Edinburgh Tram developments

[dk1]

Aye right. Let's ignore the fact that this is probably the most expensive tram project per mile in history. Let's ignore the frankly bizarre track alignment. Let's ignore the fact that it runs through empty fields for most of its length. Let's ignore the lack of air conditioning. Let's ignore the fact that the town centre stops are absurdly misplaced. Let's ignore the havoc they caused in Leith Walk without ever delivering a service.

And then let's joyfully bankroll more council vanity projects....

I don't know if you live here or not, but I do, and the whole thing is a monstrous white elephant. And from what I've seen, they're carting prodigious amounts of fresh air around.

Edit: Just noticed you live in East Anglia. Easy to propose expenditures you're not going to have to pay for yourself, isn't it?

Still no use crying over spilt milk, it's done now. Let's extend it. I will use it every time I'm in town & seemed to have healthy loadings. Remember that the DLR Beckton extension went through wasteland & ran empty for many years. That however was the catalyst for development & growth.

 

[edwin_m]

Still no use crying over spilt milk, it's done now. Let's extend it. I will use it every time I'm in town & seemed to have healthy loadings. Remember that the DLR Beckton extension went through wasteland & ran empty for many years. That however was the catalyst for development & growth.

I think any such suggestion in the next several years will just be laughed out of court.

Although properly engineered, Sheffield Supertram was built in the wrong place and as the spine of an integrated transport network that effectively disappeared with bus deregulation. It's taken the best part of 20 years (and the sale of the whole lot for £1) for it to build up enough popularity to attract funding for essential replacements and desirable improvements. The Edinburgh tram is evidently hated by a significant slice of local public and political opinion.

For any extension to stand the slightest chance of acceptance, firstly the tram needs to prove that it can operate reliably without impeding buses and other traffic. Secondly it must be carrying enough passengers to meet its forecasts and to be seen to be popular. And thirdly the enquiry must report and changes be put in place to give confidence that previous mistakes won't be repeated.

 

[Clip]

For any extension to stand the slightest chance of acceptance, firstly the tram needs to prove that it can operate reliably without impeding buses and other traffic. Secondly it must be carrying enough passengers to meet its forecasts and to be seen to be popular. And thirdly the enquiry must report and changes be put in place to give confidence that previous mistakes won't be repeated.

For the first two sentences - yes it does but that needs to be judged over a period of time not just in the first month of it being in revenue operation.

And most certainly on your third point.

 

[MCR247]

If it makes anyone feel any better - Nottingham's tram extension has now officially been announced as delayed http://www.nottinghampost.com/s-official-Nottingham-s-tram-delayed/story-21298082-detail/story.html

 

[khib70]

Still no use crying over spilt milk, it's done now. Let's extend it. I will use it every time I'm in town & seemed to have healthy loadings. Remember that the DLR Beckton extension went through wasteland & ran empty for many years. That however was the catalyst for development & growth.

£775 million is a hell of a lot of milk. This thing was designed as a vanity project by jumped up local politicians and the finished article screams "vanity project". There needs to be a rigorous investigation into how this fiasco was allowed to happen, who benefited from it, and what accountability existed as far as TIE was concerned. And this needs to be done before even considering an extension.

It's a monstrous white elephant which will never come near to covering its costs, or of achieving its aims of taking cars and buses off the road. Nice tourist attraction for a handful of light rail enthusiasts but a huge fail in every other way.

 

[edwin_m]

For the first two sentences - yes it does but that needs to be judged over a period of time not just in the first month of it being in revenue operation.

Absolutely.

 

[NotATrainspott]

£775 million is a hell of a lot of milk. This thing was designed as a vanity project by jumped up local politicians and the finished article screams "vanity project". There needs to be a rigorous investigation into how this fiasco was allowed to happen, who benefited from it, and what accountability existed as far as TIE was concerned. And this needs to be done before even considering an extension.

It's a monstrous white elephant which will never come near to covering its costs, or of achieving its aims of taking cars and buses off the road. Nice tourist attraction for a handful of light rail enthusiasts but a huge fail in every other way.

I don't think it is fair to say that the idea of a tram in Edinburgh was doomed to failure. Buses can only ever get you so far and Princes Street had become a linear bus station filled with diesel fumes so something had to be done. Once completed to Leith it will serve an area with one of the highest population densities in Britain, connecting them to some of the most important areas in the city.

That Edinburgh has one of the best bus systems in the country is a positive for the tram scheme as a good bus service is the backbone of any integrated transport network; if you don't have one, like in Sheffield, everything falls apart. It has been proven time and time again that no amount of bus network will get a lot of people out of cars but people are more than happy to park and take a tram or a train instead, so we will just have to see if such a thing is happening in Edinburgh.

The route hasn't even been running for a month now, so you can't cast it off as a failure just yet.

 

[Blindtraveler]

we are about to hit the month mark and having caught up with a coleeg today who, due to the prooning of the no.12 bus is forced to use it and he reports great disatisfaction amongst regular users and mwindling loadings. All this from a very pro-tram individual

 

[kylemore]

Taken as "halfs" and stated in very general terms, the Leith end is economic on it's own, the Airport end not so, however if they had the money only for a "half" it had to be the Airport end because that is where the depot is!

I believe the intention was to restrict the Airport Express bus service in order to funnel pax onto the Tram, however it has become apparent that journey times on the Trams will normally be in the order of 10mins or so greater. As car traffic levels in the city drop as a result of council policies this differential will remain.

I wouldn't be surprised if, as this realisation dawned, that Edinburgh Airport made it clear they would not tolerate the downgrading of the Airport Express bus service and that if Lothian Buses tried to force it through would use their political and commercial clout to get another operator in - the last thing Lothian needs! As a result Lothian have been forced to keep the express bus as is, and indeed have recently increased it's frequency. A catch22 situation if ever there was one!

 

[overthewater]

Airport buses are still getting passengers because its before the Tram stop at the airport. Mind you alot of local traffic is carried on the route aswell, especial to the zoo. Just a shame Lothian could not divert the 100 into the park and ride.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Is there the facility to turn trams back at the P and R? Or is it only possible to do at the airport?

 

[Stan Drews]

As a result Lothian have been forced to keep the express bus as is, and indeed have recently increased it's frequency. A catch22 situation if ever there was one!

Eh, no, the 100 was actually slightly reduced in frequency when the tram started, which freed up a couple of buses.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is there the facility to turn trams back at the P and R? Or is it only possible to do at the airport?

The only points on the system are as follows:

• Edinburgh Airport tram stop - up/down into two terminus platforms
• Gogar Depot access - one trailing crossover just west of the depot staff halt and a full facing double junction just north of the the A8 for trams to/from the city
• Edinburgh Park tram stop - trailing crossover just east of the platforms
• Passive provision for Airport-Granton chord - just east of Haymarket TMD. As the junction is located on a concrete viaduct it was essential to add in the concrete for a future chord up to Granton, similar to Pomona on the Manchester Metrolink where the concrete viaduct is designed for the Trafford extension. The tracks and points themselves are not installed but adding them would just be a matter of screwing them in. The Granton-Haymarket junction is on normal ground so there was no need to add it in before it is necessary.
• Haymarket Yards siding - two crossovers feeding into either end of a single siding to the north of the tram route, designed to allow tram services from the South East or wherever to have Haymarket as their western terminus.
• Shandwick Place/"West End - Princes Street" tram stop - trailing crossover just west of the platforms.
• York Place tram stop - the one that is obviously the most used out of all of them. Trailing crossover just west of York Place or the planned Picardy Place tram stops. This and the previous crossover were intended for use when Princes Street is closed for events with trams from either end terminating short but still capable of taking people to the event.

On the Leith extension there are at least two. Ocean Terminal tram stop is the largest of all, with three platforms arranged so that trams from the city can terminate in any of the three and trams from the completed Line 1 loop from Granton can terminate in the middle platform. The actual Newhaven tram stop is a similar design to the airport with two terminating platforms available, to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately the only way of getting to see most of the tram design documents is on Edinburgh City Council's planning application system and it's a rather fiddly affair with gaps and inconsistent naming in the tram documents. If anyone really wants to see the most accurate and complete plans for the lines to Leith and Granton it is probably best to FOI them from the Council or from the public companies responsible for the tram.

 

[kylemore]

Eh, no, the 100 was actually slightly reduced in frequency when the tram started, which freed up a couple of buses.

The news reports just prior to opening seemed to suggest otherwise - but I bow to you're detailed knowledge, however there has certainly been no dramatic reduction as was I believe the intention in 2008/9 when I last had any inside knowledge.
The economics of the Tram to the Airport are parlous in the extreme - that Lothian which controls both the Express Bus and the Tram would not adjust the Express Bus (as it appears to be doing to other tram-competing buses) in the Tram's favour is illogical and suggests a factor not under their control as outlined in my post.

 

[90019]

The economics of the Tram to the Airport are parlous in the extreme - that Lothian which controls both the Express Bus and the Tram would not adjust the Express Bus (as it appears to be doing to other tram-competing buses) in the Tram's favour is illogical and suggests a factor not under their control as outlined in my post.

Just to make one correction, Lothian and the trams are seperate companies, but operating under the same organisation (Transport for Edinburgh). There is a flow chart thing somewhere, but I can't remember where.

One thing that should be taken into account is that other than the city cente to the airport, the bus and tram serve different markets, with the Airlink serving the many hotels along the Corstorphine corridor, which the tram doesn't.

 

[kylemore]

Just to make one correction, Lothian and the trams are seperate companies, but operating under the same organisation (Transport for Edinburgh). There is a flow chart thing somewhere, but I can't remember where.

One thing that should be taken into account is that other than the city cente to the airport, the bus and tram serve different markets, with the Airlink serving the many hotels along the Corstorphine corridor, which the tram doesn't.

Yes they serve different stops after Haymarket but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the Airlink buses' pax get on after Haymarket.
The operation of the Airlink is very relevent to the Tram's economics. It is something when the 750million Tram can't really even be described as the main Public Transport link to the Airport!

 

[gswindale]

It would probably help the Tram if, when arriving at Haymarket (from the North), the guard announced it as the main option rather than saying:
"Alight here for the bus to the airport" and then quietly adding "or the tram".

 

[Deerfold]

Eh, no, the 100 was actually slightly reduced in frequency when the tram started, which freed up a couple of buses.

However the hours of operation were extended from 20 hour to 24 hours a day (half hourly overnight) so no need to get the N22 any more.

 

[Tom B]

It has been proven time and time again that no amount of bus network will get a lot of people out of cars but people are more than happy to park and take a tram or a train instead, so we will just have to see if such a thing is happening in Edinburgh.

I disagree. Buses in Edinburgh are very different from the rest of the country - they are properly run, cheap, frequent. It is noticeable the difference in public attitudes there and elsewhere.

 

[edwin_m]

One of the few other places with similarly good bus services is Nottingham, but the tram has been pretty successful there.

Having a well-run bus network can actually be a stepping stone to a tram, because it is likely to create public and political support for public transport in general, and people can see that the buses are sometimes straining to cope. For example there isn't enough kerbspace in central Nottingham to terminate all the buses that would ideally run there.

Having said that, such support isn't unconditional and however much may have existed in Edinburgh has probably been largely forefeited. It will take many years of reliable and well-used tram service to build this back.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I disagree. Buses in Edinburgh are very different from the rest of the country - they are properly run, cheap, frequent. It is noticeable the difference in public attitudes there and elsewhere.

Yes, but if they were bad the trams would have even more problems. Trams require integrated transport networks to work properly - Manchester Metrolink is more of a Karlsruhe tram-train network as it replaced commuter rail services rather than acting as a big, high capacity bus as the Edinburgh system does. The de-regulation of buses has done more to damage public transport in this country than anything else in the past years as it is based upon the fantasy that the important competition in the market is between bus services when in reality it is the competition between public transport (as a whole) and private car or taxi. If Edinburgh's buses were deregulated then all that would happen is that some enterprising company (or cabal thereof) would try their best to sink the tram network, even if running to Leith. Such a thing is one of the reasons the Strathclyde Tram project was scrapped.

Also, that the bus network is well-run ensures that passenger numbers are high enough to make the switch to a tram worthwhile on the busiest routes. Once extended to Leith there will be no shortage of customers on the tram and the same goes for most other major bus corridors in the city.

 

[ninja-lewis]

If Edinburgh's buses were deregulated then all that would happen is that some enterprising company (or cabal thereof) would try their best to sink the tram network, even if running to Leith. Such a thing is one of the reasons the Strathclyde Tram project was scrapped.

Buses in Edinburgh have been deregulated since 1986. First tried to take market share from Lothian Buses around the millennium but now content themselves with commuter services to parts of the Lothians that LB ignore. There also other companies competing for the council's subsidised bus services.

Any potential competitor in Edinburgh would ignore the tram line because a) it is propped up by the Lothian Buses dividend (so you're better going after Lothian Buses, which you'd to have to do in any event) and b) there is so much political capital invested in the project, no amount of holes below the waterline will be allowed to sink it so you'd be wasting your time.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Agreed. Edwin_M has a valid point also however im afraid this only really applies to areas where the tram is:
A, taking pressure of the bus network
B, opening up new journey opportunitties.

This does niether and has in fact removed choice for many bus passengers due to cutting the Service 12. The orrigional route to Leith may hav served to take a few buses off Leith Walk but again nothing revolutionary. The only section that was radically new and different was the proposed Route B, which would have plugged a very nesesary gap and, having recently moved to very near where it would opperate, I would use it if it ran!

 

[Deerfold]

Agreed. Edwin_M has a valid point also however im afraid this only really applies to areas where the tram is:
A, taking pressure of the bus network
B, opening up new journey opportunitties.

This does niether and has in fact removed choice for many bus passengers due to cutting the Service 12. The orrigional route to Leith may hav served to take a few buses off Leith Walk but again nothing revolutionary. The only section that was radically new and different was the proposed Route B, which would have plugged a very nesesary gap and, having recently moved to very near where it would opperate, I would use it if it ran!

Nottingham also cut a lot of bus services. The 80-85 running every 5 minutes were replaced by a half-hourly service.

 

[edwin_m]

Nottingham also cut a lot of bus services. The 80-85 running every 5 minutes were replaced by a half-hourly service.

Indeed. The tram is likely to take a lot of people off buses which will naturally lead to reductions in bus services. This may in turn lead to some detriment to some journeys, but under a deregulated system if there are more than a few of these then another operator is likely to come in to provide for them. Some will see this as a good thing for choice but it can be a mixed blessing.

Edinburgh and Nottingham have similarities in that both have an established and dominant local bus operator, part-owned by the council. So although deregulation still applies there is not the sort of competition seen in many other cities and the service is probably better for it.

Both dominant operators got a stake in their respective tram networks when first opened, and in Nottingham the NCT bus passes were also valid on the trams. The Competition Commission decided this was anticompetitive, so when the concession was re-let neither NCT nor eventual winners Trent Barton were able to offer the same level of ticket integration with their own bus networks. The only multi-operator ticket now covers all operators and is more expensive than single-operator tickets.

I assume the Edinburgh fare system has been designed to avoid this pitfall.

 

[CallySleeper]

Did NET not also reduce car use as people switched to trams from driving? I wonder if Edinburgh is doing the same.

I assume the Edinburgh fare system has been designed to avoid this pitfall.

A standard bus day ticket/pass is also valid on the trams (except to the airport) in the same way that NCT day tickets were also valid.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I dont think the reduction in drivers will happen as it did in Nottingham as the route as stands was already well served by other options. If anything, users of the now shortened number 12 bus who have had many options removed for them will go back to or take up driving.

 

[edwin_m]

Did NET not also reduce car use as people switched to trams from driving? I wonder if Edinburgh is doing the same.

A standard bus day ticket/pass is also valid on the trams (except to the airport) in the same way that NCT day tickets were also valid.

I'm sure NET reduced car use as well, though I don't recall seeing any figures.

The interavailability of day tickets and passes was the issue the Competition Commission objected to. Apparently a multi-operator ticket is only allowed if all operators get the chance to participate in it. The TrentBarton Mango smartcard is now also valid on the trams but I think that gets round the issue because it is a means of paying for journeys rather than something that gives unlimited travel for a period. A separate Mango fare is charged for each journey and the daily cap doesn't apply to tram journeys.

 

[Deerfold]

A separate Mango fare is charged for each journey and the daily cap doesn't apply to tram journeys.

Just to quibble slightly - a separate cap applies to tram journeys.

 

[button_boxer]

I'm sure NET reduced car use as well, though I don't recall seeing any figures.

The interavailability of day tickets and passes was the issue the Competition Commission objected to. Apparently a multi-operator ticket is only allowed if all operators get the chance to participate in it. The TrentBarton Mango smartcard is now also valid on the trams but I think that gets round the issue because it is a means of paying for journeys rather than something that gives unlimited travel for a period. A separate Mango fare is charged for each journey and the daily cap doesn't apply to tram journeys.

I have a Sheffield "Bus and Tram Megarider" that is valid on Stagecoach buses and trams but not other bus operators. That would seem to fall foul of the same rules, or are there grandfather rights for ticket types that were already established before this decision?