Edinburgh Tram developments

[90019]

Con rast that with the 2nd from last daytime 37 towards Silverknows, 23:07 at Waverley steps, no traffic about but yet it still took 10 minutes to the West end due to tram trafficlight prioritty bla bla bla bla!

Which isn't particularly unusual.

There's a shift I do fairly regularly which has a 29 coming down the Bridges after 10pm. There are two ways of doing it - you can either get to North Bridge 2 minutes up, keep going, miss the tram and get to Frederick Street 3-4 minutes early and wait the time there, or get to North Bridge on time/wait time at North Bridge, turn onto Princes Street and get stuck at the lights because there's at least one tram coming through, usually ending up 4-5 minutes late at Frederick Street, and then being late the rest of the way down to Silverknowes.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Tell me about it. Youl be losing the 29 from your duty I guess when it goes to deckers?

We were back on time by the Westen last night but it didnt stop at least 2 people commenting how sad it was that a bus can be nearly 10 late on a quiet late evening run.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To all the Edinburgh Tram Appologists out there, the last 3 posts in tis thread have been from local people who live and interact with this white elifant on a daily basis and know just how farsical the whole thing is. I'm also up for betting that in the case of the 2 reports of slow late evening journeys the trams were enpty??? I am as said before not anti tram, just anti Edinburgh Tram. If the same issues were regular happenings on Metrolink, Supertram or Tramlink, people wouldnt stand for it!

 

[khib70]

Tell me about it. I work at the Western General and have to transit Princes Street both ways every day. My journey now routinely takes 10-15 minutes longer in both directions. This is entirely due to being held up to let tramloads of fresh air trundle past. It's that daily experience that not only gets me to work in a bad mood, but makes some of the fanboy wibble spouted on here in support of this irrelevant money pit all the more annoying.

I don't know how often individual trams fail, but I do know that the whole sorry project is one massive, expensive, fail. And as you say, those of us who were mugged to pay for it seem to be the ones who can see that.

 

[Blindtraveler]

You poor so and so, not only for working at the WGH but for having to do it twice daily, leading me to assume that your home is in the south or East on a route that cannot be reached without a journey via the City Centre.

Fanboy Wibble? Mugged? 3 excillent words my friend, wish so many both on here and elsewhere wernt deaf to them! Im actually considdering relocating, and my new City May or Maynot have Trams, proving that when used well they can be a vital part of an intigrated transport system.

 

[Clip]

To all the Edinburgh Tram Appologists out there, the last 3 posts in tis thread have been from local people who live and interact with this white elifant on a daily basis and know just how farsical the whole thing is. I'm also up for betting that in the case of the 2 reports of slow late evening journeys the trams were enpty??? I am as said before not anti tram, just anti Edinburgh Tram. If the same issues were regular happenings on Metrolink, Supertram or Tramlink, people wouldnt stand for it!

With all due respect to you , you have had it in for the tram since the get go so I fear your opinion is a clouded one. And one that seems to only get aired on the tram when something goes wrong with it - noted by the nearly 3 week gap before the last post and yours on 2nd March.

 

[gswindale]

Indeed.

I haven't exactly seen much from the "tram apologists" as you call them.

As I said when I used it; it was pretty close to full and easier than the bus for traveling to the airport.

The main issue is that the network needs expanding so that it can bring benefits to more people. How that is to be done though is for the people of Edinburgh to decide.

Just thinking about other projects - how does this compare to the Midlands Metro as I seem to recall that should have been more extensive than what there is at present; and I'm not sure how well that reduced congestion either?

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think this might be a fare comparrison in terms of size and congestion. Why there wasnt more of it I dont know. Why it didnt reduce congestion is obvious - the tram vehicles themselves!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With all due respect to you , you have had it in for the tram since the get go so I fear your opinion is a clouded one. And one that seems to only get aired on the tram when something goes wrong with it - noted by the nearly 3 week gap before the last post and yours on 2nd March.

just because theres a 3 week gap doesnt mean I suddenly like it then go off it again - its a constant and expensive pain in the backside TBH!

As I have stated, I am NOT Anti Tram per say but just anti this one which isnt doing anything helpfull other than on Rugby days where its abilitty to swallow up a stadium full in an hour or so is welcome. It still doesnt hide the fact though that the journeytime to the Park and Ride is slower than the rush buses on route X12 which still run on match and event days.

I never approved of the route to the airport deaming it too long winded. The Leith extention made sense as did route B to the North of the city. However what should have been done was a detailed studdy into where the highest number of pinch points were, ones that affect bus journey times. If this had been done, youd have got the routes to the East of the City and to the Royal Infirmary. Build something to help the locals and general traffic.

 

[Leki]

The 3 weeks was the hate club leaving a gap so that they didn't have to respond to the factual points made in support of the trams, particularly in the excellent posts by tbtc.

With the dust settled on that discussion it's back to pub ranting from blindtraveller and khib70 who are back to the 'white elephant', 'farce', 'fail' etc.

Regarding the tram signals, I've got news for you...there's congestion all over the city! So whose fault is that?

The trams are linked to road signals so for every bus slightly delayed there's another slightly sped up.

Even if there was a serious problem with signals, again, that's a operation issue. It's nothing to do with the merits of Edinburgh Trams as a project. You're both just so determined to hate the trams that you'll cling to anything to support that view.

 

[90019]

The trams are linked to road signals so for every bus slightly delayed there's another slightly sped up.

My experience is that for every bus slightly sped up, there are many more that are delayed.



I don't really post in this thread anymore, because I usually can't be bothered.
I don't like the trams, but they're there. I get paid to sit in the traffic they cause, and outside work, I rarely bother coming into the city centre anymore because it isn't worth the hassle.

 

[Leki]

My experience is that for every bus slightly sped up, there are many more that are delayed.

As a bus driver you surely find Shandwick Place much better now it's not the free for all that previously was? And the W Maitland St contraflow must improve west bound journey time?

I don't really post in this thread anymore, because I usually can't be bothered.
I don't like the trams, but they're there. I get paid to sit in the traffic they cause, and outside work, I rarely bother coming into the city centre anymore because it isn't worth the hassle.

What hassle? You say that like congestion didn't exist before, which you know isn't true.

Princes St still had cars w/b on it in 2005, at which time I could walk faster than the bus! Shandwick Place was gridlock all the time I did a Dalry to Southside peak bus commutes in 2006/07.

As plus, the traffic lights would be there anyway. Everytime (not saying you, but just generally) anti-tram people see a red light and a tram pass, they think 'och I'm being held up' when in reality the light would be red for road traffic anyway.

 

[90019]

As a bus driver you surely find Shandwick Place much better now it's not the free for all that previously was? And the W Maitland St contraflow must improve west bound journey time?

Thankfully I'm not along there anymore.
When I was still driving the 12, it was alright heading away from town, but heading into town wasn't great, with badly sequenced lights and not very well thought out road design.
Lothian Road, on the other hand, is a lot worse, as is the East end, and Frederick Street. And Hanover Street. And Queensferry Street. And South St David Street.

Princes St still had cars w/b on it in 2005, at which time I could walk faster than the bus! Shandwick Place was gridlock all the time I did a Dalry to Southside peak bus commutes in 2006/07.

Where did I say removing cars from certain roads was a bad thing?
My main gripe is the messing about with junctions and traffic light sequencing, so junctions no longer work well together to keep the traffic flowing.

As plus, the traffic lights would be there anyway. Everytime (not saying you, but just generally) anti-tram people see a red light and a tram pass, they think 'och I'm being held up' when in reality the light would be red for road traffic anyway.

Actually, it wouldn't.
The trams basically get dumped on top of the normal sequencing, overriding whatever it was previously doing, but not pausing it - if it was just about to go to green for you, but a tram comes, tough, you now have to wait for the next sequence instead (at some junctions, it can be multiple sequences, and sometimes they get stuck, too).

 

[CallySleeper]

Slightly off-topic but is Ian Craig still employed by Lothian Buses.

 

[oldman]

He is now chief executive of Transport for Edinburgh in exile at Gogarburn. (As it happens I saw him in the Gyle Centre at lunch time today) He is 'driving the Transport for Edinburgh agenda forward'. When I was young, little boys wanted to be engine drivers, not agenda drivers.

Whether he is employed by Lothian Buses is another question. In December I asked how many people were directly employed by tfe and the answer was none. I guess LB money is paying for him somehow.

LB now has a general manager.

 

[CallySleeper]

Also, more bus than tram, but what's the purpose of such services as 6 and 60?!

 

[Leki]

Thankfully I'm not along there anymore.
When I was still driving the 12, it was alright heading away from town, but heading into town wasn't great, with badly sequenced lights and not very well thought out road design.
Lothian Road, on the other hand, is a lot worse, as is the East end, and Frederick Street. And Hanover Street. And Queensferry Street. And South St David Street.

If that's your experience then that's fair enough. I go through the city a lot, but obviously not as much as you.

Part of the problem is the tram designs tried to keep too many people happy - cars shouldn't be on the East End of Princes St, for example.

Where did I say removing cars from certain roads was a bad thing?
My main gripe is the messing about with junctions and traffic light sequencing, so junctions no longer work well together to keep the traffic flowing.

I didn't intend to imply that. I just find that congestion is not that bad these days on Princes St compared to pre tram, despite what is often said in the city.

The trams basically get dumped on top of the normal sequencing, overriding whatever it was previously doing, but not pausing it - if it was just about to go to green for you, but a tram comes, tough, you now have to wait for the next sequence instead (at some junctions, it can be multiple sequences, and sometimes they get stuck, too).

That's interesting and would explain some things. I agree that's not great.

 

[90019]

Also, more bus than tram, but what's the purpose of such services as 6 and 60?!

They're both subsidised, the 6 replaced the top end of the 36 when that got sent up to Craiglockhart, and is just to provide a link between Holyrood and the city centre.
I have no idea what the purpose of the 60 is - seemingly almost no one uses it.

 

[CallySleeper]

They're both subsidised, the 6 replaced the top end of the 36 when that got sent up to Craiglockhart, and is just to provide a link between Holyrood and the city centre.
I have no idea what the purpose of the 60 is - seemingly almost no one uses it.

Another terrible waste of money by CEC! How about spending it on health promotion and walking in the city!!

 

[khib70]

The 3 weeks was the hate club leaving a gap so that they didn't have to respond to the factual points made in support of the trams, particularly in the excellent posts by tbtc.

With the dust settled on that discussion it's back to pub ranting from blindtraveller and khib70 who are back to the 'white elephant', 'farce', 'fail' etc.

Regarding the tram signals, I've got news for you...there's congestion all over the city! So whose fault is that?

The trams are linked to road signals so for every bus slightly delayed there's another slightly sped up.

Even if there was a serious problem with signals, again, that's a operation issue. It's nothing to do with the merits of Edinburgh Trams as a project. You're both just so determined to hate the trams that you'll cling to anything to support that view.

"Hate club", "pub ranting"??? We're just citizens of Edinburgh passing on our observations on a project that we are more than paying for. What your agenda is, I don't know. You wouldn't happen to work for TfE would you?

Your observations may differ from mine, but they're no more valid for you dressing them up in transport jargon. I travel through the city centre every day of the week and congestion is considerably worse than pre-tram. Talking to others who drive buses and other vehicles through the centre seems to bear this out. The traffic light sequencing is dreadful. And for all the figures you bandy around I repeat I have never seen a full and standing tram , and only rarely one which would require anyone to stand.

However much you would like it to be true, the route is inconvenient for almost everyone except Royal Bank workers and tourists. Napier and EC students are queueing up as always at the Calder Road bus stops. There's no evidence that they're abandoning them for the Bankhead tram stop, except in your world of wishful thinking.

And the Airlink buses appear to be as full as ever, so unless people are flying into Edinburgh especially for a ride on the tram, they've not been successful in attracting airport traffic, any more than park and ride traffic, despite the competing bus being withdrawn. Maybe that's because they're slower than the bus on both journeys.

I share your enthusiasm for rail, but not the idea that anything running on them is de facto wonderful. A badly planned, badly built, badly run and criminally expensive project is just that, whatever the wheels turn on.

 

[Leki]

"Hate club", "pub ranting"??? We're just citizens of Edinburgh passing on our observations on a project that we are more than paying for. What your agenda is, I don't know. You wouldn't happen to work for TfE would you?

So I am. My agenda is simple (no, no one works for TfE). Transport in UK cities is generally terrible - the tolerance of private car congestion and over reliance on buses means that everyone suffers. Here, it will soon be quicker to get to Waverley from Tweedbank than Penicuik, for example.

In a city like Edin where there's no scope for commuter rail or subway, trams are a proven solution, able to move people more efficiently and to encourage people away from cars.

The council was doing the right thing, yet, every step of the way, people obstructed the project and refused, without any justification, to accept that the trams were a good thing. That's what bothers me, especially as a lot of this was due to trams fitting neatly into the media's council and pro-motorist agendas.

However much you would like it to be true, the route is inconvenient for almost everyone except Royal Bank workers and tourists. Napier and EC students are queueing up as always at the Calder Road bus stops. There's no evidence that they're abandoning them for the Bankhead tram stop, except in your world of wishful thinking.

Really? So there's only two stops on the route then?

The silly thing is, you've singled out one stop that isn't actually that convenient - as RBS HQ requires a walk over the bridge - and missed every other good connection, such as for people working at Haymarket, Edinburgh Park or the Gyle. I'm sure local people use the airport sometimes and I'm sure the Park and Ride is more for workers than tourists, to be fair.

No body said every Sighthill student will get the tram. I'm sure people heading into town will get the tram, others will get the bus.

I share your enthusiasm for rail, but not the idea that anything running on them is de facto wonderful.

There's a massive difference between not thinking they're wonderful and rubbishing the system with sweeping incorrect statements.

A badly planned, badly built, badly run and criminally expensive project is just that, whatever the wheels turn on.

Badly planned? We've been through this, but.. the route serves the airport, two/three railway stations, the biggest stadium in Scotland, a huge office park, a park and ride, housing along the way and, yes, RBS HQ. It does this while managing a dedicated alignment right into Haymarket.

Badly built? Is it in any way badly built? Funny, because there's plenty of claims of over engineering from armchair critics.

Badly run? Even with the Evening News' obsession with every slight problem, I don't think many people would say that.

Criminally expensive? Queensferry Crossing - £1.4 billion. 5 miles of M74 - £672 million. M8 at Coatbridge - £450 million.

Infrastructure costs money. The increase in costs for the trams was mainly political. The full route could have been had in July 2009 for ~£630 m.

 

[kylemore]

He is now chief executive of Transport for Edinburgh in exile at Gogarburn. (As it happens I saw him in the Gyle Centre at lunch time today) He is 'driving the Transport for Edinburgh agenda forward'. When I was young, little boys wanted to be engine drivers, not agenda drivers.

Whether he is employed by Lothian Buses is another question. In December I asked how many people were directly employed by tfe and the answer was none. I guess LB money is paying for him somehow.

LB now has a general manager.

So the highest paid public servant in Scotland (apparently) is now only responsible for running the trams?

So starting on a Monday morning when does the tram get finished paying for Ian Craig's salary, bonus and expenses before it can put anything towards staff wages - never mind the Leccy bill?

Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, Thursday even?

 

[CallySleeper]

Criminally expensive? Queensferry Crossing - £1.4 billion. 5 miles of M74 - £672 million. M8 at Coatbridge - £450 million.

Infrastructure costs money. The increase in costs for the trams was mainly political. The full route could have been had in July 2009 for ~£630 m.

I agree that infrastructure costs money. But compare even the estimated cost of Edinburgh in 2003/4, to the end cost of NET line 1, opened at the same time at the same end length as Edinburgh. Then try and come on here and deny Edinburgh isn't 'criminally expensive' for whatever cause.

Badly built? Is it in any way badly built? Funny, because there's plenty of claims of over engineering from armchair critics.

How long was the opening of the system delayed, by having to reconcrete track on Princes St for example?

Badly run? Even with the Evening News' obsession with every slight problem, I don't think many people would say that.

I know they would.

 

[oldman]

In a city like Edin where there's no scope for commuter rail or subway, trams are a proven solution, able to move people more efficiently and to encourage people away from cars.

So 'trams are good', so trams must be good for Edinburgh. Simple really.

When Manchester reintroduced trams it converted two existing suburban lines running nearly 10 miles from the centre (in Edinburgh terms out to say Tranent or Queensferry) and with residential development along most of the length providing a core customer base. Seems to have been successful.

Edinburgh has a line which runs less than 8 miles from the centre, with just two stations serving residential areas (not very well) for a less than two mile stretch, the rest being commercial, park and ride and the airport. So it's good for some commuters to the commercial areas and for travel from the park and ride but lacks the core residential business. (And Murrayfield for maybe 6 international games a year and the odd big concert)

Manchester city centre is extensive and has enough road space for trams to find their way through and for other traffic to get round the edges.

Edinburgh has a compact new town city centre hemmed in with conservation areas, heritage sites and green space. Like it or not, both ends of Princes Street are part of north-south routes for motorists. How else do you drive from Morningside to Leith? The trams have made a bad situation worse.

It's about horses for courses. The trams were the wrong horse for the Edinburgh course.

 

[Clip]

just because theres a 3 week gap doesnt mean I suddenly like it then go off it again - its a constant and expensive pain in the backside TBH!

As I have stated, I am NOT Anti Tram per say but just anti this one which isnt doing anything helpfull other than on Rugby days where its abilitty to swallow up a stadium full in an hour or so is welcome. It still doesnt hide the fact though that the journeytime to the Park and Ride is slower than the rush buses on route X12 which still run on match and event days.

I never approved of the route to the airport deaming it too long winded. The Leith extention made sense as did route B to the North of the city. However what should have been done was a detailed studdy into where the highest number of pinch points were, ones that affect bus journey times. If this had been done, youd have got the routes to the East of the City and to the Royal Infirmary. Build something to help the locals and general traffic.

That's a fair reply but is it the tram that causes all the extra congestion or people still using cars and a massive reliance on buses to get around?

I know its been a massive pain to get it built and had faced lots of obstruction but is it a case that it really is a white elephant or people just haven't got used to it being there and as such altered how they travel?

Are people prepared to adapt and say, not let it share the road with buses and or cars for while to help just so they can harp on about it being a failure? Why can other cities which have tram systems in this country work with their population changing the way they travel yet Edinburgh cant and can only say its bad?

 

[Leki]

I agree that infrastructure costs money. But compare even the estimated cost of Edinburgh in 2003/4, to the end cost of NET line 1, opened at the same time at the same end length as Edinburgh. Then try and come on here and deny Edinburgh isn't 'criminally expensive' for whatever cause.

It was a more complex project from the outset, but would still have been reasonable cost if delivered on budget. Even though the media paint the final figure as some kind of country crippling amount, it's actually not that exciting in terms of overall public spending. And of course, the fact that politicians mucked about the project and caused severe project overruns doesn't explain why the trams are bad.

How long was the opening of the system delayed, by having to reconcrete track on Princes St for example?

Not at all, IIRC. It was asphalt being removed and replaced with concrete, to better withstand the weight and frequency of buses. If journos were breathing down the neck of other construction projects I'm sure worse would be uncovered.

I know they would.

Save for one failed towing recovery, why exactly?

So 'trams are good', so trams must be good for Edinburgh. Simple really.

I've given many reasons why trams are in fact the best solution for the city, in the face of a lot of 'trams are good, but not in Edinburgh' on here. So if they aren't, why not? And even better, what would you do instead?

When Manchester reintroduced trams it converted two existing suburban lines running nearly 10 miles from the centre (in Edinburgh terms out to say Tranent or Queensferry) and with residential development along most of the length providing a core customer base. Seems to have been successful.

Edinburgh has a line which runs less than 8 miles from the centre, with just two stations serving residential areas (not very well) for a less than two mile stretch, the rest being commercial, park and ride and the airport. So it's good for some commuters to the commercial areas and for travel from the park and ride but lacks the core residential business. (And Murrayfield for maybe 6 international games a year and the odd big concert)

An unfinished line, which will connect to Edinburgh's highest density residential area when complete. So surely your concern should be that the line isn't finished, rather than with the tram system itself?

In any event Murrayfield and Haymarket are fairly residential, surely?

Also, Edinburgh's transport more than most has to deal with significant daily commuter and seasonal visitor influx, not only residential demand. This is better handled in a high capacity capacity system.

Manchester city centre is extensive and has enough road space for trams to find their way through and for other traffic to get round the edges.

The fact Edinburgh had no space is exactly why the status quo was unsuitable..

Edinburgh has a compact new town city centre hemmed in with conservation areas, heritage sites and green space.

Exactly why the city should be moving towards using road space more efficiently by non-street polluting vehicles.

 

[Blindtraveler]

That's a fair reply but is it the tram that causes all the extra congestion or people still using cars and a massive reliance on buses to get around?

I know its been a massive pain to get it built and had faced lots of obstruction but is it a case that it really is a white elephant or people just haven't got used to it being there and as such altered how they travel?

Are people prepared to adapt and say, not let it share the road with buses and or cars for while to help just so they can harp on about it being a failure? Why can other cities which have tram systems in this country work with their population changing the way they travel yet Edinburgh cant and can only say its bad?

What we have been left with, just airport>City is a major white elifant which in itself causes more conjestion on the street running sections due to the way its all been done, see 90019s posts for details.
Other cities with trams have them built to open up new opportunitties or reuse previously mothballed or unproffitable heavy rail alignments. With the acception of a short section of X Guided Busway this hasnt and wasnt going to happen here. People will change there travel habbits if the new mode of transport is doing something the old ones wernt, e.g going somewhere faster or more directly or at a lower cost. None of these apply here given that whatever the timetables say the journey to the airport is slower, costlier and dumps you in the wrong place. The students who croud out the busy bus routes down Calder road arnt likely to walk an extra 5 mins to catch a tram that may save them 5-10 mins into town but then have to change again to bus to get home, particularly when in many cases the same bus would take the from uni streight home.

Whilst car usage is still too high in the town the tram in its current form could never be expected to make much of a dent in it and, with the acception of route B to Granton etc wouldnt have done so even before the system was chopped in half. Running it to say Musselburgh via Portobello, the royal infirmary or similar would be the way to really bang the private car on the head or better still design some kind of orbital light rail along the route of the A720 City Bypass which is over capacity and has been for years. Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram and even Tramlink and Midland Metro work because the add something not just copying. Deap down I thing TFE know this, or why else would they have cut the bus service to Ratho back to only serve the Park and Ride for Tram Connections? Its all about numbers and I have a mate who commutes daily with it and finds his journey, particularly at night much slower due to the longer route and need to change.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And another example of Tram adding value is Blackpool. You wouldnt be able to move there half the year without them and the council realised this and modernised the system in a way that is of real value and in such a way that walkers, Bikers, Bus Passengers, Taxis and Prive cars
Arnt
held up for long periods whenever one comes near, something which happens and causes more conjestion than before here in Edinburgh

 

[khib70]

People will change there travel habbits if the new mode of transport is doing something the old ones wernt, e.g going somewhere faster or more directly or at a lower cost. None of these apply here given that whatever the timetables say the journey to the airport is slower, costlier and dumps you in the wrong place. The students who croud out the busy bus routes down Calder road arnt likely to walk an extra 5 mins to catch a tram that may save them 5-10 mins into town but then have to change again to bus to get home, particularly when in many cases the same bus would take the from uni streight home.

Excellent post, especially the bit above.

You're absolutely right in saying that people will not use a new transport mode just because it's new. Well, they will for a while, which is the only explanation for TfE's ridership figures, or the few they have released. I've said repeatedly that unless all these people are travelling very off-peak under cover of darkness, the trams are very underused.

Leki and co can go all round the houses trying to justify the ill-considered route of this stub line. The problem will remain, however, that the trams also go all round the houses, and not through them. People, not just students, will not walk for 5 minutes to a tram stop for a not significantly faster journey, which will only take them as far as the city centre or airport anyway. If you work at the Gyle, or Sighthill, and live in Leith, why trek to a tram stop to catch a service that you'll have to change out of onto a bus at some point? Not when there's a bus stop on the main traffic route, rather than quarter of a mile away across a main rail line.



As for the extension to Leith, if anything of value is to come of this fiasco, it will probably need to be built. But no-one who had even the slightest connection with the planning and execution of the original project should be allowed anywhere near it.

 

[oldman]

In any event Murrayfield and Haymarket are fairly residential, surely?

Er, no. Look at a map. Much of the area round Murrayfield station is occupied by a big rugby stadium, light industry and a rail depot. And it's so close to the city centre that it's not worth walking from say Gorgie to get to the tram compared to a bus stop. I think you are clutching at straws.

Also, Edinburgh's transport more than most has to deal with significant daily commuter and seasonal visitor influx, not only residential demand. This is better handled in a high capacity capacity system.

A decent level of work/shopping/leisure residential demand (as in Manchester) would have been a good start. And apart from a few rugby matches (how did we manage before), how does the tram tram help with the tourists?

Exactly why the city should be moving towards using road space more efficiently by non-street polluting vehicles.

More efficiently is an interesting choice of words in the light of what has happened in the city centre.

Maybe sometime down the road/line there will be some evidence that trams have made a contribution to reducing congestion in the city. Maybe. As it is, it is handy for some commuters, some of whom may have previously driven by car, and not much else.

 

[90019]

Not at all, IIRC. It was asphalt being removed and replaced with concrete, to better withstand the weight and frequency of buses. If journos were breathing down the neck of other construction projects I'm sure worse would be uncovered.

IIRC, it was still concrete under the tracks, just ashpalt either side. After Princes Street reopened the first time, the tracks sank into the road within weeks (just as all the manhole covers do, because they don't rebuild them properly), so it had to be closed again and redone.

Shandwick place had to have the concrete redone (at least once, possibly twice, I can't remember), causing delays to that section. And then when it finally reopened, all the manhole covers had to be redone with a month or two, because they'd all sunk into the ground.

The concrete at the West End has had to be repaired once already, because it had started to disintigrate at the junction with South Charlotte Street heading eastbound, and they're going to have to redo part of it at the junction with Lothian Road, as a manhole cover has sunk, and the concrete is getting damaged.

 

[AngusH]

I suppose in terms of residential that York place is probably the densest area?

Haymarket has the stuff at the end of Dalry Road and possibly the stuff on the other side (roads like Grosvenor Crescent, but I think much of that is B+B and offices now)

Maybe Balgreen tram stop? Fair amount of housing there. If the Carrick Knowe golf course got built on I guess there could be a bunch more passengers, but hopefully that won't ever happen.

Saughton has a fair number of people (broomhouse, etc), plus the prison, but I guess they're not going anywhere by tram?

A friend of mine uses the tram from Saughton to get to work I think.

I guess people could walk to Gyle centre stop from parts of Gyle housing areas, there's a fair amount of new housing out there.


Looking at the map one possible thing appears a spur to Corstorphine actually. The track bed looks fairly intact as a footpath and then there could be a stop at the zoo. I think the original station site is gone.

I guess if there's building of housing out by the airport along the route, that might increase passengers. Though living out there might be a bit noisy surely?


Personally I'm still in wait and see mode on this overall.

(Though I don't disagree with the absolutely valid criticisms made)

 

[khib70]

I suppose in terms of residential that York place is probably the densest area?

Haymarket has the stuff at the end of Dalry Road and possibly the stuff on the other side (roads like Grosvenor Crescent, but I think much of that is B+B and offices now)

Maybe Balgreen tram stop? Fair amount of housing there. If the Carrick Knowe golf course got built on I guess there could be a bunch more passengers, but hopefully that won't ever happen.

Saughton has a fair number of people (broomhouse, etc), plus the prison, but I guess they're not going anywhere by tram?

A friend of mine uses the tram from Saughton to get to work I think.

I guess people could walk to Gyle centre stop from parts of Gyle housing areas, there's a fair amount of new housing out there.


Looking at the map one possible thing appears a spur to Corstorphine actually. The track bed looks fairly intact as a footpath and then there could be a stop at the zoo. I think the original station site is gone.

I guess if there's building of housing out by the airport along the route, that might increase passengers. Though living out there might be a bit noisy surely?


Personally I'm still in wait and see mode on this overall.

(Though I don't disagree with the absolutely valid criticisms made)

Good points. The idea that Murrayfield is "residential" is real barrel scraping. Places like Balgreen and Saughton, do indeed have a fair bit of housing, but with this tram line as is, there are two problems.

Firstly the tram stops are not as conveniently situated for the residents as the existing bus stops, and the tram does not offer a speed advantage sufficient to justify the walk, especially for the elderly or less mobile.

Secondly, and more importantly, anyone going beyond the city centre is faced with the choice of walking to the tram stop and then changing into a bus. This will involve crossing Princes Street or navigating the multiple junction at Haymarket, as the tram stop is outside the station on the westbound side of the road. The loadings on bus services like the 3, 33, 22 and 25 show that there is a fair sized flow from the tram corridor to destinations north, south and east of the city centre.

I know extensions to Leith and the South Side/Royal Infirmary would deal with the latter difficulty, but the first problem will still exist, and is a direct result of the ill-thought-out routeing of the tram west of Haymarket. Given the appalling experience of the current stub line, there is little public support for further tram extensions, and even the tragically inept and developer -fixated council is unlikely to throw more money at them. The Scottish Government will not, and should not, throw more taxpayers money down this sinkhole.