Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


End of the line looms for transport plan

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2007
THE First Minister has given a clear hint he is to ditch plans for a proposed Edinburgh tram system and air link, comparing the spending on both to the ill-fated Scottish Parliament project.
Alex Salmond is expected to announce the new SNP government's decision on the policy as early as this week, amid widespread expectation the £1.1bn plans will be axed.

Last week, Salmond told MSPs that he had "deep misgivings" about the schemes, w
hich, if built, promise to transform the public transport network in the capital.

He has now promised to publish new information that shows the costs are already spiralling well beyond budget.

Salmond said: "There is a significant amount of information, which will be new to the Parliament in terms of how much money would be spent."

In a clear reference to the ill-fated £410m Holyrood Parliament building, he added: "It would not be the first construction project in the world to run over budget."

Salmond is also preparing to publish details of the £100m that has already been spent on the plans. He claims he and his ministers have been taken aback by how so much money has already been spent to little effect. As a result, the SNP now looks ever more keen to press ahead with its alternative plans, likely to involve an increase in investment in bus travel, and a new 'spur' taking passengers from the main Edinburgh-Glasgow rail line to the airport. The attempt to link the two transport projects with the Scottish Parliament disaster will be seen as a clear bid by the SNP to win over the Edinburgh public if the schemes are cancelled.

The rail link has been priced at £610m, largely because a tunnel needs to be built underneath the railway to connect the rail line to the airport terminal. SNP ministers have described such a tunnel as "bonkers".

The trams scheme, priced at £500m, is backed by business leaders as the best way to reduce the congestion choking the city. However, the SNP argues that it would be cheaper and better to improve bus services.

Local MSPs are still urging Salmond to think again, insisting the tram scheme in particular is necessary to prevent gridlock in the capital.

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald said: "The SNP need to look further than their noses. Already there are 50 buses an hour going down Princes Street. If we were to ditch the trams then that goes up to 60 an hour. I have to accept evidence from the continent that car drivers don't give up their cars for buses but they do for trams."

As well as writing off the £100m that has already been spent on the two projects, the SNP may also have to pay an estimated £10m in compensation costs if it reversed the decision to go ahead.



The full article contains 483 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 May 2007 11:31 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Transport policy
 
1

Bill, Dunblane,

27/05/2007 00:38:50

So Margo, what's the difference between 50 buses that can go on any route, or 40 buses and 10 trams? (which can only go on a single route)

2

Paul in Oz,

27/05/2007 00:48:40

Great plan what does this say for the ambitions of Scotland and for outr ability to have a 21st century transport infrastructure.

Bet the Victorians didn't give care what it cost to build the train network Glasgow has.

Listen SNP BUSES are NOT the answer!

I agree the tram link to the airport should be mothballed because there will be a train link, but come on this is our capital city, surely we can do something a bit better than buses?

First defeat for SNP in minority paliament? I think it is looking like it!

3

Statsman,

27/05/2007 01:18:29

Excellent news.

2. Paul in Oz

Buses may not be the answer. However, wasting this kind of money on trams, knowing they are not value for money, verges on criminal. It would be silly to plough on knowing this project is likely to turn into another parliament construction fiasco on rails.

4

One-man-bucket's older twin,

27/05/2007 01:48:18

:-)

5

AB_R,

27/05/2007 04:42:50

With regards the comments above "largely because a tunnel needs to be built underneath the railway", eh no the tunnel is being built under the runway, which will be in constant use. This is "bonkers".

I also understand that the last figures for tramline 1 was reaching £750 million, I suspect the figure quoted above was the initial estimate.

6

Harriet,

27/05/2007 07:07:03

Why is nobody talking about the massive doubts about the price quoted for construction of the Borders rail link and the dubious passenger numbers claimed?

Cancel this and keep a link to the airport and it makes sense.

7

ex katman 2,

back home 27/05/2007 07:15:32

Of the 50 buses an hour going down Princes Street,bet half of them are the number 22.

8

Citylocal Fife,

Citylocal Fife News Room 27/05/2007 07:23:14

Edinburgh is a very small city, and I fear that trams will actually increase congestion, due to their appalling 'turning circle'.

Far better to redesign a *superbus*, which not running on a fixed track, can easily be deployed anywhere, without having to dig up the streets.

For those like Margo Macdonald, quote, " I have to accept evidence from the continent that car drivers don't give up their cars for buses but they do for trams."! - perhaps she could devote some time to disguising the superbuses to look like trams, and that would solve that problem, or is that too easy a solution?

And... a question for the 'Scotsman', why are they saying (final para) that the SNP have to pay back the money which was squandered by the 'New Blabber' party?????

Yours etc

Angus Whitton

9

Goat Boy,

27/05/2007 07:39:22

Well done Alex - you MAY win me over yet.

10

fimo,

27/05/2007 08:13:16

That's encouraging, I hope he spends the money responsibly.

The Government needs to take a step away and take a look at what is happening in Scotland. It is developing faster that the networks that are in place to support the population. This is all too evident in the cities where we are seeing high density developments that are turning areas into car parks and increasing the traffic on the roads.

They also need to take a look at the growth in commuter traffic - the tram would not solve this problem. Removing the bridge tolls will not help to address this growing problem. Edinburgh City Council wasted an opportunity to build a Park and Ride at Hermiston Gate, where the M8 and M9 enters the city. What an example that would have set to the rest of Scotland – a show piece – getting folk to leave their cars there. There's even a railway station - but there's NO CAR PARKING.

But no - let's build another retail park that encourages car use. Just like all the other ones.

Come on Mr. Salmond – show us what you can do. The Council’s ‘talk’ about sustainability - now let’s see the principles of sustainability put into action.

11

Andy Th,

27/05/2007 09:07:06

The argument that £100m has been spent "with nothing to show for it" is nonsense. You don't build a tram line BEFORE you have done all the preparatory work, feasibility studies, planning, parliamentary bill, precurement etc. If that is how the SNP plan on doing things, they are mad.

Edinburgh has a desperate congestion problem, and something needs to be done. The economy will suffer and life will become even more miserable. More buses is scarcely the answer - the city is chock full of them. It can take 20 minutes just to get along Princes Street, which is exclusively buses. More buses will make things even worse.

There are only 3 EU capitals that don't have some kind of tram or other mass transit system - they are in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta. Is this the kind of independent state the SNP want? They regularly go an about Ireland as what we should aspire to, yet Dublin has recently built a tram system and it works! Why wouldnt it work in Edinburgh?

Money is never an obstacle when it comes to widening roads and building motorways. They didn't take money into account when they decided to scrap the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges (despite this meaning millions of pounds a year extra to be found from the taxpayer). This isn't about transport policy - it is about taking money from Edinburgh to spend it on roads in other parts of Scotland where they get more votes.

No serious transport planner or transport policy would scrap the trams now. Yet the SNP are happy to throw away £130 million that has already been spent on the trams for short-term gain. Scrap the trams and that money and effort is totally wasted.

12

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:15:25

My bus journey home across town on Friday took an hour. The bus route is almost identical to the tram route. The same journey by tram would have taken 14 minutes.

There were 6 or 7 buses queueing at each stop. My bus got snarled up with all the other traffic. This is a vision of SNP transport policy for Edinburgh.

The SNP are happy to spend millions on scrapping tolls for the Fifers for no other reason than fairness, but clearly don't want to spend a penny on me in Edinburgh.

How many of the cars making my journey last an hour came over the Forth bridge?

They say that tolls on the bridges are hurting the Fife economy. How much does gridlocked streets cost the Edinburgh economy? And how many Fifers work in Edinburgh anyway?

The SNP have only been in charge a week, and they are already showing their true colours when it comes to strategic thinking for Scotland! i.e. they have none.

13

PeterPete,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:24:52

PS, Margo:

You reckon there are 50 buses an hour along Princes Street. You should get out more.

The Evening News the other week reported that there around 360 buses an hour along Princes Street.

The SNP have yet to give any clue as to how the buses can be improved. My bus route has a bus every 5 minutes. Great. But the bus journey still takes eons. Would the SNP have a bus every 2.5 minutes instead, with the journey taking even longer with double the number of buses?

Or are they going to start segragating the streets or closing them to cars entirely? I fail to see how else they can make journey times even come close to what they would be with trams.

14

Andy Th,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:29:28

To #8 from Fife:

"And... a question for the 'Scotsman', why are they saying (final para) that the SNP have to pay back the money which was squandered by the 'New Blabber' party?????"

Because, Mr Numpty, it costs money to make people redundant, to pay penalties to companies to cancel contracts etc etc. Maybe the SNP havent realised that you just can't cancel projects when contracts have been signed etc without having to pay.

15

Cadgers,

Perth 27/05/2007 09:36:13

Rickshaws are the answer............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickshaw

16

Charles MN,

27/05/2007 11:11:30

#13 You want ideas on how to improve the bus service. Her are a few:

1) Off bus ticketing. You buy a ticket at a machine at the bus stop or have a Ridacard. The driver doesn't check tickets. This reduces the congestion at bus stops. This is the major way in which the trams would be quicker.

2) Have fewer stops. This is the other major way in which trams would be quicker.

3) Sort out the traffic flow on Princes St.
If you told any competent traffic engineer that you had congestion problems with 360 vehicles an hour on a 3 lane dual carriage road he would think you were mad.

4) Cancel the free travel for the elderly and give them the money to spend as they want. This scheme encourages people to make journeys they don't need to.

17

Cheeky Charlie,

27/05/2007 11:18:00

Edinburgh may have a congestion problem but its not as bad as London.

18

cammie,

east lothian 27/05/2007 11:24:14

It is not "a tram system", it is a tram "line" and a bloody expensive one at that.

19

Miles,

Better away from Glasgow 27/05/2007 11:35:27

When compared to other parts of the UK Edinburgh has a very mild congestion problem, largely designed and built by so called professional Planners at the behest of the last administration.

20

Porty Nat,

27/05/2007 12:07:56

Andy TH:

'Edinburgh has a desperate congestion problem, and something needs to be done'.

Very easy to say, even if our congestion is nothing compared to Manchester or London. But don't fall into the trap of assuming that because 'something needs to be done', and because 'trams are something'; that the something we need to do is build a tram line.

'Yet the SNP are happy to throw away £130 million that has already been spent on the trams for short-term gain. Scrap the trams and that money and effort is totally wasted'.

People said similar things in the early days of the Holyrood project, and look where that got us... Sometimes, you get better value for money by bailing out of a contract even with the potential penalties, than you do by pressing on with a project which won't deliver what it promises.

21

The Honest Lad,

27/05/2007 12:30:11

You can hardly move for buses in Edinburgh already. A new approach is needed and I think Trams are probably the answer.

A train of some descriptions has to link the airport with the city centre. As a business person i would certiainly jump on a train, but faced with the bus option I would probably take a taxi!

Is Salmond trying to make up the black hole in his budget already from scrapping tolls etc.

The greens are bound to jump ship soon if they trully believe in what they stand for.

22

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 27/05/2007 13:08:18

I applaud downsizing the rail link to the airport. A spur from the E&G line is all that is needed. When you consider that the aviation industry, tied closely to availability of abundant cheap fuel, will be forced to contract as energy costs soar after peak oil circa 2010. The gigantic EARL scheme would have been a laughing stock, a monument to unsustainable development.

Trams will work well in a post oil society, but who can blame the SNP for losing patience with TIE. Design costs etc have approached £10 million a mile. This is outrageous project management waste and it shows what happens when you employ the clueless who then have to farm everything out to consultants.

A proper in-house team could have delivered the project design at a fraction of the cost.

23

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 13:44:10

Scrapping the tram system would be a huge miscalculation by the SNP - unlike EARL there is a big majority in favour of trams, and there is a proven need. The Greens now need to show what they are worth - the opportunity may come with a tramless finance bill; if the Greens do not vote against it, then they will lose all credibility.

24

Charles MN,

27/05/2007 15:00:30

The Draft Final Business Case produced in November gave a "cumulative expenditure to March 2007" of £58 million. So how come we have spent £100 million in May? This seems to be another runaway project.

25

NorT,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 16:05:12

#24 - There is NOT a big majority in favour of trams, it is the other way about. lets prove it - hold a referendum. The only congestion in edinburgh is caused by the road planners and engineers - blocking off streets, altering traffic lights and the remanants of the CETM. Put things back to normal and the congestion would go overnight. Even if there is any congestion it is only for a brief period in the morning and evening.

26

Citylocal Fife,

Citylocal Fife News Room 27/05/2007 16:13:49

#14

The point I was making is

why do the *SNP* have to pay this back, I would have thought it was the taxpayers via the executive who would have to stump up.

Using your logic .. the the people who engineered the ill thought-out fiasco should pay it back, and I presume that is the New Blabber party.

If you studied politics, arithmetic, or indeed anything apart from your navel, it might be apparent that there is a time to cut losses.

Scotland started to cut her losses when they voted New Blabber out, and the party who they voted in are going to continue to cut losses.....

As for redundancy, I'd rather pay a little for someone's broo money, than pay through the nose for a huge wage bill to pay for a white elephant; that's why I don't vote for the New Blabber party.

Even Russia gave up paying people to produce white elephants, although they *are* easier to manouvre than trams.

Yours etc

Angus Whitton

27

Dominic,

Scottish Borders 27/05/2007 17:27:41

Hope he has a look at the badly thoughtout plan to link the Scottish Borders with Edinburgh with the Rail Link from Edinburgh to Tweedbank. Thats just the same with costs going to spiral.

28

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge. 27/05/2007 17:55:00

#26 GreigS Not a doom monger, just 25 years experience in the oil Industry.

For your information Scotland has used up nearly all its own oil reserves, output falling at 8% a year, far faster than forecast despite record investment.

Expert opinion is that global oil output will follow suit - peak and then decline after 2010, this is a geological fact and regardless how much money is thrown at trying to increase production it can never happen. This is what occurs when a finite resource becomes over 50% depleted, each year less and less is available to extract. Visit google and look up peak oil if you doubt.

Trains can be electrified and will run on anything from coal to nuclear to wind to hydro and are sustainable. Planes require oil and most of those resources are currently swallowed up by road vehicles which are also unsustainable.

Strategic investment should be in trams, electrified high-speed railways, and suburban rail - all sustainable in a post oil economy. I like flying, but I'm not fooling myself that it will survive as a form of mass transit without cheap oil to sustain it.

http://www.airliners.net/articles/read.main?id=81

29

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2007 18:04:46

Harriet, darling try and get oot from the New Toon more often.

30

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2007 18:09:21

The tram system is primarily for the benefit for the yuppie newcomers to Leith, who want to show their commitment to public transport but would rather not mix with the plebs on the buses.

31

DonaldK,

Brussels 27/05/2007 18:14:47

Thank goodness for the SNP - they know how pear shaped big public sector projects go and have identified two of the biggest potential money pits. Trams are a good idea but with TIE (not) in charge they would just end up being another Holyrood. Much better to consider fastlink busses (similar to trams but on dedicated roadways without the complicated infrastructure required for a rail network). The airport does need a rail link, but a simple one to connect it to the network and the nearby hub at Haymarket should avoid the scope for massive overspends on a tunnel under the runway. It seems clear from the under construction Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway (3 times over budget and years late) that we are not very good at bringing rail/ tram projects in on time and budget, possibly because we haven't done many of them in the last 50 years. Road projects seem to have a better record, probably because they are better understood and more common (the M77 extension was a good example - hopefully the M74 can stick to it's budget as well).

I also agree with the posters above who have questioned the supporting figures for the Borders rail link (were TIE involved in collating them? They look stupid enough for that to be the case). It was always just a pet project for the Lib Dems and a few trainspotters anyway.

32

Asif,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 18:20:57

Brilliant. No more diggings and traffic chaos on the road in this summer.

It would also be nice if they look for ways to cut emissions from those lothian buses, perhaps by introducing hybrid buses. There are plenty of options available.

33

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge. 27/05/2007 18:43:36

#35 Joe Airport boy!

Salmond has the intellect to realise EARL would be an expensive link to an unsustainable facility. He doesn't need to win a vote on it, just close the cheque book. The project is effectively dead and be thankful that a cheap spur will be built instead.

As for rail air passengers from the West or Fife having to double back at Haymarket. In 10 or 20 years time most will be alighting at Haymarket to catch a TGV to London and won't even think about going near the airport. Sorry, but that's the way things will be as energy costs soar.

34

James Nimmo,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 20:20:50

I fully endorse Margo McDonald's opinion that people would be more likely to give up their cars for a tram than a bus.

The proposed trams, having controls at both end, would not necessarily require the turning circles referred to by one of your readers and, furthermore could carry as many people as 2 or 3 double-decker buses. With several doors and street-side ticket machines, passengers could board and alight quickly at each stop minimising. Compare this with the queues of buses at each stop in Princes Street with lines of passengers laboriously boarding and alighting through a single entrance/exit without a car in sight to slow the vehicles' progress.

I suspect that if the trams are ditched, nothing will be spent on bus improvements. Scotland's capital city deserves better, many European cities of equal size, greater and smaller benefit from this form of public transport - particularly as the last parliament endorsed them.

35

D Napier,

27/05/2007 20:47:14

We have been told that the tolls on the Forth and Tay Road Bridges are being abolished as they are an unfair tax on those that use them.

RUBBISH.

If we use the same argument, then the fares which people in the Western Isles, etc. have to pay to travel to the kainland are exactly the same, therefore we should now expect these ferry services to be made free.

The abolition of of the £1 toll will NOT be a boost to business. Even HGV's, except execptional loads, only pay £2. Tourism will NOT benefit - when have you ever gone on holiday an not made a journey because you had to pay a £1 or greater toll to cross a bridge?

What is going to happen is that The Scottish Executive has to find £10 million+ per annum to keep the Forth Road Bridge maintained plus a lower sum for the Tay Road Bridge. At present, these bridges are self financing and get no funding from central or local government.

Removing the tolls will NOT remove northbound congestion at the Forth Road Bridge. The 2 lanes have a finite capacity which is currently exceeded at peak periods - at least the toll booths allow for some form of regulation.

Another point, traffic across both bridges wil rise - since the lesser toll at the Erskine Bridge has been removed traffic has increased by 23%.

I'd also love to know how Mr Salmond proposes to finance the new Forth crossing. Obviously we canlt have a tolled crossing as the existing one is to be toll free. Therefore, all of the money will have to come from the public purse.

The removal of the tolls is a cheap political stunt by Mr Salmond who will now be able to default on some of his manifesto promises but can still say "well I abolished the tolls - as I promised". If this is an example of how the SNP proposes to run Scotland for the next few years then God help us all.

I never thought I'd hear myself say this but "Come back Jack McConnell, all is forgiven".

36

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 27/05/2007 22:25:24

#39 GregS I have no East v West bias.

GARL is a radial transport route. An inexpensive spur from Paisley Canal to the airport and a capacity increase between Paisley and Glasgow Central. At circa £200m not worth getting too steamed up over.

EARL diverts two mainlines, introduces 5 new junction bottlenecks, a risky underground junction and more sets of points than a drunk driver, steep downhill and uphill gradients, lengthens everyone's rail journeys and it has absolutely no function when the airport (inevitably) declines after peak oil. Not good value for £1billion

If they had proposed a proper dedicated rail link running on new tracks and tunnels from Waverley through Haymarket on to Roddinglaw and then to the airport I would have supported it because 80% of the route (and the investment) increases capacity into Edinburgh and could be converted to enable fuel efficient TGV train services to run into the city in the future. This would have killed two project birds with one stone. (About the same cost as EARL)

New tunnels will have to be constructed if Edinburgh is ever to have a proper TGV service to London because Waverley has gauge and capacity limits. A single Anglo Scottish LGV route will require double deck trains if it is to replace short-haul flying and yield the optimum 80 - 90% savings in fuel consumption.

37

Woggy,

Home 28/05/2007 10:33:28

275 buses an hour on Princes Street at the moment.

320 an hour = saturation point = gridlock!

More buses, even fancy ones are still no fun if they can't move!

What will it be like in 2015 when Edinburgh Park and Leith have been developed even further. Won't we need more public transport to and from these areas to carry people.

Is there a solution? Oh sorry - that is TRAMS is it not!

Buses are not the answer.

38

Red J,

Edinburgh 28/05/2007 10:41:16

Buses - if you put more buses on a busy route then they will slow down. You might be able to have more people on the street at one time, but they will take longer to travel along it so passengers moved per hour will not improve significantly.

Trams, which carry many more passengers at once than buses and get them on and off much quicker, will shift far more people per hour. They are also smooth, quiet and comfortable (in my experience having used them in other cities) - unlike buses on all counts. Everyone I have spoken to in other cities where trams have been introduced has sung their praises despite having had doubts beforehand.

Trains - if diesel becomes prohibitively expensive then electrification will become more economically viable so it will be done. Either that or build more roads for our electrically powered cars (as petrol will get too expensive as well). There are other technologies eg Hydrogen which could solve both problems, which will become more developed as the need arises.

Aeroplanes - as fuel gets prohibitively expensive, again alternative fuels will get better developed simply because it will become worth doing it. Again, Hydrogen is one option among many.

The world will not grind to a halt because oil products become more expensive/rare - it will become more cost effective to develop alternatives, so we'll keep on moving.

39

Euan,

Edinburgh 28/05/2007 18:36:26

Good riddance to the crazy tram scheme.

It would do nothing more than bring the streets of Edinburgh to a grinding halt.

It matters nothing that some companies will need paid off from the contracts they already have in place to build the trams system. Better that than waste hundreds of millions more on actually building the tram system.

It is a case of cutting our losses immediately on this hairbrained scheme.

Well done Mr Salmond.

40

truthsleuth,

South of the Border 28/05/2007 18:58:20

It seems the 'AS' has earned the extra 'S' to scrap the Edinburgh tram system and replace it with buses is the thinking of a mongrel donkey and wil keep Edinburgh in the horse and cart era.
The other 'part' of the SNP policy to scrap the Airport link may have a little more sense about it.
But where does SNP intend to 'divert' the funds to 'building yet more roads in Scotland. Wherever roads are built traffic simply increases to fill the extra space. With rapid climate change such a policy gains the SNP the three missing letters ES and S. to add to their leaders ASS.
It seems the Scotts are now trying to outdo the sASSenachs in the race to oblivion.
Come on Scots wake up your oil won't last forever.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should wardens be given the power to fine drivers who double park?
Yes, there has to be some kind of deterrent.
Yes, but only if they are causing a serious obstruction.
No, it would be just another money-making exercise.

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.