ghostly while the lines for these phantom trams were being built. I don’t know how a business can survive when footfall drops some 70%-80% for a significant period of time and, of course, many didn’t and have since gone to the wall. They are the victims in a battle that as yet has produced few heroes.
That said, I was a late convert to the tram project once it was fully explained to me and I remain so. There are three streets in Leith that are very close to breaching EU limits on traffic pollution and if plans go ahead for an extra 15,000 homes down at The Shore then petrol-driven cars and buses won’t be able to cut the transport needs alone. Edinburgh is a world-class city, a cultural melting pot and a true business hub so it should be striding into the 21st century and trams would help it to do so. So too would a dedicated system of cycle lanes but, well, one step at a time I suppose.
I do think that the popular counter-argument of ‘Why have trams when we have perfectly good buses?’ misses the point entirely given the environmental aspect of this project. Trams are cheaper, quicker and greener and, crucially, people will give up commuting in their cars for trams while they would, snobbishly but no less pollutingly, turn their noses up at the bus. You see it down here in London all the time, people who refuse to take the bus but have no quarrel with the sleek, urban, quick Underground. We’re basically compromising for posers but what can you do?
Indeed, to highlight the gaps in the pro-bus/anti-tram argument, were one to propose scrapping the expensive London Underground because there’s “a perfectly good bus network” you’d be laughed out of the Mayoral contest. We know trams work because cities that have them use them, enjoy them and would never scrap them. It’s just building the blinking things that’s the problem. Edinburgh may have to take a little bit longer and wear its belt a little bit tighter in order to get there, but get there we must.
Of course, being in favour of the trams doesn’t necessarily mean that one doesn’t think they should be scrapped on economic grounds. And, conversely, one can think bringing them in was a bad idea in theory but now that £300+m has been spent we should push on regardless.
For me, one fundamental error in this project was that the SNP were never in favour of it so should have stepped away from being part of its delivery. It was always going to arouse too much suspicion when the most vocal opponents of the project were ultimately tasked with its realisation. As some have said – ‘Get onboard or get out of the way’.
A referendum on whether the project should go ahead is surely a non-starter and a bit of a cop-out. Those elected to lead should do so and use the information that they are privy to in order to come to a majority view and then press on.
The news that the next decision on this project will come in two long months’ time is worrying though. It seems that what the trams themselves possess in dynamism, modernity and speed, those who are tasked with delivering them lack.
To sum up the way ahead one must turn again to the trailblazing William Wallace:
Aye, build them and you may be skint. Scrap them, and you'll save... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the bus-driven days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our councillors that they may make excuses, but they must also make... OUR TRAMS!
(What do you mean cringeworthy…?)
22 comments:
We know trams (independence) work(s) because cities (countries) that have them (it) use them (it), enjoy them (it) and would never scrap them (it).
You're a psychic genius Sir. I was trying to work that very argument into this post somehow but couldn't find a way to do it unclumsily.
You're a psychic genius Sir. I was trying to work that very argument into this post somehow but couldn't find a way to do it unclumsily.
the Edinburgh Trams team insists that the full line to Newhaven will be built
Given their record to date, Jeff, if TIE told me that the sky was blue today I’d still look up to check for myself :-)
The business case for Trams, like the EARL project with its underground station, was always highly suspect, and depended on some heroic assumptions about developer contributions. If the other parties had had a vision beyond trying to clip the wings of the SNP in its first weeks in office, we could have had a surface rail link at the airport for a hundred million quid or less (instead of £600m), and saved the £500m+ that our half-length Tram line is now forecast to come in at – just think what we could be doing with that £1.1bn of capital right now.
As it is, we’re now shelling out hundreds of millions to replace the 22 bus. Ironically, given that the bit which is going to be built (Airport – York Place) is going to be largely off road, it’s one section which actually makes some sense in the absence of EARL or something more sensible. It will connect the airport to the rail network at Edinburgh Park and Haymarket, run through the city centre, and except for Shandwick Place and St Andrew Square, won’t interfere with other road users. The rest of the proposed route through Leith would just have been a traffic jam on rails.
There’s some snobbishness in London about the bus, but it’s not like you get a better class of armpit to rest your face in on the tube during rush hour or anything. I’d suspect that most of the people who don’t use buses in London tend not to down to a lack of confidence in their knowledge of the city’s geography.
For short distances, the buses are far and away the fastest means of transport, but if your conception of how the city is laid out is based on a colourful underground schematic with familiar station names, then that’s what you’ll use. You might even spend 10 minutes taking the tube from Embankment to Covent Garden on that basis rather than choosing to walk it in 5.
Ah'm bein pure selfish when ah say ah could happily see the back o' the trams. Haein yer front door dug up an' lookin like a bomb-site fer gaun oan a year or mair is livin hell. Ah know it makes sense oan sae many levels. It'll be greener, an' it'll likely be better oan a mass-transit developmental an' urban-regenerative level. It'll be better fer the city oan a grand scale, an' it'll benefit everybody, aw o' us, aw th'gither.
But will it help me? On a personal level?
Aw ah can think o' is ma street gettin aw dug up again, an' me no kennin where ma bus-stop's gaunnae be fae day tae day, an' mair o' ma local shops shuttin an' aw ah've got left tae go tae fer ma messages is Tesco fuckin Metro an' ah jist want tae greet.
The business case against the trams rests on easy availability of oil-based fuels. When Scotland meets its 2020 & 2050 renewable electricity generation targets and so is one of the few countries in the world with a semi-functioning economy, I fully expect the only things to be moving to be the SPT network, a (hopefully slightly expanded) electric rail network in central and southern Scotland, and, if built, the edinburgh trams.
Get them built!
Aside o' ma dread at the street bein dug up an' me nivver gettin aff the tablets fer ma nerves, ah suppose the feelin is a bit like the feelin ah wid expect tae feel if ah happened tae bide in a country that wis jist aboot tae take a great leap intae the future. Some folk in a newly-independent Scotland are gaunnae hae their streets dug up, an' bits o' the society are gaunnae look like buildin-sites fer a while, but efter it aw settles doon we'll aw be able tae wheech fae the airport tae the docks in nae time.
The contention that, on £600 million & counting for something which costs zero for buses, trams are cheaper, seems unreasonable.
I would also require some proof that, if trams really were cheaper, they would inevitably be more attractive to snobs. Anyway £600 million to subsidise snobs seems excessive.
Particularly when, by comparison with prices in other countries the whole project should never have cost more than £105 million.
Scotland still has many of the best engineers in the world. Unfortunately our politicians are arguably the very worst & they control this mess.
Actually as far as I can see the business case against the trams rests on the fact that the Council doesn't have enough money to pay for them.
It's a shame, but there is no more money in the pot.
Great blog article, and good point made by Richard: You can't compare London's tube to Edinburgh's tramline, but you could compare Edinburgh's tramline with a proposed tramline through the heart of London.
My perception of the truth is: the tram isn't integrating Edinburgh's transport system. It won't even serve the majority population of the city. It's an over ambitious project to replace the 22 bus, at the expense of schools, housing, and heritage.
Indy you don't understand the meaning of the term "business case". It means the case made that it can operate profitably not merely measuring how much money the owner has. If there were a good bu8siness case for this banks would be happy to lend to build it because they would be convined that they would get it back out of profits. Clearly that isn't the case.
It is unfortunate that the level of political debate in Scotland, the home of Adam Smith & some of the world's greatest go-getters, is conducted with a degree of economic ignorance equivalent to saying 2 + 2 = 22.
Bit harsh Neil. For a start, you're thinking too private sector.
The NHS doesn't have a great "business case" but I don't think you or I or Indy would suggest scrapping it.
Things get a bit complicated when it's a public/private hybrid. For example again, the Post Office.
But I wouldn't claim the NHS has a good business case I would defend it on essentialy altruistic grounds.
Though local doctors, who get paid by the NHS on a per patient basis, have to convince their bank managers that building themselves a flashy new surgery building will produce enough income for them to be able to pay it back.
Jeff, I'm loving your recent ability to make double posts almost everywhere!
Trams are very expensive to implement because of the need for rails. Were Trolley Buses ever considered?
They are a tried & tested method of mass transit, reducing pollution by replacing cars AND buses on the road but at a fraction of the cost of Trams.
Other World Class Cities have them, why not also use them in future for Edinburgh and other Scottish cities?
Just saying,
I was in Dublin a couple of years ago and their tram system seemed integrated and, well, modern, and stuff.
Your arch rival, Glasgow, had a proposal for trams a while ago but it was knocked back for some reason or another.
It seems to me it was completely stupid to get rid of them in the first place....
Oh, I get it! Sophia's speaking Ulster Scots!
Is it just me, or when Scotland tries to run independently massive amounts of public cash - this, Strathclyde Public Transport, the Parliament building, the Scottish-Islamic Foundation, Homecoming loans, Scottish Housing Expo - it all goes pear-shaped?
JEFF >> I do believe that the genuine outrage that owners of small businesses (in Leith particularly) must feel is fully justified and should be acted on. Some streets in that part Auld Reekie [...]
Leith is not part of Edinburgh!
DCOMERF >> When Scotland meets its 2020 & 2050 renewable electricity generation targets [...]
I think you mean "if". Given the track record on public schemes, why are you so sure?
>> [...] and so is one of the few countries in the world with a semi-functioning economy,
Yeah, right.
Re the Dublin system
"The cost of building the Red and Green Lines was €770m.[27] This was three times original predictions that the system would cost €254m."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luas
Nice to know what we've got to look forward to.
There already was a referendum on the trams. Edinburgh voters were asked whether they endorsed or did not endorse the council's transport plans. The result was that they did not endorse the plans. Somehow, they went ahead and implemented part of the plans anyway.
Neil I think the whole concept of there being a "business case" for the trams in the first place is a bit suspect.
Because "business" isn't paying for the trams, is it?
The taxpayer is footing the bill.
Only 20 comments on a trams article? I'm amazed - The Evening News would have reached a couple of hundred by now. You'll have to think of another polemic mate, I guess we're all sick of this one :)
I was never for the trams and still would rather see the whole project binned. I live just behind Constitution street in Leith at leith Links and the disruption to our water and electricity has been a nightmare over the past few months.
The number 16 city bound bus has not been seen for nearly a year and even the path between Waterloo place and Constitution street has been dug up and closed off countless times.
I am hard to please though because I would like to see the trams banned but would be piss#d off if they scraped them then it would mean that we went through hell for nothing.
Post a Comment