Having visited a number of quite amazing cities with a proper intergrated transport solution I am still unsure (like TJ) why they are bothering with a half hearted attempt.
You either invest this type of money in something that actually works for real people to use or do what they seem to be doing and offering an alternative to a bus... nothing more.
To expect a non english speaker to arrive in Edinburgh by plane and navigate several seperate non linked transport systems is just daft.
Just try it next time you go abroad. The places that work and grow and become centres of capital and business are the ones where everything 'works' seamlessly. Travelling through Switzerland, Germany and Holland are exercises of joy.
Travelling anywhere from Edinburgh by any type of public or private transport is just simply harder than it needs to be. The current tram plan will do nothing to solve this.
With TJ on this.
(Plus the tracks are lethal to cyclists 🙂 )
Given the limited nature of the trams I just can't see how the cost stacks up compared to having an airport train station, which seems like the obvious solution - especially given the train lines which are already near the airport.
Talking about this in the office and of our 40 or so staff think the trams are anything other than lunacy. Even that one admits the only reason he likes the idea is because he lives in Costorphine and will be able to use the trams to get into town on occasion. Even though we all use the airport and trains a fair bit it doesn't sound like anything thinks they'll actually use them to get to the airport (other than the same chap in Costorphine) - primarily because none of the rest of us live anywhere near the tram route.
I don't know why you think my argument is ridiculous. I want a true integrated transport solution and this is not it.
The railway station on the airport estate would have been a good idea.
I think it is absurd that the trams do not interface with either the rail or airport properly and I believe it is absurd to defend this half hearted and half baked compromise as good enough. Look at waht I posted about travelling form Glasgow, Stirling or North Berwick to the airport by train.
But it is a start, and better than the current state.
I'm with TJ! What this tram project needs is much more money thrown at it.
I believe the phrase is cost/benefit analysis.
Just out of interest. Given the limited number of tram stops there are going to be: How far do you think people with limited mobility will be travelling in order to get to a stop to get on the tram. I rather think the 150 metres of covered walkway at the airport end will be the least of their problems.
TJ, we all want an integrated transport system but its ridiculous because you seem to think anything is possible when in fact there are a lot of constraints associated with what you want which have already been outlined above! Yes it would be nice to have everything connected within the same building without having to use stairs or go outside but its not possible at waverley at least. I'm not sure about the airport situation but a little walkway is hardly the end of the world.
There are far greater issues with the tram solution like the fact its nothing more than a glorified bus service and still has to conflict with traffic on cross streets. It will do very little to reduce car trips into the city centre which should be the main aim in my eyes. Trips to and from the airport are small change compared with everyday peak hour commuter trips.
At the airport end, it goes pasty the Ingliston Park and Ride and RBS, so it could reduce car journeys by a reasonable amount - [i]on that route[/i].
stu - its not that is the problem. No matter what is done in the future it will never integrate with the railways or airport properly
If Waverley really is impossible for integration between rail and tram to do then why not at the gyle? Or around murreyfield?
The shoretcomings of the present design will always be there - it will remain impossible to transfer from a train to the tram easily, it will still be that when you catch a train from Stirling you have to go all the way into edinburgh to catch the tram back out despite actully passing within a few hundred yards of the runway, same for Glasgow.
My view it should be like the Manchester setup - capable of running on railway as well as on rails on the street, it should interface properly with the railways at some point and there should be some way of getting quickly from the airport to Glasgow and Stirling.
The money saved by not building dedicated track from wherever it joins the railway to the airport could have been used to sort the airport link out.
Its badly designed with built in flaws that cannot be sorted later
Its not that I believe it needs more money its that the wrong priorities are being tackled. it should be the basis for an integrated transport system not a stand alone sytem that does not integrate properly
By the way. you don't have to go all the way into Edinburgh to change to the rail network. There is an interchange at Edinburgh Park.
imnotverygood
Not all trains stop there either stirling or Glasgow - is that going to alter?
Is the tram right next to the rail?
The lines are adjacent at Edinburgh Park (well - Hermiston Gait) so it's just a change of platform.
As for the distance needing to be traversed between the tram and airport terminal, it's less than the distance from one end of the terminal to the next and a hell of a lot less than trying to negotiate yourself between terminals at, say, Heathrow.
I think the whole thing is a waste of time and money - a joke perpetrated on the Scottish people by the unionist politicians - but there's no need to over-egg the failings.
So we're all agreed then - it's a complete and utter waste of money and should be scrapped?
druidh - my point is with a bit more imagination it could have been a lot better.
No TJ: With more money it could have been done a lot better. Don't confuse the rail link with the tram project. The former was a separate project which was scrapped on the grounds of cost by the SNP government. & if you are worried by the distance from the terminal, the rail station would have to be even further away on technical grounds: Somewhere near (on) the driving range. The alternative would have been to dig a train tunnel under the runway & that really is opening up a vast money pit.
TandemJeremy - Member
druidh - my point is with a bit more imagination it could have been a lot better.
[img] 
[/img] perhaps you would like the tram to do a complete circuit within the terminal building too?
imnotverygood
I am not confusing the two. I believe that using vehicles like the nmanchester trams they could have been integrated and both a rapid transport system and rail link could have been done.
Edit - what you say about the tunnel shows exactly the poverty of imagination that has bedevilled this project.
Its been "we can't do this" and "we can't do that" right from the begining.
Can you imagine any other european country installing such a comprimised system? if its worth doing its worth doing properly
The last time I looked the route completely bypassed Corstorphine.
Possibly for good reason as it has 3 very good bus routes to the city.
Or are we using a "Ryanair" definition of Corstorphine?
TJ you may have noticed that the tiny non-controversial bit about the trams (& other public projects) is the cost.
Digging under the runway was going to be immensely expensive. There a load of old mine workings and other nastys which mean huge expense to do it: (& risk that the runway might subside thereby closing the airport. It ain't lack of imagination that stops these things being done but cost.
Personally I would love to see the airport directly connected to the rail network & a city-wide tram network which would mean that the congestion charge which the council imposed would be uncontroversial because everyone would be using public transport or cycling. Unfortunately there is an inconvenient thing called fiscal & political reality & it ain't gonna happen. I actually support the idea of the trams but I rather fear the financial constraints mean that it will end up being a single line white elephant.
Can you imagine any other european country installing such a comprimised system?
Christ yes! Ever been to Paris? Helsinki doesn't have a rail or tram link of any kind from the airport.
Europe's not all fabulouslessness you know.
and can i just say that its just a matter of time before my 23mm tyres slide into a tram line on Princes street and i go arse over tit. Totally unbike friendly
hey i said itt ( anagram) and it gave me 4 *'s . itt (anagram is 3 's ) tit = see
and can i just say that its just a matter of time before my 23mm tyres slide into a tram line on Princes street and i go arse over ****. Totally unbike friendly
You should be glad the council is giving you the opportunity to hone your bunny hopping skills.
imnotverygood
You completely miss my point. It this money could have been spent better. I am not asking for
the airport directly connected to the rail network & a city-wide tram network
What I think they should have done is built the core of a workable integrated transport system. What is being built can never be this as it does not integrate properly. Now if that means the scope would be less then so be it. At least we would have the start of something good instead of a hopeless compromise that can never be integrated
What I think they should have done is built the core of a workable integrated transport system
What? You mean something like an integrated station in a tunnel underneath the airport, but don't actually run trains to it because you can't afford to put in the line?
Molgrips -
Can you imagine any other european country [b]installing [/b]such a comprimised system?
I know not everywhere has an integrated system but if Paris was going to install one do you think they would have a dedicated tram that went from a couple of hundred yards from the airport into the centre and did not interface with the metro or main line trains?
TandemJeremy - MemberI know not everywhere has an integrated system but if Paris was going to install one do you think they would have a dedicated tram that went from a couple of hundred yards from the airport into the centre and did not interface with the metro or main line trains?
But the Edinburgh Tram [i]would[/i] integrate with the mainline trains - at Edinburgh Park and at Haymarket. What exactly is your point?
And it's not a couple of hundred yards from the airport, it's within the airport - just not actually inside the terminal building. That'll be just like the taxis, buses and private cars then?
Druidh - it does not integrate properly at haymarket
at the airport taxis . buses and cars drop you directly outside the terminal not a couple of hundred yards away as the tram will. Thr tram should be better than this
Think about coming by train from the east or north to the airport for a lack of integration
druidh - Member
"As for the distance needing to be traversed between the tram and airport terminal, it's less than the distance from one end of the terminal to the next and a hell of a lot less than trying to negotiate yourself between terminals at, say, Heathrow."
Bingo. Sure it'd be nice if it was closer but that doesn't mean the planned location is a problem. It's still very close and convenient. Closer than most people would be if they drove and parked. And quicker no doubt than getting the bus or a taxi or a lift to the dropoffs at peak time when the whole place turns into a logjam.
TJ
Let's just review the situation. One of us is missing the point. Let us examine the [i]faint[/i] possibility that it may not be me.
zulus has started a thread the gist of which is that the trams are too expensive. This is a sentiment which is widespread in Edinburgh, even amongst those of us who are broadly supportive of the idea.
Your solution to this is to suggest that we should actually be spending even more money than we are now: firstly to solve the problem that people will have to walk a couple of hundred yards at one end of the system when thay will almost certainly have to walk even further to get on the trams at the other. Your second solution doesn't actually relate to the trams [i]per se[/i] but in as much as it has been thought about has been abandoned because of cost considerations.
I will repeat. This isn't about lack of imagination, it is about what you are proposing isn't politically acceptable primarily because the cost just doesn't justify the benefit. The things you suggest are desirable, they are just not cost effective. You are proposing to spend an awful lot more money on something of limited utility & which is already way over budget. This isn't a lack of foresight, it is just economics.
1) It does not integrate with Waverley - that is true, but given the site of Waverley it's not really surprising.
2) It does not integrate with Haymarket. Total BS. The tram stop is right outside and next to the station. To take it into the station you'd need to build two more platforms. Platform 0 and the carpark are apparently earmarked for high speed rail so that's not practical, and there is every chance that the station will be expanded to include the tram lines in the medium term.
See the map on page 2 of this
3) It doesn't go to the airport. Again, BS. The stop is going to be alongside the coach stops and multistorey carpark. Which end of the tram you're on will probably make a significant difference to distance to the terminal door. Given the distance out to the extremes of the terminal the walk from the tram is going to be nothing. Speculation only, but nothing to stop the airport expanding towards the tram station in future is there? And if the tram stop was closer (though hard to see how much closer it could go) that might limit options.
4) Rail link. How many people would, get the train to the airport from outside Edinburgh? Given the paucity of services in early morning and late evening it's not going to be much good for the business market, and for leisure travellers it will almost always be cheaper and less hassle to drive. Nice idea, but unnecessary and uneconomic IMO.
5) Paris. You've clearly never been to Charles de Gaulle. It's a total disaster zone. If that's your example of an integrated transport network then I really do despair.
My main problem with the trams project is that it represents incredibly poor value for money and isnt going to benefit the city in a way that more than half a billion quid should do.
TJ - how many other supposedly 'integrated' transport systems have you been on?
I say this because you cite steps as a pitfall at Waverley. You can get from Princes St level to the railway concourse without going down any steps, it's how the taxis get in. There are lifts to every outlying platform as well.
In terms of airports:
Edinburgh Airport is a compact airport, the gates are relatively close together. From arriving in the airport on an inward flight, there is a small escalator to navigate down to arrivals which has a lift.
If I travel to London City Airport (as I did today), I have to go up a flight of stairs and down another to get to the main entrance, then up an escalator to a DLR train. Don't even mention the integration with the Underground, you need a fair set of legs to walk around the Underground and only a few have lift access.
If I go through Heathrow, as I regularly do, I have to walk at least a quarter mile from the arrival gate, then down two escalators, then walk another couple of hundred metres to the Heathrow Express to finally take me to Paddington and the National Rail network and Underground.
I think the London transport system is excellent, but it's still inconvenient if you're mobility impaired.
My point is that you're bemoaning a short walk and expecting the entire airport be redesigned around that short walk. It's just not going to happen and the inconvenience doesn't justify the cost.
Guys
I did not at any point advocate spending more money
I did not use Charles de Gaulle as an example of good practice
I recently have used both Amsterdam and Geneva both far better examples of integration of transport systems
It simply does not integrate properly at haymarket - its complete bullshine to state it does. Integeration means you travel from one to the other easily witout going outside, Instead it will be a series of bridges, walkways and stairs with lifts available. You will not be able to get straight onto trains running from Edinburgh east or south
At the airport it should be directly outside / underneath / alongside the terminal building not a couple of hundred yards away. thats just stupid. It would not cost a significant amount more to have it next to the terminal. So people wanting to get a tram will have to go outside, cross roads and use a covered walkway to get to the tram.
its far too much of "you can't do this" and "you can't do that" its a farce to spend all this money adn have something with such poor funtionality. Because the integration and functionality is so poor then it will not be used.
As for the rail link - many folk would use it. people regulaly use the rail link to manchester airport from Scotland as you can get a direct train to the airport. Other cities the train links are common.
Just because London is rubbish why should edinburgh be rubbish? have you no ambition? do you not want to do it better?
I say again - I do not advocate spending more money - I advocate spending the money more wisely. This is no basis for an integrated transport system for the 21st century and can never be so its so badly designed. I would rather a more limited system that actually did something properly rather than this half hearted botch. Why not use trams that are also railway cariges like in Manchester?
Unlike most of you I use public trransport regulalry - both in the UK and when abroad. Th
I take it you couldn't sleep till you got that off your chest 😆
working night shift - that was how I spent my break. sad.
Off to bed now - please do not disturb
It would not cost a significant amount more to have it next to the terminal.
Sure about that? Could there perhaps be something you don't know about?
[i]Unlike most of you I use public trransport regulalry - both in the UK and when abroad.[/i]
Where do you park your high horse?
TJ.
You appear to think that when deciding where to put the tram terminus at the airport, someone just went 'Hummm. Let's have a look at the map: There should do'. Now I am not a great fan of the way this thing has been managed, but I think we can assume that the first place they thought of was :'next to the airport terminal' The fact that they didn't go ahead with this idea rather suggests that there just may be costs associated with this idea which you are unaware of.
Your thesis that none of the obvious places to put tram stops in relation to other modes of transport were used because nobody thought of it seems a little hard to believe.
You say you are not advocating spending more money while conveniently ignoring that all these ideas have a cost.
I would say that its more likely that its about wrong priorities( from my point of view) and a lack of imagination / ambition.
At teh airport end I bet its so as not to inconvenience car drivers
At teh airport end I bet its so as not to inconvenience car drivers
The airport folks don't appear to consider that a priority.
My other point was I would rather it had been done as a basis for an integrated system not stand alone.
If that means limiting the scope of phase one further then so be it. Id rather they had done a link from the town centre to the airport properly and forgot about anything else until phase two.
can you imagine the over spend on the new forth crossing the conservative estimate for it is £1200 million to start with 😯
TandemJeremy - Member
I would say that its more likely that its about wrong priorities( from my point of view) and a lack of imagination / ambition.At teh airport end I bet its so as not to inconvenience car drivers
Have you actually seen where it is? Extending it a hundred metres or so would have made no difference to the provision for motor vehicles.
If that means limiting the scope of phase one further then so be it. Id rather they had done a link from the town centre to the airport properly and forgot about anything else until phase two.
But the cost case needed the additional passenger numbers from Leith/Newhaven to even get close to being feasible.
Oh - I forgot. You don't care about the cost case........
unless it's an uplift for Innerleithen.
myheadsashed - Member
can you imagine the over spend on the new forth crossing the conservative estimate for it is £1200 million to start with
Can you actually see it going ahead in these times of austerity?
Ho hum - MemberCan you actually see it going ahead in these times of austerity?
I don't think there's much of an alternative.
druidh - Member
I don't think there's much of an alternative.
Agreed.
But something is going to have to give in the Scottish budget if this hugely expensive capital project goes ahead.
If it does then I can not see it being free like the existing bridge.
I guess that 20 years of designing traffic management systems to cause the maximimun amount of stationary traffic through out the city and p**s off the most amount of comuters was maybe not the best preparation for a major engineering project like this, where you are trying to set up a system that needs to work!!
The project managing on the tram project has been atrocious: I'm sure Mittelfinger, or whatever they are called had a contract document several hundred pages long and I don't imagine anyone at Tie actually read/understood any of it! 😈
I'm keen to understand why going north of the border seems to spell doom for programme and cost on major projects. The reality is if the very public contractor disputes and spiralling costs hadn't happened, there would be far less bad press and ill feeling about the trams (arguments about distance to airport terminal aside).
Contrary to popular belief, the UK is completely capable of pulling off big construction. The Dome and Wembley are history now; T5 and the Olympics finished/are finishing on programme and budget.
Edit: I believe the M74 JV is well ahead, so maybe it's just the East 😉
Edit2: Though the M74 should have been done years ago!
Brycey - Member
I'm keen to understand why going north of the border seems to spell doom for programme and cost on major projects.
??
Like Concorde, the A400M, Channel Tunnel, Kings Cross, Broadcasting House....
...and why are you discounting the Dome and Wembley?
Sorry I'm talking recent-ish history (last 10 years or so).
It's Edinburgh Shi**y Council that cause all the problems.
Brycey - Member
Sorry I'm talking recent-ish history (last 10 years or so).
New Wembley Stadium - constructed 2003 - 2007.
Not sure what your point is Druidh; Wembley was a shambles from start to finish.
And the last time I looked, it was in London.
Brycey - Member
I'm keen to understand why going north of the border seems to spell doom for programme and cost on major projects
I have no idea if they should scrap the tram system, I haven't looked at what's been done and don't know how much more is needed to finish it. That said what ever the innitial cost x it by 10, is it still viable?
However I have said this before and will continue to say it, if you have incompetent @ssholes in charge of the world, you should get used to shit happening!!!
Have a great weekend, if you can!
My point Druidh is this:
In recent years the UK construction industry seems to have got it's act together when delivering large projects such as T5 and the Olympics. This is in contrast to public perception of recent history when jobs like Wembley stadium were unmitigated disasters.
In contrast, Scotland still seems to struggle, eg Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh trams - very public over spends and fall-outs.
I then went on to say that the M74 seems to contradict this as it's going well.
Not an earth shattering post that's going to change the course of mankind, just a Saturday afternoon musing. All clear now?
chickenman - Member
"I guess that 20 years of designing traffic management systems to cause the maximimun amount of stationary traffic through out the city and p**s off the most amount of comuters was maybe not the best preparation for a major engineering project like this"
You know what? I think it's possible that also has something to do with the fact that there's too many cars trying to get in and out of the city. Which is possibly a case for some sort of mass transport system.
Northwind - MemberYou know what? I think it's possible that also has something to do with the fact that there's too many cars trying to get in and out of the city. Which is possibly a case for some sort of mass transport system.
Compared to many cities (UK and abroad), I actually don't think Edinburgh is [i]that[/i] bad in terms of car numbers and traffic. Maybe my expectations are lower than those of others.
Druidh - tried to drive in or out of the city to the west at rush hour recently? Can take an hour or more from the bypass to the centre. The main issues are the corridor to the west and a small area around the centre
TandemJeremy - Member
Druidh - tried to drive in or out of the city to the west at rush hour recently? Can take an hour or more from the bypass to the centre. The main issues are the corridor to the west and a small area around the centre
I drive / have driven a lot more than you TJ. The plain truth is that if it was that bad, fewer folk would do it.
[i]The plain truth is that if it was that bad, fewer folk would do it. [/i]
You sure about that druidh? Not necessarily Edinburgh in particular, just car use in general. People just don't consider other means of transport, you can see it happening as roads fill up and instead of thinking "oh hang on, this is getting silly, it's taken an hour to go 5 miles" they think "the Government should do something, more roads need to be built"
Usual attitude is that everyone else should find some other means of transport so they can keep using the car!
Takes me 45 minutes to drive from muirhouse to the bypass during rush hour. The problem isnt really the volume of traffic, its the stupid way its managed and also they aggressive and poor driving standards.
Wow - can't believe this one is still going!
I drive in about once a week. Takes me about 25 mins/ half an hour to get from Riccarton to Castle Terrace via Calder Road and West Approach Road, maybe 20-25 mins if I'm in for 0830 instead of 0900. Worst ever was about 45 mins when the Gorgie Road/ Balgreen Junction was shut by roadworks - that's still dramatically less than the "hour or more" made up FACT that TJ quoted.
That said, cycling that takes about 20 mins by the same route (though Gorgie Road instead of WAR as no cycling on that).
Given the difference between school holidays and normal rush hour, I think I can safely say volume of traffic is the main problems. Even Fridays are generally easier than the rest of the week, presumably because people who work less than 5 days won't do a Friday and more people get public transport so they can go for a scoop after work.
Drudh - I agree its odd that people do.
Have you actually tried to get out of the city to the west at rush hour? Its not uncommon for it to be an hour plus and the same to get in in the morning.
My mum did it for years - why I have no idea. She spent 3 hrs+ a day in a car and 1/3 of her salary on commuting.
Not a made up fact stu N. Actual observed fact.
Surely the solution is a congestion charge, a massive investment (though still tiny in comparison to the M74) in comprehensive segregated bike lanes and tell people to MTFU and get out of their cars?
I'm a huge fan of tram systems, though I confess I don't know any of the specifics of Edinburgh's. Are trams safer for cyclists than buses? I always imagined they would be as you know the exact route and, er, line choice they're going to take.
3 hours a day? Seriously? Where was she starting and finishing? I just can't see how it can regularly take her twice as long as it takes me at worst...
3 hrs + a day total travel. Probably nearer 4. Coming in from the A90 direction. I sat in the car many a time as it took around an hour to get from the a90 to the city centre.
I thought she was crackers to do this.
Remember to factor in the inaccuracy of your timepiece
[img] 
[/img]
Northwind: Yes fewer people should take their cars in to work: Lots of folk though, like myself, actually need to use a vehicle as part of their work and have you noticed that when the schools are on holiday that the traffic volume halves?
However, would you like a list of incompetently designed traffic systems in the town that cause congestion even when it's not busy?
Stationary traffic next to Victoria Primary School at any time of the day; not quite Edinburgh, but have you seen Musselburgh high street: traffic queued up any time of the day because a 3 year old was put in charge of designing the traffic light phasing?
I could go on...
:(And another thing....
My son was at the local Primary School: It is a well thought of, well managed school that had out of catchment kids queuing to get in. A few years ago the Council (faced with cuts to the education budget) tried to close it, rather than a nearby rather run down, struggling comunity school. Now I'm sure the intention of the council was very well intentioned and also very P.C. but.....It is just this kind of wooly, well intentioned, upside-down logic that got the good city of Embra into the whole tram fiasco in the first place, and the same kind of wooly business accumen that was installed to oversee the project!
I drive in Edinburgh and other UK cities regularily. Despite what appear to be deliverate attempts by the council to introduce chaos over the last 20 years or so, Edinburgh is really not that bad. All the bigger cities I've driven in are worse, including Glasgow. Outside an hour or so of core commuting time in the morning, and again in the evening the roads are reasonably quiet.
Try driving into London, Manchester or Birmingham at rush hour for comparison!
The fundamental issue with the trams is that it's far, far too expensive for a solution that only benefits a small proportion of the population. That's even before over-runs and delays.
It's a shame that it didn't get put to a public vote like their other mad scheme the congestion charge. From informal discussions I think the tram scheme is actually significantly less popular than the congestion charge.
I would disagree on the glasgow traffic being worse thing.
You do also need to bare in mind that glasgow is 5 times the size of edinburgh too though.