Tram trouble

[Tom B]

The trams project (boo, hiss) is in bother now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7904271.stm

Seemingly a key contractor has demanded a wad of cash to start work. The upshot of this is that the city has returned to its chaos with roadworks aplenty - and builders doing screw all. Except putting a fancy mockup to try and woo people into thinking it *isn't* a complete waste of money... :roll:.

To use a naff pun - they're "... way behind in Edinburgh!"

 

[90019]

Honestly if i could say what i really think about these people the expletives would go on for quite a few lines.

Are there seriously still people living in this city who think they're a good idea?

With every day that passes, I loathe the trams even more; they're now bordering on being completely useless, and not only are they blocking up the streets when they're working on them, but now they're blocking a main throughfare, forcing all the buses onto George street, meaning theres now, ooh, probably upward of 100 different buses running along George Street (Lothian, First, Stagecoach, etc.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
"It really paints a picture of what people have to look forward to."

What, a public transport system based on novelty rather than practicality?
Yeah, that's really what we want.

 

[Tom B]

A picture of what people have to look forward to... the words "PART ROUTE"?!

 

[Mojo]

It's just a very unfortunate thing in the way it's all come about. Edinburgh's urban rail network isn't very comprehensive and the city could do with some other form of decent public transport to move people about. The benefits of trams are numerous and unlike buses, every tram scheme in the country has brought positive benefits and given actual results for the investment.

 

[90019]

One of the main issues is that the trams won't actually go anywhere useful. The Parliament was located elsewhere, and now all the building work in Newhaven and Leith has stopped, the population it was going to serve there now isn't going to be there. They're not even going to go to the airport, they stop short and you have to, somewhat ironically, get a bus the rest of the way.
There's also the narrowing of a major footpath so the trams can run alongside, reducing the width of the path by half, which means it's only going to be about 6ft wide, maybe less, and the closing of lanes on main roads to accomodate them as well.
Essentially, they're going to cause more congestion than they're going get rid of, particularly as they're not actually replacing any buses, just adding to congestion in the city.

 

[Mojo]

I'm sure the people en-route don't think that they go nowhere useful - it'll provide access to work in the city centre and out in the suburbs it'll operate to. The same thing was said about the Manchester Metrolink to Salford (and beyond) and that route generates £100 million for the local economy per year.

A tramway doesn't have to replace buses to be successful - many people for various reasons won't use buses anyway, and there are other benefits of rail transport which buses just don't provide.

Given the high cost of this scheme (more than double the cost of Nottingham - and higher than any other currently operational scheme) and the difficulty in getting a LRT route set up (even in Scotland), I am sure those responsible for it have made sure they are getting the best value for money over the best route. Midland Metro Line 1 isn't exactly the best route either - it simply caused the least objections and has proven to be a good starting point for expansion which is being stalled by the Government.

 

[90019]

I'm sure the people en-route don't think that they go nowhere useful - it'll provide access to work in the city centre and out in the suburbs it'll operate to. The same thing was said about the Manchester Metrolink to Salford (and beyond) and that route generates £100 million for the local economy per year.

I live in an area that's going to be served by the trams, and I don't know of anyone living around here who likes them. Edinburghh's buses have been voted the best in the UK, why are we not spending the money improving them instead?
All of the suburbs it's going to already have good bus services into the city.

A tramway doesn't have to replace buses to be successful - many people for various reasons won't use buses anyway, and there are other benefits of rail transport which buses just don't provide.

How is narrowing roads and a major cross city footpath for a single tram line that doesn't go anywhere of much use successful?

Given the high cost of this scheme (more than double the cost of Nottingham - and higher than any other currently operational scheme) and the difficulty in getting a LRT route set up (even in Scotland), I am sure those responsible for it have made sure they are getting the best value for money over the best route. Midland Metro Line 1 isn't exactly the best route either - it simply caused the least objections and has proven to be a good starting point for expansion which is being stalled by the Government.

Getting the best value for money? Edinburgh council? I think not, the don't seem to understand how a city actually works, in recent years, congestion within the city has increased because of their moronic road planning.
The buses in Edinburgh work well and provide a very good service (apart from a small number of routes), with the bus lanes working well in most places, and when you consider the huge number of buses running along Princes Street they actually flow pretty well.
Honestly i'm amazed by the almost incompetence of the council when it comes to the roads in the city.
Can someone explain to me how a concrete pavement with some very slight bumps in it from roadworks is such a high priority to be repaired when there's a road about 100yds away that's bad to the point where it can damage bikes? And how they're worse than pavements with holes in them or ones with large cracks in the surface?
And why are speed bumps a higher priority than repairing a road with one of the worst surfaces i know of? The speed bumps are the smoothest bit of the road!!

 

[Mojo]

I live in an area that's going to be served by the trams, and I don't know of anyone living around here who likes them. Edinburghh's buses have been voted the best in the UK, why are we not spending the money improving them instead?
All of the suburbs it's going to already have good bus services into the city.

Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, spending money on buses on major corridors is wasted money. I can think of no examples of bus networks in major cities that could be classed as successful - the modal shift is poor, they suffer with a poor social image and their economic benefits are hugely in doubt. In addition, there are environmental problems (admittedly less than with cars) on city streets with tall buildings either side.

 

[D841]

Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, spending money on buses on major corridors is wasted money. I can think of no examples of bus networks in major cities that could be classed as successful - the modal shift is poor, they suffer with a poor social image and their economic benefits are hugely in doubt. In addition, there are environmental problems (admittedly less than with cars) on city streets with tall buildings either side.

I know one 30-year old lady around here who refuses point blank to travel by bus. When we used a tram in Manchester last year she absolutely loved it and said "why can't we have these at home?".

If they're the same success they've been elsewhere, they'll take a lot of car drivers off the roads, something buses rarely do.

 

[Tom B]

Buses in Edinburgh are entirely different to most of the country. They are run for the service, not the beancounters. As a result, a lot has been achieved. Back at home in Doncaster buses are the "transport of last resort" i.e. what the neds, OAPs and kids catch, those without cars, and people whos cars are being serviced. In Edinburgh, an awful lot more people use the buses even if they could well drive - it's definitely cheaper and usually quicker.

At the moment, however, we are seeing patronage drop and the company get into financial trouble. Why? Because the tramworks are causing such delays that people are reducing their traveling and the company is spending a fortune on extra buses to compensate and keep frequencies up.

As for the current route. Ocean Terminal to the city is served by 22s which run every 5 minutes (down from every 4 and deckered recently), and from Leith Walk is joined by other routes (7s, 10s, 11s, 12s, 14s, 16s, 25s, 49s) which, a back of envelope calculation says, gives on average a bus every 1 minute 9 seconds.

Along Corstorphine road there are again a large selection of buses and out towards the Gyle there are 22s again. The Airport to City service is served by 100s which are dedicated express buses.

I'm struggling to find any journey on the white elephant which can't be made by a good bus service at the moment.

I would hope that ECC see sense - whilst watching the queue of buses on George Street whilst the contractors drink tea and munch a beef Berger - can the project (rather than pour money into an endless pit) and invest in LRT.

 

[Mojo]

Even in London, which is widely regarded as the best in the country the buses are still pretty poor value for money (not in terms of fares, which at £1 flat rate single are a bargain). You've still got the problem that a bus is a bus, and in the UK irrespective you still suffer from the problem that people just won't use buses as much as they would a tramway - even in Edinburgh or London (which is a different kettle of fish anyway).

 

[Metroland]

Well they certainly know how to moan in Edinburgh. Everyone else was desperate to have trams, but the government cancelled all the schemes. Think yourselves lucky, once they have been running for a couple of years you'll wonder what the moaning was all about. Particularly as there is zero other solutions to congestion, other than a massive bonfire of cars or forced repatriation onto buses with hot pokers. Especially, as it seems congestion charges are about as political acceptable as McDonalds in Cuba.

 

[90019]

So, people going to the airport would rather take a tram that doesn't go the whole way, then a bus the rest of the way, over an express bus?
And people in areas around where I am would rather take a tram into town going via Leith Walk rather than a much more direct bus?

Personally, I like trams, I like them a lot, but only when they're done properly, and here in Edinburgh, they're not being done properly. As usual, Edinburgh Council have managed to make something that should be good, absolutely sh*te.

Can you please explain to me how disrupting the city for years for trams that dont go anywhere that isn't already served by at least 1 good bus service, and don't serve the intended population, or even actually go to the airport, are useful?
How is narrowing roads and increasing congestion on main throughfares in the city a good thing?
How is narrowing a major cross city footpath, used by many walkers, cyclists (including myself), dog walkers, etc. so it is less than half of what it was and will make it ver difficult for cyclists to pass, a good thing?
How is adding to the congestion in the city centre by closing lanes and forcing the same amount of buses into less space a good thing?
How are 750V DC OHL along the busiest street in the city (and especially passing next to North Bridge, which is what suicidal people often try to jump off) a good thing?
Why are they not going anywhere near the Parliament?
Why are they providing absolutely no service whatsoever to over 3/4 of the city, but to the 3 miles to the north and a few miles out to the west, the areas which have, IMO, some of the best bus services in the city?
Why don't they go all the way to the airport?

The flow of buses in Edinburgh is generally very good, Princes Street may look congested, but it actually flows very well because it is only buses, taxis and bikes using it.

If you actually lived here, and spent your time in and around the city, you'd have a better understanding of why the trams as they are currently planned are a bad thing.
Edinburgh is not a normal city, it is very unusual, and as such, you can't really use other cities to base your conclusions of how things will work in the city on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for the current route. Ocean Terminal to the city is served by 22s which run every 5 minutes (down from every 4 and deckered recently)

Do you think the buses which used to run he 22 have replaced the ones on the 21 and vice versa? Because the 22 is now double and the 21 single deckers.

 

[Metroland]

I'd have to check and look into it to give you any sort of a decent answer on the above. But some of it looks factually incorrect, for example Trams do not work on 25kv AC OHL which is designed for mainline railways with feeder stations 50 miles or so apart. You do not have those sort of power demands/supply point problems using light rail in cities. I should think they are 750v DC. I would imagine if people wanted to commit suicide they could equally jump in front of a bus..

But as I've said before the tram system works with the buses, not as a direct replacement for them in all areas.

 

[Tom B]

Even in London, which is widely regarded as the best in the country the buses are still pretty poor value for money (not in terms of fares, which at £1 flat rate single are a bargain).

That is because they are subsidised to a far higher degree than anywhere else.

Do you think the buses which used to run he 22 have replaced the ones on the 21 and vice versa? Because the 22 is now double and the 21 single deckers.

Ish. In a nutshell.

Double deckers at L which were previously used on 25s, 33/7s etc have moved to 22s. The 25s now running from M (using buses released by frequency cuts there) and 33/7s reduced in frequency hence saving buses.
Half of the 22 single deckers moved to L to work 30s. Other half stayed at C to work 1s.
Single deckers from 30s at L have moved to M to run 21s.
Displaced double deckers from 1s/21s have allowed old buses to be withdrawn.

 

[90019]

I'd have to check and look into it to give you any sort of a decent answer on the above. But some of it looks factually incorrect, for example Trams do not work on 25kv AC OHL which is designed for mainline railways with feeder stations 50 miles or so apart. You do not have those sort of power demands/supply point problems using light rail in cities. I should think they are 750v DC. I would imagine if people wanted to commit suicide they could equally jump in front of a bus..

Sorry wrong figure, will correct that one
But the point still stands, especially as 750V DC is more dangerous. And yes, they could, but a bus can usually stop quicker than a tram AFAIK, and there isnt the risk of high vehicles hitting the cables if they're not there in the first place.

Tbh, I think the plan of having the cables was a bad one in hte first place, as there are better methods of doing it (I believe it can be done from the rails, but with power only flowing on a certain section when the tram is on top of it.)