Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Stay of execution for capital tram route to find £50m funding

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: 11 December 2008
AN EXTENSION to Edinburgh's tram network that is under threat is to be given a four-month stay of execution to try to fill a £50 million funding black hole.
Transport leaders are set to put off a decision over axing the route, which will serve most of the capital's waterfront regeneration area, to allow time for a last-ditch funding package to be put together.

Work will then begin within months on the
Haymarket-Granton "spur" if the Scottish Government agrees to allow the council to borrow against business tax revenue expected to be generated on the waterfront.

The Scotsman can also reveal that the council is to launch another bid for a further extension of the tram scheme, which would link the city centre with several Edinburgh University buildings and the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary at Little France.

Transport leaders have unveiled plans to commission a detailed feasibility study and take the first steps to seek parliamentary approval for the third tram route, which could take up to two years.

Meanwhile, retailers are facing the prospect of Princes Street being closed to all traffic throughout next year's Edinburgh International Festival – despite such a prospect previously having been ruled out.

The option, which businesses are to be consulted on over the next few weeks, is being considered to ensure major work on Princes Street is completed well before Christmas next year.

The street is due to be fully closed by the end of February at the latest. Buses, cars and taxis will be diverted mainly onto George Street. Both Queen Street and Heriot Row will be put on standby to accommodate diverted traffic.

Councillors will be told next week that, despite the economic downturn, there is still a strong argument for the Haymarket-Granton tram route, to act as a "catalyst" for the regeneration of the waterfront.

Officials have warned there appears "little prospect" of securing additional backing from the Scottish Government for the route, line 1B, on top of the £500 million already committed.

They are also warning that delays to construction work on the main line between Edinburgh Airport and Ocean Terminal mean it has to take priority over the 1B extension.

The report also states the strength of support from the business community for a link to the south-east of the city, as well as from both Edinburgh University and NHS Lothian.

Jenny Dawe, the leader of Edinburgh Council, said last night: "Our ambition is for residents to enjoy a complete tram system that takes them quickly to jobs, leisure facilities, home and shops across the city.

"We will keep pressing for the line from Haymarket to Granton, which would be a catalyst for further regeneration, and the much-wanted tram serving the south-east of the city."





The full article contains 473 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Hmm ...,

11/12/2008 00:47:42
... having said only yesterday that £600 million of new investment needs to be found to prevent "terminal decline" in Edinburgh, the City COuncil still will not face up to reality, supporting its shortfall in funding by further pipedreams to extend this notoriously expensive tramway project with a further route - the existing Line being in the process of destroying Edinburgh's previously sound bus company.

These people are simply deluded and seem hell-bent on destroying Edinburgh's economy just when it most needs carefully judged and financially profitable investment.
2

Padraig,

11/12/2008 03:17:18
There's a lot of truth in the old adage "when you're in a hole, stop digging!"

Edinburgh's LibDem-led (does the "Dem" stand for "demolish" as in any hopes?) administration not appreciate that, faced with one problem (escalation of the cost of Line One and the attendant closure of Princes Street for a year) it is not prudent to pursue a second (the Granton Spur) for which it hasn't got the money, even to start)?

It seems not because otherwise how would they possibly think that the answer is to float a third - the line to the University and out to the RIE?

The answer to a shortage of cash is DEFINITELY NOT to increase the number of financial crises.

As though, with restrictions on services budgets already, Edinburgh City Council had its troubles to seek, even without these poorly routed and notoriously expensive trams!
3

Pilrig.,

Livingston 11/12/2008 05:59:13
Money doon the drain.
4

Statsman,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 06:34:33
These councillors are idiots. The project is dead. Spending more taxpayers' money on consultants for pie in the sky hopes for a network is, frankly, stealing money from the people of Edinburgh.

Jenny Dawe and her minions must go now. A real leader would have cancelled the project by now. However, it takes strength to admit you were wrong. Such traits are usually absent in your typical spineless, clueless Edinburgh councillor.
5

Euan,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 07:27:06
Funny how this information was in last weeks Sunday Herald and it's taken until thursday this week for The Scotsman to pick up on it.

Under the proposed funding scheme, the Council would borrow £60 million against the future tax revenues from property and businesses that are not even there yet.

In fact PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) has estimated, yes estimated, that the proposed development areas in Leith and Granton would generate £400 million in tax revenues over the next 30 YEARS.

The Council would be borrowing this £60 million at massive interest rates due to the current liquidity crisis, further increasing the financial black hole the tram line's construction is creating.

The entire project should be scrapped - NOW.
6

Yamfudkas,

Away Doon in Gorgie 11/12/2008 07:27:56
#4 Instead of sitting in your wee bunker abusing ordinary people who are trying to do thier best, why not stand yourself for office if you think you know how to sort it out? Its easy to be abusive, not so easy when you're actually having to deliver. I'll bet you've never delivered diddly squat in your life!!
7

Fecker,

11/12/2008 07:57:56
" allow the council to borrow against business tax revenue expected to be generated on the waterfront" - scary stuff, will they never learn, increasing debt, on revenue that "might" be earned is not being fiscally prudent, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
8

JayJay,

Right here 11/12/2008 08:24:42
Given that they had spent £112m in various prelims, feasibility reports, consultants fees and of course the requisite fat salaries for a cast of thousands, it is little surprise that the build budget was under severe pressure from day one.
Any word from the cretinous MSPs, cooncillors and passengers on the public sector gravy train who floew in the face of public opinion and expressed confidence this project would come in on time and budget?
I'd imagine they are thinking about the public enquiry and how they can get a seat on that committee!
9

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 08:38:23
Euan @5, yep, you're right - Der Schotte claim this as a 'Scotsman Exclusive' - their TruthSleuth Ace Newshound could have copied it from the Sunday (Glasgow) Herald. One aspect ignored by the parochial Edinburgh press and the happy-clappy trammies is the anger in other parts of Scotland over this vanity project, money-gobbling White Elephant. See:- http://www.sundayherald.com/search/display.var.2473476.0.council_asks_holyrood_for_60m_tax_share_to_help_pay_for_trams.php
10

IanW,

Somewhere 11/12/2008 08:42:31
Have I missed something along the way. Since when has the tram link been set up to run from Edinburgh Airport? From what I recall and seen it terminates about 2 miles from the airport at the roundabout near the Gyle centre.

Have things changed? certainly if the route does indeed run all the way to the airport it would benefit Edinburgh and the environment by allowing quicker access to the city centre and also get the traffic bottlenecks away, especially at the airport.

Wouldn't like to hear what the bus companies and taxi drivers think about that, they will lose a lot of their income as they had until the tram line a monopoly on the airport route.
11

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 08:43:39
To all but #6, Agreed; this is no longer about building a TramLine; the only game is town now is idiot politicians saving face.
12

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 09:08:22
Here is a quote from the National Audit Office in their evidence to the Parliamentary Tram Committees:

"The question is not whether the system should be radial or circular; the key thing is to ensure that the routes that you choose are the right routes and that the people who live on those routes and who want to get from A to B will still be there when you open the system."

The routes were designed to serve the Waterfront and Granton, but development (and, therefore, passengers) has failed to materialise at either. To borrow £60m to allow construction of the Granton spur, with absolutely no guarantee of when, or even if, businesses will be there to allow repayment of the loan would be complete madness.

Furthermore, even assuming that Lothian Buses find a way to sustain the massive operating losses now expected from commencement of trams on Phase 1A, commencement of operations on Phase 1B would, I think, bring that company down.



13

New Town Resident,

11/12/2008 09:20:13
Just out of interest does anyone know Jenny Dawe's background/experience outside local politics? Looked her up on the Lib Dem website, but they don't seem to publish CVs.

Also can someone please explain why the SNP continue to keep the Lib Dems in power in Edinburgh by staying in coalition with them? The SNP were the only political party which opposed the tram project which is why I voted for them. I'm very disappointed that office seems to mean more to the SNP than doing the decent thing and pulling the plug on this madness.
14

Noods,

11/12/2008 09:48:29
#13 If the SNP did pull the plug all the other parties threatened a vote of no confidence in Salmond as First Minister, what was he supposed to do?

I hope he sticks to his guns and doesn't put any more money into this waste of time, his "I told you so" speech will be very satisfying.
15

Rap,

11/12/2008 09:59:34
#10, Ian the tram is definitely running up to the airport. The EARL rail link was dropped (daft decision I think) so they are creating a new rail terminus at Gogar roundabout, so people can transfer on to the trams to get to the airport. Perhaps you are getting confused with the Newbridge section of that route, as that section is not being built straight away.
16

Burg Resident,

11/12/2008 10:01:33
#10

Regardless of the politics of the tram line and the impact of the works, the tram will run to Edinburgh Airport and will stop directly outside the terminal.
17

The Leith Cowboy BAM BAM,

Bruxelles 11/12/2008 10:06:05
16 .

Good . I'd like to see this debate about whether or not the tram runs to the airport (it will) knocked on the head.

Of course a rail link is how it would be done in any real country , but thats another story.
18

Leila,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 10:16:34
Only the SNP councillors dare vote against the tram scheme; the other parties force their councillors to support the party line. So Edinburgh Council, already in a hole over the trams, will keep on digging.

The cost is increasing, and it's time to ask the two important questions: do the people of Edinburgh want it? and can Edinburgh afford it? The answer to both from what I've heard is clearly NO. If Jenny Dawe wants to be sure, have the guts to hold a referendum.
19

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 10:18:54
The tram project has been in progress for how long now? About 14 months? During that time, the projected cost has risen by 10%.

They reckon it is going to be finished in July 2011. By rough reckoning, assuming that the project is actually completed on time, and working on the basis that the projected cost will rise at a rate of 10% per year, that gives us a total of nearly £750 million.

However, let's examine another big project in Edinburgh as a guideline as to what might just happen shall we? The Scottish parliament was projected to run for 2 years and cost about £40 million. In the event it ran for 5 years and cost about £400 million.

That is an over-run of 150% and an over budget of 1000%. There is no reason to believe that the tram will be any different (after all, politicians were involved in both projects). Therefore on this basis, we can expect the first tram to run at sometime in 2019 or 2020 and the cost to be in the region of £5 BILLION.

A big difference between the parliament and the trams is that the parliament is hidden away in a little-used corner of the city where it barely has any impact on traffic flow and business. The tram routes are planned on most major thoroughfares. Draw your own conclusions from that.

OK, what I have depicted there is probably a worst case scenario but look at it this way... If someone had told you in 1999 that the parliament would be completed more than 3 years late and would cost about 10 times what they originally projected, you would have had to have been stark staring mad to go for it.
20

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 10:21:54
Cowboy:

This IS a rail link. the only thing is that the idiots plan to build it on the road as opposed to constructing a proper railway line.
21

IanW,

Somewhere 11/12/2008 10:29:58
Thanks to Rap #15 & Burg Resident #16 for the clarification. I must admit I did think it extremely short sighted of them not to put the direct rail link in to the airport.

At least however if the tram does run right up to the outside the airport terminal that will help. It will still create problems though as the design of trams is not usually considerate of travellers with lots of luggage.

Certainly where I currently live they do have avery godd bus/tram/underground/rail infrastructure but the trams and buses don't have to take the volume of luggage.

I just hope they get it right for everyone's sake and that the Scottish Parliment stick to their guns over funding and not get dragged into further subsidies as is likely to/currently happen(ing) with the London Olympics.
22

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 10:30:32
#6:

It's all very well having a dig at #4 for daring to criticise the council. There are plenty of sensible candidates around at election time but however, there is a tendency for most people to vote the idiots in on the basis of the colour of their rosette.
23

JayTee,

Doon the Watter 11/12/2008 10:40:05
Could someone tell me why trolley busses are not a more cost-effective alternative to trams? No roads disruption; no need to re-lay utilities; quick and easy to install (the whole scheme could be rolled in in stages), and (with modern battery technology) capable of flexible routing beyond the terminus of the overhead lines. That, and the possibility that a domestic bus manufacturer could win the supply contract, makes it a win-win option in my opinion. Were trolley busses considered? If yes, what's the drawback? If not, why not?
24

Luke Skywalker,

11/12/2008 10:48:19
If the tram does not go to the Waterfront, then Heaven help the people who want to travel to and from there. The tram is desireable and the spur is too.
25

Rap,

11/12/2008 10:52:48
#21 There will only be something like 40% seating on the trams, the rest standing space, with part of the reason being luggage and pram space out to the airport.

#JayTee - There was a mass transit survey carried out to consider what should be used in Edinburgh, but it was carried out and paid for by the Waterfront developers. They wanted a tram (perhaps they feel there is a higher prestige associated with a tram than any other sort of transport) so that's why the tram came out as the transport of choice and not a trolley bus. I have been told that the developers would not develop at the Waterfront without the trams being agreed.
26

Rap,

11/12/2008 10:55:50
#20 there is no rail link to the airport. The proposal was for a station below the airport, as in Stockholm and Amsterdam. Now rail travellers will need to change to a tram at the Gogar terminus. Estimated public transport users to the airport will drop from about 40% to 30% without the direct rail link.
27

The Leith Cowboy BAM BAM,

Bruxelles 11/12/2008 11:26:01
Even Southampton manages to have a train station outside their airport (and most of you probably didnt even know it had one).
28

Rap,

11/12/2008 11:30:14
I did, and I've used it several times. Yes, only a short walk and you can get a train, but we won't even be getting that. Defeats the whole purpose of trying to get people out of cars.
29

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 11:33:57
Not many (any???) positive comments on trams.

I would support any call for a referendum from Edinburgh residents as someone suggests above. It's our city, we need a voice to stop it being ruined by this madness.
30

The Leith Cowboy BAM BAM,

Bruxelles 11/12/2008 11:42:38
You already had one Graham , on the toll charges.

But you already knew that.
31

mad moo,

edinburgh 11/12/2008 11:52:06
The trams scam is such a wasteful use of resources. give us cleaner busses, or electric ones, they can adjust the routes according to demand if the 'waterfront expansion' doesn't take off as quickly as projected (or if changed when the council accepts some of the flooding threats in a more realistic way)

At a recent debate in Parliament the development of the South Sub was estimated being achievable within a £25million budget.....serving significantly more communities in Edinburgh.
The idea thet we keep pushing for a 3rd tramline when the first cant even come in on time or within the huge budget allocated is laughable.
Drop the tram fiasco now and get started on improving existing public transport within Edinburgh and connecting Edinburgh with areas which are not connected e.g. Waverley Line to the Borders
32

Rap,

11/12/2008 12:00:39
Mad Moo already has a very good bus service, but you can't seriously increase the number of buses on the roads. Have you seen Princes St at peak time - it is end to end buses. How can capacity on the existing system possibly be increased?
But I do agree that the South Sub seems to be a workable solution to increasing public transport usage, but even if the trams stopped now and planning for the South Sub started tomorrow, it would take a very long time to get a working system, and we need a solution in Edinburgh right now.
33

itsmeisntit,

£500m X £100m X £200M = No Experience 11/12/2008 12:33:57
Has anyone asked these people in positions of making daft decisions on our behalf, do they actaully know what they are doing ?
34

Logie Almond,

11/12/2008 12:41:36
#13, Jenny Dawe was a researcher for East Lothian Council. Quite good at it apparently. A fine example of the Peter Principle, that people are promoted to the level of their own incompetence.
35

mad moo,

edinburgh 11/12/2008 12:41:59
Rap,
I didnt actually suggest an increase to bus services, although I would like to see some of the recent cuts to services which dont go along Princes St reversed. I did say they should make the busses cleaner and greener.
I agree some routes seem to be overprovided for (end to end on Princes St with half full busses going the same route but different companies) but hey thats competative capatalism for you!
What worries me is where all the busses on Princes St go once/if the trams come? and how many less profitable routes will go as a result of bus companies loosing revenue on most profitable routes?
As for the south sub taking a long time and we need a solution now - the improvement to busses could be implemented tomorrow as could some sections of the south sub. The trams will be a long time yet in comming and are already causing major distuption, an improved bus system and south sub etc could be introduced without the same level of city wide chaos.
36

jtdx,

11/12/2008 14:09:31
#23 you cannot build a trolley bus that can be driven by one person and carry 300 passengers.

Tram system has greater initial capital costs, but lower running costs.

37

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 14:19:27
A tram only has lower running costs if virtually every single tram is full every hour that it runs.

Unfortunately, the Tram Business Case (Revenue and Risk Report) states that, in the current economic climate, the tram is going to sustain massive annual operating losses which are to be sustained by Lothian Buses.
38

Yabanci,

Lasswade 11/12/2008 14:20:50
#29. Long before there was any financial commitment there was a general clamour for a referendum regarding the trams.

The Council consistently rejected having one on the basis that they, as politicians, know better what we want and what's good for us.
39

Rap,

11/12/2008 14:28:12
#29 and this is why those clamouring for a referendum now are grasping at straws. Why would the Parliament approve a referendum that would possibly question their Parliementary decision? Face it, it isn't going to happen. Even if all tram work were to stop right now, there would still be a huge amount of money needed to leave the utilities in fully functioning order, and the surfaces replaced, and staff redundancies, etc. It is not going to happen, please move on!
40

Goggsie #,

Fife 11/12/2008 14:55:55
As a contributor pointed out yesterday, all the info may of you seek is at, http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/DQ_Guidelines/Tram_Developer_Contr.pdf

The tram line was approved in the 2004 Structure Plan and the above document gives an excellent idea of why, where, when and how they intend raising the cash.

I do agree that now is not a particularly good time for the Council to increase its level of debt and hope that prudence prevails in the end.
41

ExpatBackinScotland,

Carnoustie 11/12/2008 15:44:05
Gievn the upcoming financial squeeze its even more of a shame that the SNP were forced into losing 500 million of their budget for the trams project.

Now the costs are rocketing, I expect the SNP to start listing all the things the extra millions they now have to find to finish the project would have bought us instead.

It seems that if it has Labour or Lib Dem hands on it, the spelling is d e b t.

What amazes me with the stuff Labour get away with and are seen to try to get away with WHY ANYONE would be stupid enough to vote for them?

We are staring into a Red Rosette lined financial black hole and the options we have are the Tories who cant be trusted and the SNP who have acted in Scotlands Interests and always will.

The sooner we as a Nation decide that we havea right to run our own affairs and in doing so will shape our own future the better we will all be.

Salmonds says Labour are crackers and in some the trolls and naysayers to shoot it down. Well now we have a major figure in the German Government (a country I lived in for two years and if it wasnt for work reasons would still be there) says Labour are wrong too.

And by the way, Id trade their taxes and their infrastructure for our third world equivalent any day of the week.
42

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 16:06:30
Goggsie (40) - the link doesn't seem to be working but, if it is the document I have seen, then that document is a year out of date and, to my knowledge, has not been updated to take account of current economic circumstances.

For example, it has been well publicised that the anticipated level of developer contributions has not materialised with the amount banked so far being only £3m for Phase 1A.

In the past year, land values have fallen drastically and, therefore, the contribution from land sales and development gains is also highly questionable.

That December 2007 document suggested the Council would require to borrow £12.9m to top its contribution up to £45m. I would love to know what it will need to borrow now.
43

Leila,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 16:14:54
#30 yes, there was a referendum on the congestion charge, and it was rejected by 70% of those who voted - that meant that 70% didn't favour the council's preferred transport strategy which included Line 3. Given all the current problems with funding Line 1, it seems a strange time to resurrect Line 3.
44

Rap,

11/12/2008 16:24:12
I disagree. If more people chose not to vote for the SNP it is because a good enough case was not presented.
And now we have a government which is petty enough, and blinkered enough, to suggest that Scottish athletes should sacrifice their personal British ambitions to lose for Scotland. And from the announcement today it looks as if they are short sighted enough to save a few bucks, to win some votes, leaving us with a new bridge with insufficient capacity when the old one eventually fails. Nice!
45

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 11/12/2008 22:01:25
I enjoy the anti-tram comments. It reminds me that there are still people for whom its 1962 and petrol is tuppence ha'pney.

If edinburgh wants to be a European city - it needs a modern transport system. the buses service is great but if you examine it closely, most buses run along one or two routes to provide a frequent service from hubs like the former docks. In these circumstances Trams are a better option.

Nottingham is planning to expand its network - Dublin too.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should TIE be spending time Twittering and using social networking sites?
Yes, many people communicate this way now
No, it’s just another form of spin
No, it should focus on getting the work done on time

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.