Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Hammond confirms his backing for trams project

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 The Scotsman 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: 17 March 2009
FORTH Ports' chief executive, Charles Hammond, threw his weight behind Edinburgh Council's bid to resolve the dispute that threatens to delay the capital's trams project.
Hammond said he was sure the authority was doing everything it could to end the dispute between Bilfinger Berger and TIE, the council's tram developer.

Forth Ports is a strong supporter of the project, which will link Leith, where the firm has sub
stantial land set aside for development, with Edinburgh airport, via Princes Street.

The timetable of the £512 million scheme, officially due for completion in 2011, is in doubt as a result of the dispute.

Hammond would not be drawn on whose fault the dispute was, but indicated strong support for the council.

He said: "I'm sure that the council and TIE are doing everything they can to resolve the dispute, and we're optimistic that the dispute will be resolved soon."

Forth Ports has not disclosed how much it has contributed to the project, but it is believed to be tens of millions of pounds.

Asked if it would be prepared to pay more towards the project to resolve the dispute, Hammond indicated that was unlikely. He added: "As far as we're concerned, the arrangement that we're finalising with the company is the one we'll stick by."

Hammond played down the impact a delay would have on the company, saying the property market was "effectively closed" and sales of its land assets may be pushed back to 2012 anyway.





The full article contains 252 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Bibamus,

17/03/2009 07:09:35
Of course he supports it - his company is about the only one that will benefit from it .
2

MacKenzie,

Edinburgh 17/03/2009 07:20:02
"As far as we're concerned, the arrangement that we're finalising with the company is the one we'll stick by."

The tram project appears to be comprised of agreements which have not yet been finalised and plans that are still being drawn up. Why is this?
3

lulach mac gille coemgain,

17/03/2009 07:34:08
All this carry on for the sake of a thirty minute car journey - or one hour if you are travelling at peak times - OUTRAGEOUS!
4

Dragonlord,

17/03/2009 09:03:30
4# The number 22 is a perfectly good bus serivice so no need for trams.


I notice that it is now being called the trams project. No longer calling it a SYSTEM then?
5

BBH,

Edinburgh 17/03/2009 09:05:08
#4: No, but is all this disruption worth it to replace an excellent and efficient bus service? When (if?) the tram ever runs, people who use it will be further disadvantaged by having to change from bus to tram and back again to complete journeys that currently can be made in one public service vehicle.
6

Bob Wilson,

Anchor Man 17/03/2009 09:33:32
Spot on No. 1

The only reason the trams were 'needed' in the first place was to allow a huge dump of wasteland (the docks) to be converted into flats and shops, making shady businesses + councils pots of money in the process, with backhanders and huge selling fees.

But tough luck edinburgh council, the Edinburgh public have given the waterfront a huge thumbs down resulting in the owners admitting the land has no value.

But should we be surprised? It is in the middle of nowhere, it leads to nowhere, there's nothing interesting there, there is no industry there, there is no social hub there, it is on a north facing shore therefore its in the shade most of the summer... need I go on? (oh, wait a minute, there's going to be a boat for people to look at).

Forth Ports are getting what they deserve for trying to fob off a barren peice of wasteland to the Edinburgh public as "an exciting re-developement" - how can you re-develop something that was never developed in the first place?

Edinburgh Docks / Leith Docks / Edinburgh waterfront /whatever you want to call it, BIN IT NOW, IT IS NOT A VIABLE VENTURE AND THE EDINBURGH PUBLIC FOR SURE DON'T WANT IT.

7

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 17/03/2009 13:19:16
Who wrote this - worth buying the paper to find out. The developer that owns the land the tram is designed to go to supports it.

Looks almost inevitable that leg not going to run, same for Leith walk, same for Princes ST. We can't though allow council to spend £500M on just Haymarket to Airport, surely.

Edinburgh council finally going to commit a bigger disgrace than that on Calton Hill, their forefathers will be relieved.
8

El Franko,

17/03/2009 14:34:07
It would have been over cigars and brandy that such back-scratching would have been sealed in the past. Now I guess Mr Hammond only got the brandy. All of us are getting a reduction in our standards of living when in Edinburgh, and in due course another increment on our taxes. Given the massive tax burden looming up from London, we might not even notice the tramtax.
9

Alistair Macintosh,

17/03/2009 16:37:23
#8 Spot on. Edinburgh Councils loony transport / anti car policies reach an altogether different level of insanity with this one.
We can slow down a perfectly good bus system, stop the cars going anywhere, and cost the tax payer a massive fortune for something very few people want. That seems like a good idea.... NOT.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.