Trams

[Zeberdee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The issue here is not the trams themselves, I think they will be fairly well used by folks, its that they are not replacing the buses, LRT won't roll over and give up all the cash they make servicing the same route as the tramlines, so instead of removing congestion we are adding another layer and mode of transport to an already over subscribed route in and out of town.

Its small time thinking that has got us the trams, typical of Scotland really, no big picture! We shold be getting people back off the road network by looking at proper local rail links, trying to shoehorn another mode of transport onto the streets of Edinburgh is just folly IMHO. I like the trams I have used in other cities, but this scheme for Edinburgh does nothing to alleviate the issues of congestion and busy roads unless you get rid of the buses on these routes, which won't happen...

Rail links would have less stops, cause much more congestions, and cost much much much more to have put inplace.

[Arch Stanton]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can tell. jokin.

The major benifit of replacing the buses will be the improvement in the air in the city. think of all the carcnagenic diesel fumes that will be reduced. The problem was that if the city continues to grow at its current rate, there simply wouldnt be enough buses on our already congested roads. Its also been proven that many drivers who would not use buses, like myself, would be willing to use trams.

Trams offer a whole new transport choice to the people of Edinburgh; one that is proven to appeal to car users where other public transport has failed. Trams are reliable, fast and can carry many passengers; they are also electrically powered producing almost no on-street pollution, which helps to reduce the environmental impact of vehicle emissions.


Also:

http://tramfacts.wordpress.com/all-posts/

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet...tive_to_trams_

Anyway enough of this banter for the day, im finished work and in turn finished wasting even more tax payers money as some of you would probably suggest.

The points you make rather raises something I have never seen addressed - exactly why we are getting trams. If the requirement was to reduce carbon emissions then trams would not be a cost effective solution for Edinburgh. Changing all the buses in Edinburgh to LPG would be a solution but changing one of our commuter routes to trams isn't.

If the requirement was to give Edinburgh commuters more choice then they really need a change to the bus system which would mean a lot more journeys could be made without changing buses. Also, the fact that just about all bus routes go through Princes Street is something which really needs to be addressed if we are going to improve public transport in Edinburgh.

However, the main selling point of trams is that they are an RTS solution (Rapid Transit System) - getting commuters into town quickly. Now, while trams will be very appealing to those relatively few citizens who will be able to make use of them, they certainly wont be travelling any faster than people on buses.

The biggest fallacy though is that there will be fewer buses - even if fewer people travel on buses it does not follow that there will be fewer buses at all. The vast majority of buses clogging Princes Street are less than a quarter full. The fact is an increase in commuters will not mean more buses at all - the existing ones would just be fuller!

[BoozyLynne]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely the way to go would have been a proper underground train service.
Im not talking about the crappy Glasgow style underground, but something more akin to the toronto subway. Its clean, bright and well maintained. It also doesnt put more vehicles on the roads. And with the right design it would cover most of the city. Certainly more than the proposed trams will.

An underground would be the best option, for sure. I would imagine the following are the main reasons for not doing it:

- Cost. Putting an underground transit system in place costs a LOT of money. A project of that magnitude would be whales compared to the tram's minnows.

- Edinburgh's size. Given that the City of Edinburgh itself isn't a comparitively huge city; it probably doesn't merit a mass-transit system, such as an underground, on it's own. If they were to put something like that in place it would have to go to such places as Penicuik, South Queensferry, Dalkeith, Danderhall, West & East Lothian etc...It would take absolutely years to do, although one could argue it could be combined with existing train lines to make it less expensive and less time-consuming.

- Edinburgh's Geology. I believe I read once upon a time that the bedrock below Edinburgh would be very difficult to drill through.


In short, I don't think they'll EVER give the green light for an underground subway system.

[BoozyLynne]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

total madness if you ask me a complete waste of money and a whole load of disruption being caused. the routes the trams are going to use are ones that buses run down every 5 minutes FFS so what is the point. how about people in the outskirts of edinburgh like muirhouse, oxgangs, sighthill who could actually benefit from some money being spent on extended bus routes or even some sort of train service im sure would be a lot more cost effective and benefiscial.

Hear hear!!

One of my main gripes about the trams is that they do absolutely NOTHING for people who live on the south side of the city.

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rail links would have less stops, cause much more congestions, and cost much much much more to have put inplace.

How the hell would rail links cause more congestion??? The suburban lines are still in place for a majority of Edinburgh, been shown it could be up and running for much less than the buses on rails that we are getting which is just adding to volumes of vehicles on the roads.

Trams will slow traffic down further, create bottlenecks everywhere they have to stop in the middle of roads, probably lead to more pedestrians getting injured as to having to cross busy roads, ruin the aesthetics of parts of the town as these electrical wires will be everywhere...

Cost is not the issue, the issue is improving transportation options for the people of Edinburgh and to get folks off the overcrowded key road routes. Trams will not do this, trains could if those idiots in parliament/city chamabers had actually sat down and thought this through instead of using the trams as a political football.

[Zeberdee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How the hell would rail links cause more congestion??? The suburban lines are still in place for a majority of Edinburgh, been shown it could be up and running for much less than the buses on rails that we are getting which is just adding to volumes of vehicles on the roads.

Trams will slow traffic down further, create bottlenecks everywhere they have to stop in the middle of roads, probably lead to more pedestrians getting injured as to having to cross busy roads, ruin the aesthetics of parts of the town as these electrical wires will be everywhere...

Cost is not the issue, the issue is improving transportation options for the people of Edinburgh and to get folks off the overcrowded key road routes. Trams will not do this, trains could if those idiots in parliament/city chamabers had actually sat down and thought this through instead of using the trams as a political football.

Sorry i meant during the laying of new tracks etc there would be more congestion. The trams will have far more stops n be more accessible for more people in my opionion. and only a couple pound a ticket!

As for your suggestion about suburban lines etc. A complete no go. The railway infrastructure simply costs too much to run and maintain. Edinburgh waverly is already creeking at the seems from the number of trains through it every day. Transport scotland have spent over 200 million on a new signalling system at the waverley which control from the borders to polmont on the glasgow line and up to cuper in fife. At least 4 workstations out of the 7 would have to be changed to accomodate new lines within edinburgh.

Its just never gonna happen.

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry i meant during the laying of new tracks etc there would be more congestion. The trams will have far more stops n be more accessible for more people in my opionion. and only a couple pound a ticket!

As for your suggestion about suburban lines etc. A complete no go. The railway infrastructure simply costs too much to run and maintain. Edinburgh waverly is already creeking at the seems from the number of trains through it every day. Transport scotland have spent over 200 million on a new signalling system at the waverley which control from the borders to polmont on the glasgow line and up to cuper in fife. At least 4 workstations out of the 7 would have to be changed to accomodate new lines within edinburgh.

Its just never gonna happen.

Still, IMHO, a much better and more valuable to Edinburgh, option than this Tram "line", its not even a network. Value for money, the trams are not IMHO, a new light suburban rail system would be a better option to service the people of Edinburgh.

They are playing at it with transport infrasturcture in Edinburgh, they have no real idea of what they are doing, its all piecemeal short termisim, Trams are a solution to what problem exactly, why do we so badly need them???

They will simply not step back, look at the big picture, and put a coherent and joined up plan in place for Edinburgh's transport network, it needs really big decisions and people to go out on a limb, trams are a fob, an easy tick in a box for our hopeless politicians, the big decision shold have been to look at futureproofing Edinburgh's transport infrastructure, but our leaders don't have the vision or the balls to do anything like that in case it upsets a few people and they lose votes...

Edinburgh will suffer as adding one tram line is not the solution to our transport needs as a city, especially when it isnt even goting to replace buses, if it was to replace LRT on this route then it would be worthwhile, its not though so its just going to add to vehicular traffic movements West/East across Edinburgh...waste of time and our money

[Ed De Gramo]

Get the Tram lines to ******.....

The biggest waste of money since the Scottish Parliament

Causing aggro on the buses and it's completly messing up the system

[sg7nil]

Driving into work tonight at 18:30 and as I passed the Scottish Office building at Stenhouse (on way to Sighthill) I noticed that there were four number 22 buses nose to tail heading into town on the road! A glance to my right and I noticed that a bus had broken down on the bus route and three other buses had ran up behind it and were stuck.

Now I don't know how reliable the trams are supposed to be, but if one breaks down, there will be no option to simply re-route the ones behind it as there will only be one line in each direction.

Also, Princess Street is often closed for various functions throughout the year. Once again, buses can re-route but trams will be knacked.

When Romanes and Pattersons was on fire last year, they closed Princes St to all traffic, where would the trams have gone?

IMHO the best option (as suggested above) would be an underground system. A very limited amount of tunneling would be needed if it was done right, with radial overground lines feeding into it.

A former workmate was an ex-miner and he stated that the argument about Edinburghs bedrock being too hard to tunnel in is pure mince. In fact, hard rock is more self supporting and can therefore be done with a lot less tunnel lining and support than through softer materials.

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Driving into work tonight at 18:30 and as I passed the Scottish Office building at Stenhouse (on way to Sighthill) I noticed that there were four number 22 buses nose to tail heading into town on the road! A glance to my right and I noticed that a bus had broken down on the bus route and three other buses had ran up behind it and were stuck.

Now I don't know how reliable the trams are supposed to be, but if one breaks down, there will be no option to simply re-route the ones behind it as there will only be one line in each direction.

Also, Princess Street is often closed for various functions throughout the year. Once again, buses can re-route but trams will be knacked.

When Romanes and Pattersons was on fire last year, they closed Princes St to all traffic, where would the trams have gone?

IMHO the best option (as suggested above) would be an underground system. A very limited amount of tunneling would be needed if it was done right, with radial overground lines feeding into it.

A former workmate was an ex-miner and he stated that the argument about Edinburghs bedrock being too hard to tunnel in is pure mince. In fact, hard rock is more self supporting and can therefore be done with a lot less tunnel lining and support than through softer materials.

Not sure about this bedrock issue, what I think is a major issue is the extent of basements and foundations of buildings, especially historic ones, around the city centre, and the effect of tunnelling and underground vibrations may have on them

[Monts]

Who is actually going to be running the trams?

I may be wrong but out at the Gogar round about there is a big sign about the trams with an LRT emblem on the sign. Does this not mean that LRT will be running the trams?

If this is the case then the argument about LRT not giving up on its buses due to losing business to the trams would be redundant. It would also mean that during events like new year where princes street is closed, they would be able to put buses on instead for the short term.

[davym7062]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The issue here is not the trams themselves, I think they will be fairly well used by folks, its that they are not replacing the buses, LRT won't roll over and give up all the cash they make servicing the same route as the tramlines, so instead of removing congestion we are adding another layer and mode of transport to an already over subscribed route in and out of town.

Its small time thinking that has got us the trams, typical of Scotland really, no big picture! We shold be getting people back off the road network by looking at proper local rail links, trying to shoehorn another mode of transport onto the streets of Edinburgh is just folly IMHO. I like the trams I have used in other cities, but this scheme for Edinburgh does nothing to alleviate the issues of congestion and busy roads unless you get rid of the buses on these routes, which won't happen...

the trams and lothian buses will be part of the same company, if you look at the pictures of the tram u'll see it's in lothian colours. not maroon

the bus service that goes through the tram route will be scaled down

[Phil D. Rolls]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

pretty much agree with everything said above. i do not see the benefits at all.

Lothian buses won best bus service in the UK last year so there is clearly no need to make drastic changes to our transport system

On the face of it - no. However, we have to plan for a time when oil is scarcer. Regardless of your views on global warming, we just can't sustain the internal combustion engine forever. Trams run on electricity.

[BoozyLynne]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On the face of it - no. However, we have to plan for a time when oil is scarcer. Regardless of your views on global warming, we just can't sustain the internal combustion engine forever. Trams run on electricity.

Can't trains run on electricity as well, though?

[PiemanP]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On the face of it - no. However, we have to plan for a time when oil is scarcer. Regardless of your views on global warming, we just can't sustain the internal combustion engine forever. Trams run on electricity.

with the way technology is developing as the previous poster said both trains and buses can be run on electricity and other renewably sources, give it a good few years and the majority of cars wont be petrol run.

[Chez]

[quote=piemanpilley;1530039]with the way technology is developing as the previous poster said both trains and buses can be run on electricity and other renewably sources, give it a good few years and the majority of cars wont be petrol run.[/quote]


That is the plan anyway - on Panorama a few months ago they were talking about using rapeseed oil for car engines instead of petrol. Tests have been carried out and rapeseed oil is a good equivalent for petrol and more eco-friendly for the car and clean air.

[Bishop Hibee]

If anyone has looked at the plans for the tramline you would see who has pushed for it. Big business. There is a stop at Ocean Terminal, one outside the casino at the bottom of Constitution Street, a stop at The Gyle, one at Gogarburn and at the Airport. By contrast there is 1 stop for the whole of Leith Walk (at Balfour Street) and 1 for the whole of Princes Street!

Lots of people, especially those working at The Gyle or RBS, will love them when we have them but are not worth the initial outlay IMHO.

[Arch Stanton]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

the trams and lothian buses will be part of the same company, if you look at the pictures of the tram u'll see it's in lothian colours. not maroon

the bus service that goes through the tram route will be scaled down

While there MAY be fewer LRT buses on the 22 route (and I doubt it) there certainly won't be fewer First buses on that route.

Overall there won't be any additional buses sitting in garages as LRT and First will still be competing for market share in Edinburgh (bus deregulation being another hideous legacy from Thatcher - courtesy of another thread) and buses running empty are part and parcel of that.

[Dashing Bob S]

Trams are both a fantastic idea and absolutely essential. Our cities are medieval in design and not built for motorised transport, which is destroying the environment and has had its day, particularly in the cities. In the long run, moving to eco-friendly rapid transit is the way to go.

Of course there will be cost, hassle and inconvenience. So what? Deal with and stop moaning in the selfish, knee-jerk backwoodsman manner about every beneficial change just because it might cause you a bit of short-term hassle.

My biggest bugbear about the trams is that system should have been up and running at least a decade ago. That god they are actually getting their fingers out and doing it.

The Dublin trams are fantastic, and like good eye laser surgery, people wonder how they ever got by without it. They moaned in Athens about the underground, yes, they had eight years of hassle, but car volumes were growing exponentially so they would have had this bother anyway. Now those of us who don't fancy the sheer, abject nightmare of driving in that city have a decent alternative.

A comprehensive rapid transit system is a process of long-term development. Dublin's will continue to improve as more lines open and link up. Manchester and Croydon wouldn't go back to buses for love nor money either. It'll be a long slog but when it is running, other cities like Glasgow will look enviously at us and want one too. Let's be a wee bit less mean-spirited and leave something decent for our kids and subsequent generations. We've taken and are taking loads and loads, so why not just shut up and put up with the hassle for the sake of progress?

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Trams are both a fantastic idea and absolutely essential. Our cities are medieval in design and not built for motorised transport, which is destroying the environment and has had its day, particularly in the cities. In the long run, moving to eco-friendly rapid transit is the way to go.

Of course there will be cost, hassle and inconvenience. So what? Deal with and stop moaning in the selfish, knee-jerk backwoodsman manner about every beneficial change just because it might cause you a bit of short-term hassle.

My biggest bugbear about the trams is that system should have been up and running at least a decade ago. That god they are actually getting their fingers out and doing it.

The Dublin trams are fantastic, and like good eye laser surgery, people wonder how they ever got by without it. They moaned in Athens about the underground, yes, they had eight years of hassle, but car volumes were growing exponentially so they would have had this bother anyway. Now those of us who don't fancy the sheer, abject nightmare of driving in that city have a decent alternative.

A comprehensive rapid transit system is a process of long-term development. Dublin's will continue to improve as more lines open and link up. Manchester and Croydon wouldn't go back to buses for love nor money either. It'll be a long slog but when it is running, other cities like Glasgow will look enviously at us and want one too. Let's be a wee bit less mean-spirited and leave something decent for our kids and subsequent generations. We've taken and are taking loads and loads, so why not just shut up and put up with the hassle for the sake of progress?

Bob, I do like Trams, especially when compared to riding on double decker buses, again I'll push Melbourne as a city that has got its public transport infrastructure right, its all joined up in its thinking and everything connects and seems to work.

Edinburgh is a different ballgame as we are not a new sprawling city, we are an old place with weird windy routes and hills, so that kind of Melbourne system wont really work.

I just think they are attacking it the wrong way in Edinburgh, trams eventually to replace buses on main routes across the city will be fantastic, but I think they should have started with getting folks off the roads, not just moving them from one vehicle to another, the regular airport rail link, with a stop at Edinburgh Park, IMHO would have alieviated the pressure on the East/West road corridor, as well as linking central Edinburgh with the airport in about 10 mins instead of mucking around with airport buses. You could also aleviate pressure on the forth road bridge with a frequent shuttle rail connection from Fife straight to airport/Edinburgh park.

When they have reduced the levels of commuters then slowly phase the trams in to REPLACE the buses, not run with them still.

And I still think a big chance to make Haymarket a transport interchange hub has been lost with this chasing the quick buck of new hotels, leisure etc etc

I actually don't think CEC/Parliaments/Exec have been bold enough with their transport vision for Edinburgh

[Dashing Bob S]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bob, I do like Trams, especially when compared to riding on double decker buses, again I'll push Melbourne as a city that has got its public transport infrastructure right, its all joined up in its thinking and everything connects and seems to work.

Edinburgh is a different ballgame as we are not a new sprawling city, we are an old place with weird windy routes and hills, so that kind of Melbourne system wont really work.

I just think they are attacking it the wrong way in Edinburgh, trams eventually to replace buses on main routes across the city will be fantastic, but I think they should have started with getting folks off the roads, not just moving them from one vehicle to another, the regular airport rail link, with a stop at Edinburgh Park, IMHO would have alieviated the pressure on the East/West road corridor, as well as linking central Edinburgh with the airport in about 10 mins instead of mucking around with airport buses. You could also aleviate pressure on the forth road bridge with a frequent shuttle rail connection from Fife straight to airport/Edinburgh park.

When they have reduced the levels of commuters then slowly phase the trams in to REPLACE the buses, not run with them still.

And I still think a big chance to make Haymarket a transport interchange hub has been lost with this chasing the quick buck of new hotels, leisure etc etc

I actually don't think CEC/Parliaments/Exec have been bold enough with their transport vision for Edinburgh

Oh, I'm sure it is a shabby, half-baked system full of fudges and compromises, but after twenty years of hot air its great to see them actually digging. I'm working from the premise that once its started it can be made better. I think Edinburgh had got itself into a terrible mess where they were never going to let go of the idea, but nobody had the bottle to start the ball rolling.

Thank god that impasse is behind us.

[Arch Stanton]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let's be a wee bit less mean-spirited and leave something decent for our kids and subsequent generations. We've taken and are taking loads and loads, so why not just shut up and put up with the hassle for the sake of progress?

If opposing complete wastes of money is mean spirited then I'm just going to have to be so. And until someone can explain to me exactly what trams can do that buses can't I will continue to be so.

Why exactly is building inflexibility into our transport infrastructure worth spending so much money?

Why are you seriously envisaging a complete tram network when the financing still isn't completely in place for this first (last?) line?

I would fully support any work done to ensure a better transport system for the future but that will never happen until someone sits down and assesses our current problems and starts to work out a proper solution to them.

As far as RTS is concerned the most envied cities by a long way are those with underground trains. Some other cities have nevertheless managed to use trams effectively where they have been able to subdivide thoroughfares to bring in fast links between areas of population and places of business (does this really sound like the TIE solution to you?).

It seems to me that Edinburgh is getting trams for the simple reason that there are people in Dublin and some other places who like theirs - that just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

[Dashing Bob S]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If opposing complete wastes of money is mean spirited then I'm just going to have to be so. And until someone can explain to me exactly what trams can do that buses can't I will continue to be so.

Why exactly is building inflexibility into our transport infrastructure worth spending so much money?

Why are you seriously envisaging a complete tram network when the financing still isn't completely in place for this first (last?) line?

I would fully support any work done to ensure a better transport system for the future but that will never happen until someone sits down and assesses our current problems and starts to work out a proper solution to them.

As far as RTS is concerned the most envied cities by a long way are those with underground trains. Some other cities have nevertheless managed to use trams effectively where they have been able to subdivide thoroughfares to bring in fast links between areas of population and places of business (does this really sound like the TIE solution to you?).

It seems to me that Edinburgh is getting trams for the simple reason that there are people in Dublin and some other places who like theirs - that just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

If opposing complete wastes of money is mean spirited then I'm just going to have to be so. And until someone can explain to me exactly what trams can do that buses can't I will continue to be so.

1) Faster. Connolly Station in Dublin to Tallaght took 45 mins by bus, it takes 23 by tram. 2) Cleaner - they are better for the environment.

Why exactly is building inflexibility into our transport infrastructure worth spending so much money?

2) By continuing to let an increasing volume of cars into our city we are already building inflexibility into our teansport infrastructure.

Why are you seriously envisaging a complete tram network when the financing still isn't completely in place for this first (last?) line?

3) Because you have to. Self-contained lines bring solid, but marginal improvements. You have to work to the goal of a comprehensive, integrated transit system.

I would fully support any work done to ensure a better transport system for the future but that will never happen until someone sits down and assesses our current problems and starts to work out a proper solution to them.

4) That's the last thing we need - they've been sitting down doing that for twenty years. At last some action - and not before time.

As far as RTS is concerned the most envied cities by a long way are those with underground trains. Some other cities have nevertheless managed to use trams effectively where they have been able to subdivide thoroughfares to bring in fast links between areas of population and places of business (does this really sound like the TIE solution to you?).

5) I agree that underground trains are much better. It's been said that Edinburgh is geological unsuitable for this due to the hills - whether its true, I can't say. Agree that most tram projects introdcued in cities have been succesful. Its hard to think of one that hasn't. I agree the TIE solution isn't the optimum, but its better than nothing.

It seems to me that Edinburgh is getting trams for the simple reason that there are people in Dublin and some other places who like theirs - that just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

6) It seems sensible practice to replicate successful schemes adopted in other cities. Why not?

[Sergio sledge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I just think they are attacking it the wrong way in Edinburgh, trams eventually to replace buses on main routes across the city will be fantastic, but I think they should have started with getting folks off the roads, not just moving them from one vehicle to another, the regular airport rail link, with a stop at Edinburgh Park, IMHO would have alieviated the pressure on the East/West road corridor, as well as linking central Edinburgh with the airport in about 10 mins instead of mucking around with airport buses. You could also aleviate pressure on the forth road bridge with a frequent shuttle rail connection from Fife straight to airport/Edinburgh park.

Which is exactly what the tram is going to do as far as I'm aware. there is a regular link to the airport, with stops at Ingleston Park and Ride, the gyle, Edinburgh park, along the railway line to Haymarket, then onto Princes Street.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When they have reduced the levels of commuters then slowly phase the trams in to REPLACE the buses, not run with them still.

The level of commuters will never reduce unless the work is moved out of the city centre. The trams, will alleviate pressure on the roads, by allowing people to park out near the airport and get into the centre of the city in minutes. The fact that the trams will have priority over cars and buses on the road will also help encourage people to use them.

It has been said before, but Nottingham is a very similar city to Edinburgh, and the trams have worked extremely well here, so much so that they are in consultation over another two tram routes, linking the suburbs to the centre of town. This is the way Edinburgh will eventually go.

[Arch Stanton]

[QUOTE=Dashing Bob S;1530255]
1) Faster. Connolly Station in Dublin to Tallaght took 45 mins by bus, it takes 23 by tram.
Trams will certainly go faster because there are so few stops - just taking the Express Bus philosophy to extremes and I don't see that as being particularly clever. Other than that I would wonder just where in Edinburgh trams will be picking up a head of speed - just to warn pedestrians not to go there I mean.
2) Cleaner - they are better for the environment.
I completely agree that we need a cleaner environment. I totally disagree that we need trams to achieve that.
2) By continuing to let an increasing volume of cars into our city we are already building inflexibility into our teansport infrastructure.
I don't follow that. As far as I am concerned the best way to get people out of cars is to give them a decent public transport alternative (all the people I mean not just the ones living on Leith Walk who want to go to the Gyle).
3) Because you have to. Self-contained lines bring solid, but marginal improvements. You have to work to the goal of a comprehensive, integrated transit system.
Like I said before I agree with the comprehensive and integrated - I just don't agree with trams.
4) That's the last thing we need - they've been sitting down doing that for twenty years. At last some action - and not before time.
There may be some instances where 'any' decision is better than 'no' decision but this isn't one - joined-up thinking and a proper plan are important.
5) I agree that underground trains are much better. It's been said that Edinburgh is geological unsuitable for this due to the hills - whether its true, I can't say. Agree that most tram projects introdcued in cities have been succesful. Its hard to think of one that hasn't. I agree the TIE solution isn't the optimum, but its better than nothing.
I don't go along with 'better than nothing' - in fact I think it will in the end prevent a good solution being achieved. LRT recently announed a scheme where you could phone up and find out when your next bus was going to arrive - I can see lots of scope along those lines for making buses more attractive and hopefully more flexible (and get rid of de-regulation while we're at it!).
6) It seems sensible practice to replicate successful schemes adopted in other cities. Why not?
If all cities were exactly the same then that might make some sense. However, I would query what your definition of successful was. I guess you could consider it a big success if you get half the people off the 22 bus and onto trams - given that the bus probably has 3 times as many stops I mean, anything over a third could be considered pretty good.

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which is exactly what the tram is going to do as far as I'm aware. there is a regular link to the airport, with stops at Ingleston Park and Ride, the gyle, Edinburgh park, along the railway line to Haymarket, then onto Princes Street.



The level of commuters will never reduce unless the work is moved out of the city centre. The trams, will alleviate pressure on the roads, by allowing people to park out near the airport and get into the centre of the city in minutes. The fact that the trams will have priority over cars and buses on the road will also help encourage people to use them.

It has been said before, but Nottingham is a very similar city to Edinburgh, and the trams have worked extremely well here, so much so that they are in consultation over another two tram routes, linking the suburbs to the centre of town. This is the way Edinburgh will eventually go.

If the correct integrated rail link is put in place then it will alleviate congestion on roads and in the city centre, if folks in Fife, or Stirling, or wherever, who fly in and out of Edinburgh airport, can get back to their par of Scotland by rail from the airport without having to stop/change at Haymarket/Waverley/Bus Station etc then it reduces needless pedestrian/vehicular traffic in and out of Edinburgh.

Trams INSTEAD of buses is whats needed on these key routes, not trams & buses. Losing buses has got to be better on an environmental level

[sg7nil]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If anyone has looked at the plans for the tramline you would see who has pushed for it. Big business. There is a stop at Ocean Terminal, one outside the casino at the bottom of Constitution Street, a stop at The Gyle, one at Gogarburn and at the Airport. By contrast there is 1 stop for the whole of Leith Walk (at Balfour Street) and 1 for the whole of Princes Street!

Lots of people, especially those working at The Gyle or RBS, will love them when we have them but are not worth the initial outlay IMHO.

The Balfour St stop will be handy for me (and for punters getting to ER and Jaynes Bar) however are you seriously suggesting that theres only 1 stop on the whole length of Princes St??? I assume it's scheduled to be near the middle ? Near the Mound? Can you imagine the queues to get on or off there during busy periods? Surely there should be a stop to service Waverly Station (at Waverly Bridge perhaps?)

[Lucius Apuleius]

Why not a monorail above street level?

[Iain G]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why not a monorail above street level?

Hmmm, looking forward to Lyle Lanley working for TIE if thats the case

"Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!"

[Zeberdee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the correct integrated rail link is put in place then it will alleviate congestion on roads and in the city centre, if folks in Fife, or Stirling, or wherever, who fly in and out of Edinburgh airport, can get back to their par of Scotland by rail from the airport without having to stop/change at Haymarket/Waverley/Bus Station etc then it reduces needless pedestrian/vehicular traffic in and out of Edinburgh.

Trams INSTEAD of buses is whats needed on these key routes, not trams & buses. Losing buses has got to be better on an environmental level

Thanks to the SNP for cancelling this. Especially after millions already having been spent by network rail to install a signalling system to accomodate this.

The SNP in reality, have spent the money elsewhere, on their short term policies in order to wow voters and ensure they get in another term and push through independence. By that time we wont be able to afford a proper rail link.