Edinburgh Tram developments

[edwin_m]

Is "2012 forecast mature demand" a forecast made in 2012 of what the demand would be when it had settled down to a steady figure? If so then nobody would expect to be there after six months or so, it is usually around 3 years after opening.

 

[ModernRailways]

Right now the tram doesn't go anywhere useful for tourists nor does it go anywhere useful in general.

Tourists will only use it as a fun novelty factor and not to actually get around (with the exception of those going to the Airport) because it doesn't go anywhere useful such as the Royal Yacht, or down towards the palace and science centre.

And when I travelled on it, it didn't seem like there many large areas of housing, and the stops generally seemed out of the way of any housing, either across a main road or something else.

I imagine it would be a huge success if it actually went somewhere useful but alas, it doesn't. At least not for me.

 

[WatcherZero]

Is "2012 forecast mature demand" a forecast made in 2012 of what the demand would be when it had settled down to a steady figure? If so then nobody would expect to be there after six months or so, it is usually around 3 years after opening.

Yes, a 2012 forecast.

 

[alexf380]

The only times I've used the tram were to the Airport or to get to Krispy Kreme at Hermiston Gait, as there is no direct bus from Princes Street/ St Andrew Sq to Hermiston Gait. On both those occasions I wouldn't call it busy (about half 4 - 5 oclock) and by the time I reached the airport there were about a dozen people on board

 

[tbtc]

May to September is prime tourist season, so I'd expect the numbers to be high

Right now the tram doesn't go anywhere useful for tourists

I know we all want to criticise the tram, but we can't attribute the high summer figures to the influx of tourists *and* complain that it doesn't go anywhere useful for tourists.

Which is it?

Tourists will only use it as a fun novelty factor and not to actually get around (with the exception of those going to the Airport) because it doesn't go anywhere useful such as the Royal Yacht, or down towards the palace and science centre.

Most of Edinburgh's tourist attractions are slap bang in the city centre (the tram would be running to the Royal Yacht if the Leith line hadn't been cut back - it was always intended to head down to the waterfront).

Holyrood isn't going to be a busy terminus for a frequent tram (based on the loadings on the half hourly single decker bus from there to the Princes Street area).

it didn't seem like there many large areas of housing, and the stops generally seemed out of the way of any housing, either across a main road or something else.

I imagine it would be a huge success if it actually went somewhere useful but alas, it doesn't. At least not for me.

Given that it was scaled back to a simple line from the city centre to the city outskirts, I don't know how it could have been much more useful (without just copying an existing bus route - in which case we'd all be complaining about spending all that money on a route that just duplicates a Lothian Buses service).

You've got St Andrew Square (for the coach station), Princes Street, Haymarket, Murrayfield, Edinburgh Park and the shops at Hermiston Gait, the Gyle (shopping centre and office parks), the RBS HQ, the P&R at Ingilston and the Airport (plus an interchange with the railway to Fife, if the Edinburgh Gateway opens)...

...on a route that is mainly a segregated alignment (i.e. not caught up with buses/traffic on busy arterial routes).

I'm not defending the construction (construction problems have blighted a few railway infrastructure projects over the years too...), I'm not defending the fact that it was cut back to just one route, but *if* you were to only have a single route from the city centre to the outskirts without branches then the current route ticks about as many boxes as it could.

The Sheffield tram opened with it's share of problems (badly designed, built to serve high rise flats in different parts of town just as the council started demolishing them, thus removing the high density housing from the route, a couple of pointless branches), but we got there. The Edinburgh tram has had a terrible birth, but I think that it serves enough places (jobs, leisure...) to secure its future. Hopefully one day it'll run to Leith and other places, of course.

 

[edwin_m]

The Sheffield tram opened with it's share of problems (badly designed, built to serve high rise flats in different parts of town just as the council started demolishing them, thus removing the high density housing from the route, a couple of pointless branches)

In terms of engineering design the Sheffield tram was probably the best of the early UK systems, employing proven German standards rather than compromises. The infrastructure and vehicles have run reliably for 20 years with the track needing replacement recently. The problem was it was built very well but in the wrong place!

To me the surprising thing about the Edinburgh tram is how the exit from Waverley emerges within sight of the tram line but almost exactly midway between two stops, neither easily visible and both requiring crossings of fairly busy roads (and based on a quick visit this week, the red men seem to stay on a long time in Edinburgh when there is no traffic passing!).

 

[Blindtraveler]

There is still much work to do with sequencing of lights and crossings and I would hope its being addressed. However today traffic signals were/are the least of there worries as a power failure stopped the entire job earlier with a limmited service now running Airport>Murryfield. ↲

worth noting that compared to a normal Friday, I was home today half an hour, or 2 buses, earlier on a journey that involves travel via City Centre.
↲

I understand the trams are here to stay but when something like this happens I cannot resist using some of the extra time saved by not having them change every set of lights between Waverley and Shandwick Place in there favour to have a good glote and no doubt 90019 will be along shortly to inform us with an equally evil grin that his Bus continued working perfectly throughout!

 

[CallySleeper]

There is still much work to do with sequencing of lights and crossings and I would hope its being addressed.

Since this has been a bug bear in Edinburgh ever since the first traffic lights were installed, I don't have much hope.

 

[khib70]

To me the surprising thing about the Edinburgh tram is how the exit from Waverley emerges within sight of the tram line but almost exactly midway between two stops, neither easily visible and both requiring crossings of fairly busy roads (and based on a quick visit this week, the red men seem to stay on a long time in Edinburgh when there is no traffic passing!).

This is one of the key problems, and a good illustration of how ill-thought out the whole project was in many ways. Waverley is clearly a key destination/start point , and often for passengers with heavy luggage. Having the Princes Street tram stop at the foot of the Mound, 300 metres from the station entrance is just stupid. And as for the "West End Princes St" stop, it's half way to Haymarket.

The other key problem highlighted by another poster is that the tram route doesn't serve most of the population centres on the way to the airport. Presumably this was to avoid too much costly street running, with the consequent disruption.

But cost seems to have been no object, with the final bill for the truncated single line being roughly the same as it cost to land the space probe on a comet this week.

 

[Butts]

Why does the last tram from the Airport leave at 2245 when there are still flights coming in ? - extremely handy !!

I'm on the 2120 from LCY to EDI soon and is scheduled to land at 2250.

You think they would at least run until Midnight.

 

[MCR247]

Maybe they need to get the trams back early for maintenance as there aren't enough of them to run a late service. Oh wait....

 

[WatcherZero]

Edinburgh have issued another passenger update, they say it will be 3 million by the end of year (7 months) along with a 3 million increase in bus usage. That would be extrapolated to a full year 5m. Critics saying if its the same as on buses 30% of those would be concessionary fares.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-trams-to-exceed-3-million-passenger-mark-1-3633368

 

[NotATrainspott]

This is one of the key problems, and a good illustration of how ill-thought out the whole project was in many ways. Waverley is clearly a key destination/start point , and often for passengers with heavy luggage. Having the Princes Street tram stop at the foot of the Mound, 300 metres from the station entrance is just stupid. And as for the "West End Princes St" stop, it's half way to Haymarket.

The other key problem highlighted by another poster is that the tram route doesn't serve most of the population centres on the way to the airport. Presumably this was to avoid too much costly street running, with the consequent disruption.

But cost seems to have been no object, with the final bill for the truncated single line being roughly the same as it cost to land the space probe on a comet this week.

Adequately serving Waverley would be very difficult for the Princes Street-Leith Walk city centre alignment, which is why they didn't bother. Instead, a good majority of passengers can change at Haymarket instead, with the only ones left out being small number of services that terminate from the east at Waverley. When the route to the Royal Infirmary is built, it will be easy to serve the station as any route would run over the top of it.

That the project went over-budget is undeniable but something had to be done in Edinburgh to solve its transport needs. Enough has already been invested in the bus network that a trolleybus or tram is the next logical step, and it's not yet worth it to build a proper underground metro.

 

[Blindtraveler]

We wouldnt have a transport problem if this white elifant didnt exist! In response to an earlier comment Re numbers of consessionerry pax, I would say at a guess this was nearer 50 percent, with numbers of fare paying numbers being bumped up by those who have been hurt by the reduced bus service in some areas. Sorry but thats how I feel

 

[NotATrainspott]

We wouldnt have a transport problem if this white elifant didnt exist! In response to an earlier comment Re numbers of consessionerry pax, I would say at a guess this was nearer 50 percent, with numbers of fare paying numbers being bumped up by those who have been hurt by the reduced bus service in some areas. Sorry but thats how I feel

The number of diesel buses running through the city suggested otherwise. A city like Edinburgh was always a good candidate for the sort of tram scheme that has been developed, given that it has the integrated bus network to build on top of, the population density on the Leith Walk corridor and the ability to have not-insignificant proportions of off-street running towards a useful location.

The passenger numbers just released by Transport for Edinburgh say that the number of people using the buses has increased at the same time as the tram has started. This really does suggest that the tram is getting people onto the public transport network and is not simply abstracting passengers away. Taking the tram to Leith will make a dent in the possible increase in bus numbers but the overall effect should be more than positive. No matter how good a bus network is, there will be people who will refuse to make major life decisions based upon it (e.g. buying a house or starting a business) who would be swayed by the permanence and desirability of a tram.

 

[90019]

and the ability to have not-insignificant proportions of off-street running towards a useful location.

That'd be the off-street running through areas such as Stenhouse and Broomhouse, where bricks get thrown at the trams and the shelters at the stops get vandalised?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . Instead, a good majority of passengers can change at Haymarket instead, with the only ones left out being small number of services that terminate from the east at Waverley. . . .

Maybe I'm missing something here.
At a quick glance, I reckon that there's about 17 East Coast services in each direction each week day at Waverley. And about 7 in each direction call at Haymarket.

I guess we're not talking about the same 'majority'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That'd be the off-street running through areas such as Stenhouse and Broomhouse, where bricks get thrown at the trams and the shelters at the stops get vandalised?

An indicator of the City's citizens' enthusiasm for the innovation of a tram service?

 

[Muzer]

When I was bashing the trams this summer, they did seem to be quite well patronised. Trams were busy to the extent that there were often quite a few standing, if I recall. Given how big they are, this is a reasonable achievement, I think

 

[edwin_m]

Adequately serving Waverley would be very difficult for the Princes Street-Leith Walk city centre alignment, which is why they didn't bother. Instead, a good majority of passengers can change at Haymarket instead, with the only ones left out being small number of services that terminate from the east at Waverley. When the route to the Royal Infirmary is built, it will be easy to serve the station as any route would run over the top of it.

I really don't see why a stop couldn't have been put at the Scott Monument, which would be short and not too steep walk from the station up the ramp and Waverley Bridge. The ideal would have been a stop at the top of the newly revamped Waverley Steps, but this would have involved re-routeing the tram through the junctions of North Bridge and Leith Walk and missing St Andrews Square.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Both 90019 and Dave Newcastle have hit the nail on the head! Yes, summer time is the time when the bus network does need a bit of help esp during the festival when it takes a hammering with about doubble the number of punters, here is indeed when the tram is needed and I said this all along.

 

[edwin_m]

Both 90019 and Dave Newcastle have hit the nail on the head! Yes, summer time is the time when the bus network does need a bit of help esp during the festival when it takes a hammering with about doubble the number of punters, here is indeed when the tram is needed and I said this all along.

Shame they didn't fit aircon then!

 

[Blindtraveler]

Agree with you on0hat one, a needless cost saving given the overall bill, I doubt any local, no matter how against the project would have minded another few quid at construction stage and a further few throughout there life for something that would I know make them that bit more attractive to punters.↲

 

[NotATrainspott]

Maybe I'm missing something here.
At a quick glance, I reckon that there's about 17 East Coast services in each direction each week day at Waverley. And about 7 in each direction call at Haymarket.

I guess we're not talking about the same 'majority'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
An indicator of the City's citizens' enthusiasm for the innovation of a tram service?

And every single service from the Central Belt, Fife, the North East or the Highlands as well. With IEP, the number of services continuing to Haymarket and beyond will increase again. East Coast passengers are not the be-all and end-all of passengers for the tram.

I really don't see why a stop couldn't have been put at the Scott Monument, which would be short and not too steep walk from the station up the ramp and Waverley Bridge. The ideal would have been a stop at the top of the newly revamped Waverley Steps, but this would have involved re-routeing the tram through the junctions of North Bridge and Leith Walk and missing St Andrews Square.

Given that the number of Waverley-Tram passengers isn't going to be overwhelming to begin with, changing the entire route or providing a suboptimal set of stops in the busiest part of the city isn't necessarily a good idea. When the time comes to extend to the South East, it makes perfect sense to run over Waverley and provide platforms right in the middle of station accessed by lifts.

 

[edwin_m]

Given that the number of Waverley-Tram passengers isn't going to be overwhelming to begin with, changing the entire route or providing a suboptimal set of stops in the busiest part of the city isn't necessarily a good idea. When the time comes to extend to the South East, it makes perfect sense to run over Waverley and provide platforms right in the middle of station accessed by lifts.

Will this South East route run over North Bridge? (if it ever happens, which I doubt). If so it will also have to run past Waverley Steps, which is probably just as good a place for a stop and will avoid the visual impact of a stop on the bridge. If it's via Waverley Bridge the lifts would come down on the wrong side of the ticket barriers.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Will this South East route run over North Bridge? (if it ever happens, which I doubt). If so it will also have to run past Waverley Steps, which is probably just as good a place for a stop and will avoid the visual impact of a stop on the bridge. If it's via Waverley Bridge the lifts would come down on the wrong side of the ticket barriers.

http://edinburghcouncilmaps.info/planning/secondproposedLDP.htm

Edinburgh City Council's plan for the future has a proposed tram route to the South East via North Bridge, which I seem to remember was said to be less difficult to engineer than the alternatives. I also seem to remember seeing on other documents that the proposed location for the Waverley stop was on the bridge itself rather than on Princes Street.

 

[oldman]

The difficulty is that you can't have tram and bus stops side by side, so whatever you do is not going to suit somebody. Given that the tram is of minor importance to public transport in Edinburgh, it's better that the buses have the more convenient stops.

Hopefully the southeast extension will never be built.

 

[khib70]

The difficulty is that you can't have tram and bus stops side by side, so whatever you do is not going to suit somebody. Given that the tram is of minor importance to public transport in Edinburgh, it's better that the buses have the more convenient stops.

Hopefully the southeast extension will never be built.

Couldn't agree more. The city should not suffer any more disruption and grief to extend this municipal vanity project. There is a major inquiry going on into the whole fiasco that left us with half a tram line at the cost of a billion pounds. Once that reports, despite an orgy of document shredding in the council's offices,hopefully no one will let them anywhere near a major infrastructure project ever again.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Seconded. I would also guess the publics already very limmited appitite for ny future projects will be suppressed by the promise of another 5 years of disruption from next year when the St James Quarter Redevelopment starts.

 

[WatcherZero]

Couldn't agree more. The city should not suffer any more disruption and grief to extend this municipal vanity project. There is a major inquiry going on into the whole fiasco that left us with half a tram line at the cost of a billion pounds. Once that reports, despite an orgy of document shredding in the council's offices,hopefully no one will let them anywhere near a major infrastructure project ever again.

Though amusing that the SNP said not a penny more would be given to the Tram network and have now agreed to fund their next expansion.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think there franticly trying to get back the confidence of many, hense this promise.