Comments on: Edinburgh Trams

By: dearieme

dearieme — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:42:22 +0000

“an effective bus-route system”: there’s a guided bus route in Adelaide (S Australia). They’ve had it for ages, so it works. But they haven’t expanded it beyond the original route, so it presumably isn’t all that good. Trolley buses sound less mad than trams: why on earth would anyone opt for steel-on-steel traction?

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:09:43 +0000

Hi Guys
Trams are an excellent form of transport if you have a large pot of gold to spend, have a city in a large flat space which has been rebiult after wwII to mordern large transport route standards. Amsterdam great, Dresden fantastic, Frankfurt amazing (Ive lived in all these places) However Edinburgh is an ancient city with geological constraints just as much as the narrow streets and old alleyways. Edinburgh is also growing and therfore a more flexible alternative to Trams is the best way forward. We could have a more conventional system useing what are known as trolley buses, essentially TRAMs without tracks or electric buses. No large roadworks, less expensive to implement, Just as green, FAR MORE FLEXIBLE. Not transport carnage while the roadworks are being implemented and more monies to go back into the public purse for further projects.
Trolley busses work perfectly well in other old europen cities (Bern, Genf, Luzern and ZÃƒÂ¼rich) and are really fantastic in Salzburg where Mozart was born another old city which cannot have both tracks and roads seperated without destroying the beautiful old heart of the city to achieve it

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:15:34 +0000

From a more anti-statist point of view it might be a good thing if any really expensive government project would have to have the support of 2 generations of governments. If you believe that government spending should generally be reduced the more barriers to such things the beter.

I would support this except for those projects I want.

Another alternative would be to streamline the governmental system so that projects get off the drawing board in less than 4 years.Quite a lot of countries manage that and it is a factor in the high costs of UK public projects.

On the other hand it could just be that a tramline will be an expensive white elephant & we should go for a monorail which would have the advantage of actualy getting people off the roads.

By: Gordon Mackley

Gordon Mackley — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:21:34 +0000

It is never a bad thing to review enormous capital expenditure before you proceed, provided that that does not become an excuse to do nothing.

There is much wisdom in the other comments. You do need to get alignmnets away from congested roads for fast reliable transit. It is also environmentally sound to use electricity and to emit no roadside fumes.

BUT you do not necessarily need trams on rails to fulfil these requirements. You can run direct electrically operated buses (trolleybuses). A trolleybus system is quicker and cheaper to install with less disruption and the vehicles are able to manoeuvre around obstructions. Over 350 cities around the world use them and Leeds (who also had their tram scheme abandoned) are now planning to use them.

Edinburgh could get a much bigger clean non oil reliant transport system using trolleybuses for the cost of just one showcase tram route.

By: Merrick

Merrick — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:49:34 +0000

ColoradoRight, Government action means a) increased taxes b) loss of freedom c) increased bureaucracy and d) unerring inaccuracy in the choices made.

Yes, absolutely, what fine analysis with no inaccuracy or such broad generalisations that the statement has no real meaning.

Let’s stop this evil government action! Curse them and their provision of the NHS!

By: chris y

chris y — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:32:31 +0000

Most European cities that have good tram systems have had tram systems continuously, and their development has been in the context of road and other infrastructure development, which has made it much easier to get right than superimposing a new technology on a city which has developed without light rail for 30 or 40 years.

For example, in the case of the Sheffield disaster, the weight of the rolling stock (52 tonnes) required replacing the main sewerage along a considerable length of the track, but this was not predicted or planned at all, and translated into delay and overspend for which nobody was willing to accept responsibility. But what was worse, when an extension was proposed, much of it was planned to run along further lengths of the same streets, and once again no impact assessment on the sewerage was included in the plans. Fortunately, the DoT had the sense to kibosh it before the people of Sheffield got stuck with another Ã‚Â£10m. overspend bill.

Comparing planning disasters like this with the situation in Zurich, Brussels or Lisbon is not comparing like to like. The SNP were very right to mistrust any proposal that had been accepted by Labour, the party of grandiosity par excellence. Edinburgh may well need a light rail system, but it deserves one that’s been properly planned and costed.

By: ColoradoRight

ColoradoRight — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:25:45 +0000

Its usually a good thing that government doesn’t get anything done. Government action means a) increased taxes b) loss of freedom c) increased bureaucracy and d) unerring inaccuracy in the choices made.

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:20:06 +0000

And, of course, the new Minister for Transport in Scotland has … a pilot’s licence.

Let’s all fly and f*ck up the environment!
Almost as sane as expanding Stansted airport ……

By: Merrick

Merrick — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:13:46 +0000

G.Tingey, I’m intrigued to know what sort of ‘disaster’ it was that the Leeds tram scheme was cancelled.

As Jim Bliss notes in favour of trams, ‘with a dedicated route, they avoid traffic congestion completely thus providing a transport system that adheres to a regular schedule. Buses still get caught in traffic.’

The Leeds system was based on trams going on existing roads. This not only means that they don’t avoid any of the traffic, but if there’s a partial blockage (such as the frequent accidents at Hyde Park Corner where the tram was due to go) the tram can’t get round it, the bus can.

Hundreds of millions of pounds on a system worse than what we’ve already got seems a bad plan to me.

By: James

James — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:07:45 +0000

Before you reject trams, come and have a look at them in Zurich. They really make this city a pleasure to live in and I think Edinburgh without a similar rapid transit system would be missing an opportunity. Underground really isn’t a pleasant option, monorail is too expesive and ugly, buses don’t run to schedule. In the European Union in general, trams are a major success story. Bar Luxembourg, you are one of the only cities that relies on buses alone.

Only my views, others are entitled to theirs.