extendedpaul
Member
I hadn't thought of plusbus, thank you very much.
Will save the airport trip for another day !
Will save the airport trip for another day !
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Edinburgh Tram developments
- Thread starter PaulLothian
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
theageofthetra
Established Member
Does plus bus include the night buses?
Having lived in Edinburgh in the 1970s, and going back there from time to time, I've viewed with dismay the ripping up of the city centre for the tram project. I was back there this last week, and was able to make my first journey on the trams.
What a hugely-expensive disappointment the whole thing is.
It was a short day trip by plane, and I got a taxi in from the airport, with the driver's pithy comments about the tram once I mentioned it. he said "naebuddy seems tae use it", and the one we passed at Haymarket seemed to bear this out, maybe 10 passengers at 9 in the morning.
Come 6pm and I walked over to Princes Street to get it back. Princes Street at this time used to hum with activity, even in the winter, but the elimination of all other traffic, apart from buses, has really turned it into a bit of a deadwood, even the shops side. It's one of those classic examples where the transport operator has helped themselves to the urban fabric and squeezed everybody else out - including all the economic activity. Right down the middle are tracks and centre island loading platforms, look up and down, it's all empty as far as you can see.
There are Countdown style signs at the stops for the next tram, and when it said 3 minutes our vehicle arrived. It seems that they just work to the timetable rather than the actual vehicle - most other places cracked this one a generation ago.
The fare is £1.50 anywhere, apart from to the final stop at the airport, which is £5. Yet another example of where authorities think everyone who travels by plane is a millionaire who can just be sucked for money. The trams have a conductor who comes up and down, but can't sell normal tickets. They can however fine you £10 if you haven't got one. This seems a bit inconsistent with the regular PA announcements that "ticket advice is available from the conductor". There's also an announcement every few minutes "Please have your tickets ready for inspection", which becomes annoyingly repetitive after a while.
All aboard, it's still the rush hour, but there are acres of empty seats. Whole sections of the articulated vehicle have nobody in them at all.
Possibly the key impression was the vehicle speed. Or lack of it. We trundled slowly along Princes Street, with the buses overtaking, and hung about at stops for no particular reason. Come Haymarket, where the sign now said the next tram was in four minutes, and we just sat and sat, and were obviously waiting for time ... and waiting ... and waiting. Meanwhile all the buses etc just pass by at normal speed, including I notice the airport express. If you are heading for the airport, you start to wonder if the whole thing is going to be like this, and certainly consider if it would have been more sensible to go on that express bus instead.
There are a series of bends along the line, and it seems the tram is restricted to 5mph round these. As the final mile or two to the airport has been made up of a series of straights connected by sharp turns this makes progress through the fields here notably slow, although the slowest bit is just after leaving Haymarket, where the street twists downhill, nothing too sharp or steep but obviously beyond the capability of a 21st Century tram to take as a bus would. I am reminded of riding in old 1930s-built trams in Eastern Europe, making walking-pace progress along the street. Quick check back of how many passengers. I make it 12 on board. In the rush hour!
There are a string of stops out through the suburbs that must have been very expensive to construct, with fine stone finishes, ticket machines, probably CCTV - and with nobody getting on or off at the majority of them, it seemed.
Come the airport, we so slowly wound round the car parks to the terminus stop. It's nowhere near the terminal. Now the express airport bus is about the only vehicle allowed to stop right outside the front door, while the tram is relegated out beyond the eastern edge, hidden round several corners. It was Tuesday evening, it was snowing, and although there's a part of the walk covered, the money obviously didn't extend to the whole length and so you get wet and cold for a good bit of it. Never mind, there were only TWO passengers on board by the time we got to the airport.
What a disappointment all that money delivered.
What a hugely-expensive disappointment the whole thing is.
It was a short day trip by plane, and I got a taxi in from the airport, with the driver's pithy comments about the tram once I mentioned it. he said "naebuddy seems tae use it", and the one we passed at Haymarket seemed to bear this out, maybe 10 passengers at 9 in the morning.
Come 6pm and I walked over to Princes Street to get it back. Princes Street at this time used to hum with activity, even in the winter, but the elimination of all other traffic, apart from buses, has really turned it into a bit of a deadwood, even the shops side. It's one of those classic examples where the transport operator has helped themselves to the urban fabric and squeezed everybody else out - including all the economic activity. Right down the middle are tracks and centre island loading platforms, look up and down, it's all empty as far as you can see.
There are Countdown style signs at the stops for the next tram, and when it said 3 minutes our vehicle arrived. It seems that they just work to the timetable rather than the actual vehicle - most other places cracked this one a generation ago.
The fare is £1.50 anywhere, apart from to the final stop at the airport, which is £5. Yet another example of where authorities think everyone who travels by plane is a millionaire who can just be sucked for money. The trams have a conductor who comes up and down, but can't sell normal tickets. They can however fine you £10 if you haven't got one. This seems a bit inconsistent with the regular PA announcements that "ticket advice is available from the conductor". There's also an announcement every few minutes "Please have your tickets ready for inspection", which becomes annoyingly repetitive after a while.
All aboard, it's still the rush hour, but there are acres of empty seats. Whole sections of the articulated vehicle have nobody in them at all.
Possibly the key impression was the vehicle speed. Or lack of it. We trundled slowly along Princes Street, with the buses overtaking, and hung about at stops for no particular reason. Come Haymarket, where the sign now said the next tram was in four minutes, and we just sat and sat, and were obviously waiting for time ... and waiting ... and waiting. Meanwhile all the buses etc just pass by at normal speed, including I notice the airport express. If you are heading for the airport, you start to wonder if the whole thing is going to be like this, and certainly consider if it would have been more sensible to go on that express bus instead.
There are a series of bends along the line, and it seems the tram is restricted to 5mph round these. As the final mile or two to the airport has been made up of a series of straights connected by sharp turns this makes progress through the fields here notably slow, although the slowest bit is just after leaving Haymarket, where the street twists downhill, nothing too sharp or steep but obviously beyond the capability of a 21st Century tram to take as a bus would. I am reminded of riding in old 1930s-built trams in Eastern Europe, making walking-pace progress along the street. Quick check back of how many passengers. I make it 12 on board. In the rush hour!
There are a string of stops out through the suburbs that must have been very expensive to construct, with fine stone finishes, ticket machines, probably CCTV - and with nobody getting on or off at the majority of them, it seemed.
Come the airport, we so slowly wound round the car parks to the terminus stop. It's nowhere near the terminal. Now the express airport bus is about the only vehicle allowed to stop right outside the front door, while the tram is relegated out beyond the eastern edge, hidden round several corners. It was Tuesday evening, it was snowing, and although there's a part of the walk covered, the money obviously didn't extend to the whole length and so you get wet and cold for a good bit of it. Never mind, there were only TWO passengers on board by the time we got to the airport.
What a disappointment all that money delivered.
Last edited:
How is it inconsistent? They don't announce he can sell tickets but can advise on them... Im not sure whats wrong with that.
As for the announcement is it played after every stop? If so that is perfectly reasonable so that fare dodgers kno0w there is someone on board who will be round shortly?
I never made it onto the trams when I was last up but can feel a day trip coming round soon if the weather holds up.
Zoidberg
Established Member
Your experience is much in line with mine following my frequent return visits to civilisation since I moved away in 1981.
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
The only advice he gives is "you should have bought your ticket before you got on - that will be £10 please"?
Last edited:
Zoidberg
Established Member
It's inconsistent, in my view, with having a conductor on the tram full time. If he/she jumped on/off covering a number of trams in a shift as in a revenue protection role then fair enough. But if it's a full time presence it's reasonable to consider that the role should include taking fares.
But maybe they have that covered since the £10 charge is advertised as the 'Standard Fare' rather than as a fine.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If you need advice on your ticket then it's reasonable to expect that you would want that advice before you risk spending your money buying the wrong one. If this is as reported then it is disingenuous of the operator to make this announcement.
Interesting how a dark miserable winter's day changes the usage compared to a lovely summer's day.
When we used it back in June; we picked it up at the stop by Coates Crescent. Had to stand with our luggage part of the way until others got off and then nabbed the seats before more got on.
I also can't say I noticed a particularly long walk from the end of the line to the terminal building. From memory it was on a par with the walk from Southampton Airport Parkway, but made more tricky by the building works going on at the time.
Definitely preferred it to getting a coach as I could keep an eye on our luggage throughout the journey.
I think the important thing to look at is how usage next June/July compares to 2014 rather than monthly variations.
When we used it back in June; we picked it up at the stop by Coates Crescent. Had to stand with our luggage part of the way until others got off and then nabbed the seats before more got on.
I also can't say I noticed a particularly long walk from the end of the line to the terminal building. From memory it was on a par with the walk from Southampton Airport Parkway, but made more tricky by the building works going on at the time.
Definitely preferred it to getting a coach as I could keep an eye on our luggage throughout the journey.
I think the important thing to look at is how usage next June/July compares to 2014 rather than monthly variations.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Not having used it I'm not in a position to confirm your account but it doesn't surprise me too much.
However I can't agree with this part. There are plenty of pedestrian or public transport streets with lots of activity, Sauchiehall Street springs to mind. Replacement of cars carrying a few people (which probably weren't allowed to park even then) by buses carrying a lot of people is, if anything, going to increase activity on the street. So any reduction of activity must be due to some other factor.
Only if you are being cynical about it.
As an Edinburgh resident who provided a small part of all that money, I have to say that is a totally accurate summary of this epic fail of a system. The airport bus is quicker, more comfortable, and doesn't dump you at the foot of the Mound. I look forward to the enquiry into how so much money was thrown at such an ill-concieved and ineptly executed fiasco.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
Trams should form an important part of the public transport scene in Britain's cities in the next few decades, but they are unlikely to do so because of the problems experienced in Edinburgh and,to a lesser extent, in Birmingham. Edinburgh was an object lesson in how not to go about things but a lot of the trouble comes from the much higher construction costs in GB compared to most places, with existing infrastructure movement being charged to the tramway developers.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
What was the weather like when you visited? January isn't exactly the busiest time of year for the shops and with the weather we've had in the past few days, any numbers would be even lower than normal. Remember that at certain times of the year, Edinburgh is completely and utterly packed and this is what the trams were designed to cope with. It's also the case that the section of Edinburgh with the highest public transport demand is not yet served by the tram due to the problems with the construction programme and budget, so the number of people you see using it will be even lower than should be the case. As the line has more than exceeded Transport for Edinburgh's expectations so far, it would not be naive to say that once it is extended up through Leith, passenger numbers will take off quite spectacularly and put the system back in the black.
dievoyagerdie
Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 58
Used the tram for the first and last time from airport to waverly. More expensive that. The bus, drops you further from the station than the bus, was cold and painfully slow. At least I can say I've tried it.
Butts
Veteran Member
Surprised to read these kind of negative comments on a rail forum, of all places.
The management of the project construction was a farce, no question, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the finished tram line as a mode of transport. It certainly is in no way an 'epic fail'.
Edinburgh had to do something. It was overly reliant on buses and has virtually no commuter rail coverage. The bus service is at a ceiling on most routes - apart from being under continual risk of general congestion, there's an easily reached limit of how many buses you can put on a route before they bunch and hold each other up. The status quo was hopeless for a city looking to grow.
Trams can move more people more quickly and can hold a reliable timetable. Those complaining of tram speed need to sit on a cross-city bus at 8.30am! The comparison to the Airlink bus is tempting to make but if you want to go from Waverley to the Airport, then continue to use the Airlink! A duplication of a bus service would be a waste anyway. The tram serves other places better (Haymarket/Edinburgh Park/Gyle) and the population along the line, which is actually higher density than that on the Airlink route - a common misconception.
Regarding the cost, why is it okay for the Scottish Government to spend £700 million on five miles of urban motorway (highly discredited since the 1970s) but not on significantly more sustainable trams? It's worth bearing in mind that had it not been for the scepticism cheerlead by the media, politicians wouldn't have been playing games with the trams and the huge increase in cost could have been avoided. The contractor only claimed for £80 million in 2009 for completion of the whole line - any other project and that would have been quietly paid instead of the years of pain.
Nostalgia is a potent thing - cars driving along the street only create congestion and pollution. The people in them have to get out to create economic activity, which they can and still do using all the same parking they always could.
Also, given that most comparable streets in the UK - including Glasgow, St Rollox - are fully pedestrianized, I hardly think 'the transport operator' is helping itself to anything. There's still four lanes of Queen Street to get east and west. Besides, the restrictions on Princes Street were put in place between 1996 and 2005, so nothing to do with the trams in any event.
The management of the project construction was a farce, no question, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the finished tram line as a mode of transport. It certainly is in no way an 'epic fail'.
Edinburgh had to do something. It was overly reliant on buses and has virtually no commuter rail coverage. The bus service is at a ceiling on most routes - apart from being under continual risk of general congestion, there's an easily reached limit of how many buses you can put on a route before they bunch and hold each other up. The status quo was hopeless for a city looking to grow.
Trams can move more people more quickly and can hold a reliable timetable. Those complaining of tram speed need to sit on a cross-city bus at 8.30am! The comparison to the Airlink bus is tempting to make but if you want to go from Waverley to the Airport, then continue to use the Airlink! A duplication of a bus service would be a waste anyway. The tram serves other places better (Haymarket/Edinburgh Park/Gyle) and the population along the line, which is actually higher density than that on the Airlink route - a common misconception.
Regarding the cost, why is it okay for the Scottish Government to spend £700 million on five miles of urban motorway (highly discredited since the 1970s) but not on significantly more sustainable trams? It's worth bearing in mind that had it not been for the scepticism cheerlead by the media, politicians wouldn't have been playing games with the trams and the huge increase in cost could have been avoided. The contractor only claimed for £80 million in 2009 for completion of the whole line - any other project and that would have been quietly paid instead of the years of pain.
Nostalgia is a potent thing - cars driving along the street only create congestion and pollution. The people in them have to get out to create economic activity, which they can and still do using all the same parking they always could.
Also, given that most comparable streets in the UK - including Glasgow, St Rollox - are fully pedestrianized, I hardly think 'the transport operator' is helping itself to anything. There's still four lanes of Queen Street to get east and west. Besides, the restrictions on Princes Street were put in place between 1996 and 2005, so nothing to do with the trams in any event.
No one is saying trams are a bad thing per se. They are saying the tram service that has been delivered in Edinburgh has serious flaws.
This argument tends to be used to justify doing anything. What has the tram done to solve the problems? It replaces one peak hour service from Ingliston (the X12) and has allowed a reduction in frequency on one all-day service (the 22) and (slightly) the Airbus. And it has contributed to congestion in the city centre.
.
It does indeed pass areas of high-density housing around Whitson and Stenhouse - on the wrong side of a four-track main line. If it ran via Stenhouse Cross it would have substantial residential traffic, but it doesn't.
And Taunton and others are right - it is terribly slow on the separated section west of Haymarket, and beyond the Gyle the constant right-angle turns are more than tedious. When I go abroad I love travelling on trams; not this one, and not only because I am paying for it through my taxes.
Well perhaps, but there's a lot of sweeping criticism. What do you deem to be serious flaws, out of interest?
Trams offer a high profile, reliable and high capacity shuttle into the city centre that are less susceptible to congestion than buses. Just like any other successfully implemented system.
I don't think replacing buses was ever the intention and indeed the overall increase in tram and bus usage since launch supports that.
People overlook that you could alight and board 100 or so people at every tram stop without affecting the timetable. Try that with a bus and you'd add an hour to the journey time and bring down other services with it trying to access stops. So the trams add a lot of capacity to the city's transport which for peak summer months is ideal and things like Murrayfield games is ideal.
There's definitely been teething issues with the traffic lights, but generally I've not seen problems that haven't been caused by other traffic - usually buses blocking both lanes trying to stack up at stops.
Still houses on that side and the stops are placed where the streets go under the heavy rail - I don't understand why people think that affects accessibility.
I do agree with some of that - if by constant turns you mean three. The one at Ingliston is immediately before a stop and I doubt it adds much to journey time. The bits at Gogarburn and the Gyle I'm less happy with but probably adds a couple of minutes at most. The Gyle was to do with the owner objecting to a more favourable underpass layout - I expect there was a similar thing involved in trying to serve RBS.
We all see what we choose to see.
I see two suburban stations - Balgreen serves a small residential area close to the well-bussed A8, Saughton is between Carrick Knowe and Broomhouse but not very convenient for most of both those areas. Result - not a lot of residential traffic.
I see lengthy delays at the Jenners and Waverley Bridge junctions, not least for pedestrians who then start crossing dangerously on red. I see westbound buses at the Frederick Street junction stopped for eastbound trams. I see a city centre which is always a hair's breadth from gridlock now subjected to arbitrary delays, and this is with a fairly infrequent service because there are not a lot of passengers.
I see a service which is losing money and is being subsidised by a successful and self-financing bus service. I see the management problems caused by the creation of Transport for Edinburgh, with its pretence that a single tram line has created an integrated transport system, and its need to justify its existence through absurd self-publicity.
I don't see a service which is much use for the tourist hordes, although it is undoubtedly useful for maybe 6 rugby internationals a year and some other events at Murrayfield.
Other people may see other things.
I see two suburban stations - Balgreen serves a small residential area close to the well-bussed A8, Saughton is between Carrick Knowe and Broomhouse but not very convenient for most of both those areas. Result - not a lot of residential traffic.
I see lengthy delays at the Jenners and Waverley Bridge junctions, not least for pedestrians who then start crossing dangerously on red. I see westbound buses at the Frederick Street junction stopped for eastbound trams. I see a city centre which is always a hair's breadth from gridlock now subjected to arbitrary delays, and this is with a fairly infrequent service because there are not a lot of passengers.
I see a service which is losing money and is being subsidised by a successful and self-financing bus service. I see the management problems caused by the creation of Transport for Edinburgh, with its pretence that a single tram line has created an integrated transport system, and its need to justify its existence through absurd self-publicity.
I don't see a service which is much use for the tourist hordes, although it is undoubtedly useful for maybe 6 rugby internationals a year and some other events at Murrayfield.
Other people may see other things.
This is an unfortunate perception that comes up all too often in these fora - that because we have a knowledge of rail operations and projects we should somehow adopt a "The Emperor has no Clothes" attitude to projects that just don't deliver the goods to the public, and be unflinching supporters of any old rubbish that gets built.
The gross cost overruns were one thing, the city centre street devastation that went on for years, only to end up with only half of one line was another, but to find, now that it's open it's just having minimal use made of it anyway, and must be making a substantial loss on day-to-day operating costs alone, only adds to the feeling that it was all for nothing. It seems to have made no impact on bus provision at all.
Novel transport projects, particularly those over-boosted by politicians as opposed to transport professionals, are prone to this, but it must be the worst example we have had in Britain for a long, long time, things like the Cambridge Busway pale into insignificance in comparison We do of course have successes as well like the DLR in London (particularly what they achieved at the start for their £77m), but let us not pretend that any and every light rail project is up to that standard.
By the way, what was I doing in Edinburgh all those years ago ? Getting into the industry at University, of course. Dear old Professor Hendy, for those who remember him, must be turning in his grave - though even I had many a disagreement with him over value for money.
What was wrong long-term with the Cambridge busway? Obviously there were huge problems during construction but post-construction the bus providers upped the service levels beyond those they had promised before the busway was built (The service from Huntingdon to Cambridge has gone from 3 to 4 buses an hour with St Ives going from 4 bph to 9 bph). I've only caught it a few times but on a bad day it's massively reduced congestion for the buses and the buses are busy. The only big problem is that Sunday services are a disappointment - with no Sunday evening service whatsoever (but that's not new).
Last edited:
Sir Felix Pole
Established Member
To be fair 3 million passengers have used the Edinburgh Tramway in the 6 months to December - they can't all be pensioners on a free-pass travelling to the Airport for their lunch, as the critics would have us believe. Of course the project management was a fiasco and we have ended up with a sub-optimal 'network' - to put it mildly. However, folk can be persuaded to leave their cars for a tram but not a bus - what is needed is the comprehensive system originally planned. I would have thought early extension to Leith is a no-brainer - the rolling-stock is available and much of the utility work was undertaken before cancellation. Private-sector funds may also be available from the re-development of the St. James Centre.
I am reminded of the early days of Metrolink in Manchester - 'it's a white-elephant', 'the city centre was like Beirut during construction' - but now it is a vital part of the city's transport system. Operationally, the problem with Princes Street from my observation seems to be the cross-traffic from The Mound and Waverley Bridge. I would like to see much more pedestrianisation in the city-centre, like Glasgow, to give an attractive urban environment for locals and visitors alike. The parallel George Street could also be used for buses now that the al-fresco dining experience has predictably failed.
I am reminded of the early days of Metrolink in Manchester - 'it's a white-elephant', 'the city centre was like Beirut during construction' - but now it is a vital part of the city's transport system. Operationally, the problem with Princes Street from my observation seems to be the cross-traffic from The Mound and Waverley Bridge. I would like to see much more pedestrianisation in the city-centre, like Glasgow, to give an attractive urban environment for locals and visitors alike. The parallel George Street could also be used for buses now that the al-fresco dining experience has predictably failed.
overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 9,087
What is happening with the St John centre loan? so it can be extended down to leith. Mind you I do wonder why some of the Scottish Goverments under spend cant be used to clear of the loan?
thealexweb
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 1,106
It is estimated by Transport for Edinburgh that approximately 10% of those on Edinburgh Trams are using free passes.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I wouldn't use Edinburgh taxi drivers as a reasonable bellweather of how well the tram is doing now (given the years of traffic disruption that the tram caused)
Oddly nobody complained that the bus fare from the Airport to the City Centre (i.e. on AirLink) was always considerably more than the bus fare from Ingleston P&R to the City Centre (i.e. on the 12/48/X12/X48), before the tram came along.
I wonder if people are suggesting that the Airlink fares should have been reduced to £1.50 to bring them in line with "normal" bus fares?
(there was the 35 from the Airport in recent years that took about twice as long as the Airline service into the City Centre, but I can't imagine many people used that all the way - until the 35 was extended there then the only way to get to the Airport by bus was to pay significantly more than the fare for an equivalent bus journey in Edinburgh)
Agreed.
Given the state of the economy in recent years (and the move to internet shopping and "out of town" places like the Gyle/ Ocean Terminal), the most city centres aren't as busy as they used to be.
Pedestrianised roads/ bus only roads don't seem to be the root cause (route cause?)
It's not like there was car parking on Princes Street anyway; cars that used it in the old days were generally using it as a through route (i.e. not contributing to the shops)
You're complaining that the tram doesn't totally match the Airline route (and stop at Waverley Bridge, closer to the station)?
But then if they had built a tram that just matched an existing bus route then people would complain.
Given the rate that Manchester keeps expanding its network, I don't think that the Edinburgh problems are going to be the death knell of light rail in the UK.
This place is full of negative comments when discussing something that's not Heavy Rail. Some folk on here will never accept that a Guided Busway/ Tram etc can be the answer to a public transport problem...
Agreed - the construction of it should have no bearing on how well the line operates now. Ideally it'd be running to Leith and it'd have been built sooner/cheaper, but I think that the line now in operation deserves a chance.
True.
Princes Street was full with buses, there was very little option to improve suburban rail, I can see why they went for the option that they did.
I remember seeing a list just after the Millennium of proposed bus route changes for when the tram would start operating - they were fairly drastic on parallel corridors (the AirLink and 22 would both go down to every fifteen minutes, there'd be some significant cuts to other routes too) - there were many complaints from enthusiasts along the lines of "what's the point in spending all this money on a tram just to withdraw buses" / "they'll only be withdrawing theses buses to make their tram look busy" etc (this was back in the days of Yahoo Groups... am probably showing my age here...).
Now, once the tram is operating, the buses have hardly been reduced - the 22 and AirLink are still "turn up and go" services (worth remembering that the reductions to Ingleston P&R happened a few years ago when the "every fifteen minutes" 48/X48 direct along the A8 was replaced by the "every twenty minutes" 12 that took a long diversion round the Gyle), and enthusiasts are complaining that the tram hasn't required many buses to be withdrawn.
Basically, trams are damned either way. People complain that they follow existing bus routes too closely ("there was already a good enough service to the Gyle/ Airport") and also that they don't follow existing bus routes closely enough ("why doesn't it run through Murryfield like the AirLink" / "why doesn't it stop right outside Waverley Station like the AirLink" etc).
Compared to the under budget railway schemes that are/were ahead of schedule early like the WCML upgrade/ Lancashire Triangle electrification/ Todmorden Chord/ the recent Kings Cross engineering work/ Borders Railway/ GWML electrification...
...sorry, is it only "novel" schemes where we struggle for project management?
Seems to me that heavy rail has more than its fair share of badly managed projects (as the electrification delays and descoping of CP5 "commitments" is showing).
It seems to work pretty darn well to me.
Sure, the contractor tried to cut corners (which is more about managing the project than the fact it was a busway), but once it was opened, it's overachieved.
(although however well it does, you'll get the reaction on here that "it should have been heavy rail", regardless of the fact that a busway has worked well and allowed direct services from suburban St Ives/ Huntingdon into central Cambridge and to the Hospital - which heavy rail would be too inflexible to serve)
I'd be interested to know how that compares to bus use - certainly round here there's more than one in ten passengers with free passes!
If I'm not mistaken most railways lose money and most roads in the country have never returned a single penny in direct revenue despite costing a fortune to build and maintain. Also, trams holistically cover their maintenance costs, whereas a significant amount of bus-related maintenance - road surfaces, bus lanes, shelters, bustracker, signals - is hived off onto other council budgets.
That seems like needless cynicism. Why is it a bad thing for the council to want a unified brand for its transport? Integration is something the tram does well - arguably more than other systems - and all bus services are a single line!
Obviously not, but with a few of the comments there's a lack of objectivity. The project is not exactly 'any old rubbish'.
This is what I'm getting at - a bit sensationalist. Devastation - hardly. Half a line - well, 15 out of 22 stops. Minimal use - only if you listen to taxi driver anecdotes over published figures. Substantial loss - I'm sure the aim of transport is not to return profit (I'm not aware of many rail services that do). And the goal was not to replace bus services but to attract modal shift - indeed, it was a longstanding complaint that buses would be cut to force people onto trams (can't win?) As I said, both tram and bus usage is up, so they've done something.
The media and the SNP treated it like a out-of-the-blue vanity project, but it wasn't. Plans for light rail were in development since the 1980s and were properly appraised. The fact that the SNP spuriously forced the project delivery to be rushed, by a project team lacking in expertise, says nothing about the success of the built tram line.
Are you unaware of the management problems at Lothian Buses? They are very real and very damaging. The only 'integration' is that you can use bus tickets on the tram - and PR videos to tell us how successful TfE has been.
I have no idea what you mean by 'all bus services are a single line.' My line (to SW Edinburgh) is adversely impacted by the tram line to the west.
A post hoc argument, I think. Without having some real numbers to crunch, it is impossible to say that there is a connection between increased bus usage and the tram. By and large bus usage has been increasing steadily for years in what is, after all, a growing city. We know, for example, that it has been a good year for tourism and we had a mild winter last year, which can make a difference. There has been a lot of promotion of season tickets which can increase passenger journey numbers as people hop on and off more.
For the trams to increase bus usage it would require people who were not using the buses previously to start making bi-modal journeys. This does not seem likely on a large scale when most areas of the city are not served by the tram. Alternatively, people start going by bus because the bus service has improved because of reduced congestion thanks to the trams (I don't think so).
You would expect that initial public estimates for the tram would be conservative so as to avoid the embarrassment of reporting a shortfall. Without data we can not say what journeys are being made and by whom and why.
In the spirit of scientific research I took a tram yesterday, about 1630, from SAS to Haymarket. Slightly over 10 minutes, then it waited at Haymarket for more than a minute after completing loading/unloading. There were plenty seats available throughout, I would estimate no more than 50 passengers, which is not great for that time of day. To me this demonstrates the lack of residential traffic to and from the area between the city centre and the western commercial districts. To be fair there were more passengers on a tram arriving from the west, who presumably would have been commuters.
- Status