In my job I have to deal with budgets, forecasts and ‘comparisons to actuals’ a lot of the time and, much like everywhere I imagine, the income forecasts get lowballed and the costs get highballed in order that, as the year progresses, the number of high fives can only increase as people beat target after target. It’s a bit like saying 40% is a pass at schools and universities, an exercise in making people feel good rather than actually doing anything valuable.
For the trams project, someone must have got things the wrong way around. The costs appear to have been lowballed and the number of high fives have dropped to zero (although the high salaries will no doubt be continuing, a genuine disgrace).
One probably doesn’t have to explain sunk costs, that what is spent is spent, and that a decision as to what is next for this project has to be taken in the here and now. The temptation to hanker back to the days when trams were a glint in a politician’s eye and the Number 22 ruled Leith Walk should be resisted.
The Scotsman has a great article exploring the various options open to Edinburgh but, for me, at the end of the day, a set of useless tracks cannot remain on Princes St, an empty hull of a tram depot cannot sit at Haymarket and a pockmarked Leith cannot be left with the pain of reduced business without the gain of a product at the end of it. What a bitter blow to Scotland’s Capital’s confidence to have embarked on such an ambitious project only to crawl back in on itself and say it was all too hard, all too difficult. How could we look at those ill-conceived, ill-advised unused tracks without thinking ‘We’re a bit rubbish really’?
The original reasons for these trams need to be focused on too. With parts of Edinburgh dangerously close to breaching the EU’s CO2 levels, the cost of fuel only set to increase and commuters demonstrably more likely to use trams than buses, the tram can be a golden bullet solution for several problems and that prize remains in place, albeit on a higher and higher plinth. Given that, the Scottish Government can no longer wash its hands of the whole affair, despite a pledge not to spend ‘not a penny more’ than the £500m it allocated in the last parliamentary term. The most attractive option does appear to be some sort of Tax Incremental Funding which the SNP Government would facilitate, if the desire to keep private sector involvement at bay holds firm.
So whether it’s a partial completion up to the top of Leith Walk or even just the Airport-Haymarket section, we need a finished product and, crucially, one that has a clear option to extend out to The Shore and Granton in the not-too-distant future. It’ll be even more difficult than before but, with Scotland’s reputation and confidence on the line, Edinburgh Council needs to rewrite its forecasts, finish the job and I am certain that high fives will be coming down the track as a direct result.
#1 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 10:05 am
The Scottish Government could perhaps facilitate some way to get the additional money required but in my opinion they could not put any further taxpayers’ money into the project. That woyld be unacceptable and would cause a great deal of anger elsewhere in Scotland.
#2 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 10:33 am
And yet Indy, I really don’t think the Government can turn a blind eye. Yes, the SNP astutely didn’t want the project but they’ve won through this election and you don’t get to pick and choose which problems you address when you command a majority in the Parliament and cover all of Scotland. If Edinburgh Council can’t find a solution, the Government must step in in some way.
Opening up Swinney’s cheque book from existing budgets isn’t the answer, I agree, but Holyrood looks set to win borrowing powers and the scope to release bonds to raise finance; I think it would be a magnanimous move of the Government to include bailing out the trams and finishing off the project with these powers at the first opportunity, assuming that Edinburgh Council is able to part-complete the project with whatever is remaining of the budget.
#3 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 11:02 am
Yes but we have seen other projects cancelled or scaled down because of financial constraints and by allocating any new resources to rescue the trams you would be denying them to others..
#4 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 11:10 am
Hmm, I do wonder whether, if I wasn’t typically Edinburgh-based, if I would be saying that we need to save Garl and scrap the trams….!
Given the apparent cost it would take even to scrap the trams from here, I still think pulling together and finishing the job is the best bet.
#5 by aonghas on June 23, 2011 - 10:06 am
“a set of useless tracks cannot remain on Princes St, an empty hull of a tram depot cannot sit at Haymarket and a pockmarked Leith cannot be left with the pain of reduced business without the gain of a product at the end of it”
In other words – we’ve spent so much money – we have to keep spending more money. It’s an easy rut to get into, but I really don’t see the point. Given that we’ve discovered that Edinburgh is incapable of building a tram system at a less-than-ruinous price per mile, and therefore the tram ‘system’ will always consist of one short bus route, why continue? The tram was always a prestige project for councillors. It’s proved a pretty expensive way for them to buy public transport street-cred.
#6 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 10:29 am
It’s not so much that just because we’ve spent money we have to spend more, but this was a good idea before and it should remain a good idea now. The bumps in the road have got a little bit higher so what are you going to do Edinburgh, get yourself over them or cry off that it’s too difficult?
I think there is a cost to not completing this project, a psychological and reputational cost that, directly, will translate into a financial cost that should not go unconsidered.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the finances but concluding that Edinburgh is “incapable†of anything would be the worst possible solution in my book.
#7 by Richard Thomson on June 23, 2011 - 12:21 pm
“One probably doesn’t have to explain sunk costs”
Actually, Jeff, I think you’re being a bit optimistic there. The failure to grasp the concept of sunk costs is why we’ve heard the constant refrain from trammies come what may that ‘we’ve started so we’ll finish’ – the Magnus Magnusson school of accounting, if you will.
Personally, and I say this as a proud if exiled Edinburgher, it’s high time that people started thinking more about the present and future than about whether other cities have trams or what others might think about us if we call a halt.
If £440m had been spent up until May, I find it impossible to believe that it’s going to cost a further £310m to terminate contracts, to wind up TIE (which would have to happen even if we proceed) and to restore streets to a working state.
Much of that figure seems to be based on the false assumption that everything needs to be ripped up and restored to greenfield – which is obviously false and misleading. As such, the cost of mothballing will almost certainly be significantly less than being forecast in this report, which still leaves open the option of completion at a later date.
Edinburgh City Council needs to be able to identify a funding source before it can decide to proceed. As things stand, we should be deeply suspicious that numbers are being leaked which suggests it’s not much more expensive to proceed than to stop. Marco Biagi is right to point out that there are those involved in preparing the report who have a vested interest in ensuring precisely that outcome.
#8 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Stellar points as ever Richard.
I share in your (and local MSP Marco’s) scepticism around that figure for wrapping up the project. £300m to effectively do nothing doesn’t pass the sniff test and I guess ulterior motives may well be at play, as depressing as that would be given what’s at stake.
I think it’s less about what other countries think of us and more what Edinburghers think of ourselves (I’m including myself in that number with you despite a similar exile!). If we don’t want them, fine, but I think the mood changed during this project despite the problems and opinion softened up to the idea. Giving in because the figures don’t add up is fine. Giving in because it’s all just too hard is not. Perhaps a referendum is in order?
I must admit I struggle to see what a public enquiry will solve, despite the FM agreeing to Kezia Dugdale’s request for one this afternoon (morning?).
#9 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 2:48 pm
It won’t “solve” anything but it will open up what has gone wrong to public scrutiny which is essential in my opinion.
There is no reason why public sector projects have to over-run their budgets or timescales and moct often they don’t. The Airdrie-Bathgate line for example was on time and on budget, the M74 extension was finished early and under-budget.
But big disasters like this one, or indeed the Holyrood project, can contribute to an unfair perception that the public sector is inherently inefficient and that the people in charge simply don’t care about how much public money they waste.
That’s why I don’t see how a public enquiry is avoidable.
#10 by James on June 23, 2011 - 2:54 pm
In 1999 it was costed at £177m, and by 2008 it was up to £692m. I struggle to see that as early or under budget, even when Ministers claim vaguely it’ll be £15-20m below an unspecified figure. Fact is it’s a white elephant irrespective of the fact that it’s late and almost four times over budget.
#11 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 3:29 pm
It was under budget in terms of the budget that was allocated to build it. That’s not difficult to understand. Whether or not it is a white elephant isn’t really the point in this context because we are talking about the management of publicly funded projects. Even those who support the trams in principle acknowledge that in practice the construction has been a disaster.
#12 by Stuart Winton on June 23, 2011 - 6:10 pm
So, Indy, and to echo what James said, how do you square your claim with what Bill Jamieson said in today’s Scotsman:
“The same surreal public relations spin prevailed over the M74 extension. This began with an estimated cost in 2001 of £245m and a completion date of 2008. The final cost, including land, came to £692m and the extension is finally due to open next week, accompanied by farcical ministerial assertions that it had come in “£15m to £20m under budget” and that it was opening “eight months early”.”
And Richard is also correct to be sceptical about the magnitude of and motivation behind the tram termination costs.
Thus I find it difficult to believe what anyone in officialdom says in such scenarios, and few have either the time, ability or inclination to look into these things and come to their own informed conclusions.
#13 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 10:59 pm
Right, so if we allocate extra fund to the Tram project, say to take it up to £770m, with a new completition date of mid-2014, and it actually comes in at £760m and opens in 2013 – that means the Edinburgh Trams also came in under budget and on time?
#14 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 3:01 pm
Yep, fair enough, and you’re probably right since lessons do need to be learned.
Another perception is that the public sector is indecisive and, for me, a public enquiry for an unfinished project reinforces that view but, as you point out, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it shouldn’t go ahead.
#15 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 11:09 pm
Do you know the reason why Airdrie-Bathgate was on time and budget? Because it was well managed. The Edinburgh Trams hasnt been, because neither the Council nor the Government wanted to manage it. Presumably they thought it didnt matter if it all went wrong and the money was wasted because they could always blame it on Labour?
#16 by Doug Daniel on June 23, 2011 - 10:06 am
It’s a difficult one. It’s tempting to say “stop throwing good money after bad” and just cancel the project, with the unused tramlines left as a timely reminder to any future governments that public building projects need to have their costs scrutinised properly and to leave no room for the private contractors to try and squeeze out extra money from the project. After all, it’s clear no one learnt anything from the Holyrood debacle, and I blame that on the fact there is a finished product for people to point at and say “well, we got there in the end”.
On the other hand, it seems a shame to spend so much money on something and have nothing to show for it at the end. If this is the path that is chosen, then we need to see proof that something has been learned from the whole mess, and I don’t mean people saying “lessons will be learned”, I mean structures being put in place to prevent government/council projects ever reaching such chronic overspend in the future. If a project is scheduled for £545 million, then that’s how much it has to cost. If costs are over-running, then that’s the contractor’s fault for underbidding in the first place, and they should take the hit. If this puts them out of business, then that’s the price that has to be paid. We need to stop giving contrators blank cheques.
What I would like to know is the projected costs for finishing the original project – if it will cost £770 million to get it to St Andrew’s Square, how much would it now cost to get it to Newhaven as originally planned? That would really hit home how badly the project has been managed.
As someone who supported the SNP’s plans to dump the project, and who worked with many Edinburgh residents who were totally against the project before it began, it’s very hard not to point and say “told you so”. I still don’t understand how £545 million was ever good value for money for a single solitary tram line.
#17 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 11:11 pm
The first Tram line is always the most expensive. The next will be cheaper. and the next cheaper still.
And then Edinburgh will wonder how on earth it managed before it had Trams.
#18 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 24, 2011 - 12:00 am
That’s a very safe bet, because none of us will be alive to see it.
#19 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:17 am
Yet again, the same comments that have been made about every other Tram system in this country. Yet each and every one has been a total success – just like every other Tram system in the world.
For some reason Edinburgh is considered a special case, the only city on the entire planet where Trams wont work.
#20 by JPJ2 on June 23, 2011 - 10:18 am
I find it extremely irritating that because the unionist parties are economically innumerate Scotland’s reputation for financial good sense has been undermined by the wild overuns in costs for the Parliament building and the Edinburgh tram project.
That said, I would prefer something functional would emerge out of this, although politically this isunderstandably difficult for the SNP, given they were indeed right about this project, but forced into permitting it by the idiot unionists.
#21 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 11:19 am
I can’t help but point out that the trams were fumbled under an SNP Government and an SNP(/Lib Dem) Council. Not sure how it is unionist parties that are “economically innumerate”.
It’s not an idea that causes problems, it is the implementation of that idea.
#22 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 11:57 am
Yes but the SNP Government gave clear warning that the plan was fundamentally flawed and tried to scrap it and the SNP Group on the council said the same and attempted four times to bring a halt to the project. Both in the parliament and in the council the SNP were outvoted – though at the present time there is a great scramble by the other parties to try and associate the SNP with the whole fiasco. C’est la vie I suppose but I am sure most voters will see through that.
#23 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 10:58 pm
In what way was the plan fundamentally flawed? Ah, its because these tram things are novel and have never been tried before anywhere else inthe world, isnt it! No one has any experience of of building a tram network, do they? I know, its because theres never been a civil engineering project of this size and scale anywhere in the world before, isnt it? No, its because trams are so repulsive, no one will ever use them, the people of Edinburgh think that if they travel at over 20mph their brains will explode!
Or is it a case of “the SNP said it, so it must be true”.
#24 by Richard Thomson on June 24, 2011 - 9:50 am
How was the plan fundamentally flawed? Let me count the ways for you, John.
1. Apart from the section from the airport to Haymarket, it was all on road. That meant it was certain to add to congestion – not reduce it – on the major bus arteries of Princes St, St Andrew Square and Elm Row.
2. The section down Leith Walk, with all those old tenements, meant that diverting utilities was going to be a nightmare. The project completely underestimated the scale of this task.
3. Contrary to what was suggested at the time, the contract was anything but ‘fixed price’. If anything, it seems to be on the ‘construction management’ basis that was the downfall of the Holyrood Project, where construction begins before plans are finalised, and God help the client budget if the plans have to change at any point thereafter.
4. Individuals at TIE lacked the experience to run a project of this magnitude, and the Councillors on the board were so awe struck by the project that they were incapable of being anything more than useful idiots to give TIE some political cover.
5. The business case depended on business contributions and developer contributions which never materialised.
6. It also depended on a whole lot of new housing being built on land owned by Forth Ports, to provide the passenger numbers needed for it to wash its face. Thanks to the recession, this hasn’t happened.
So, you see, it’s not that Trams wouldn’t work in Edinburgh, it’s just that this particular scheme, the way it was designed to be delivered and the commercial assumptions which underpinned it, were fundamentally flawed.
It’s understandable that the Greens, Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems should want to try and spread the blame away from themselves to the SNP for this debacle. The Evening News also has a lot to answer for in its relentless cheerleading for trams at the outset. However, no matter how useless the TIE board has been, having a solitary SNP representative on the board wouldn’t have made the slightest difference to any decision taken over the lifetime of the project, as they’d have been pilloried for being negative for pointing out these flaws, and outvoted at every turn.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Edinburgh – and Scotland – has been ill-served by a bunch of pork-seeking incompetents at council, Holyrood and official level, intoxicated by their own nonsense about needing this project to be regarded as a major European city. It makes the Ske Bridge PFI scandal look like the loss of a few coppers down the back of the sofa.
#25 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:07 pm
Firstly, most Tram systems involve sections running on roads – otherwise its a Light Rail system such as the Tyne & Wear Metro. The benefit of the Trams is that they would have a right of way over other traffic that busses dont have. Therefore they tend to be quicker, and therefore more popular.
The other points you mention are probably true, however the responsibility for seeing that all these things were resolved is down to Edinburgh Council and/or the Scottish Government. At no time has either of those two bodies said they want to change anything about the project – its management, its business case, the contract with the contractor – nothing. There were ample opportunities to change tack, to revise the business case, to work on getting those business contributions etc – but what did the SNP councillors on EC and in SG do in the last 4 years? Nothing. They didnt bother to resolve issues, just whine about “Its all Labours fault”. Well, its time the SNP started owning up to their own faults. Its time they got a grip instead of doing nothing and blaming others.
The SNP had a good opportunity to change almost anything about the project, being in Government at Holyrood and in charge at the Council. Instead they preferred to whinge and whine about it, they liked to play the victim and complain about being forced to do it. In short they didnt take charge, and in the end THAT is what has caused this fiasco.
Make no bones about it, if it had been a Laboru Government at Holyrood, and a Labour council in Edinburgh, I would have been equally scathing. There would be nowhere for them to hide.
#26 by Richard Thomson on June 24, 2011 - 8:00 pm
The benefit of the Trams is that they would have a right of way over other traffic
And the disbenefit of trams when you run them along Princes St is that they will snarl up the buses, which, as any fule kno, will still be carrying the lions share of public transport users in Edinburgh.
I’m touched by your apparent optimism that the only change which needed to be made to the project in order to make everything peachy was the addition of an SNP councillor to the board of TIE.
Fact is, it wasn’t the responsibility of the SG to change anything. As sponsor of the project, ultimate responsibility for it lies with Edinburgh Council as a corporate entity – not just the administration.
The fact is that there were ample opportunities for Labour, Lib Dem and Green councillors to try and ‘change tack’, as you put it, but none did. Even if SNP councillors had proposed anything to ‘change tack’, they would have been shouted down, as well you know.
The whole thing is a disaster, but the determination of the pro-tram parties to try and spread the blame onto the one party which took a consistently principled stand against the project as constituted is frankly laughable.
The pro tram parties were given the freedom to get on with delivering their pet project – it’s hardly the fault of others if that turned into the length of rope which they then managed to hang themselves with.
P.S. What do you make of the fact that including the monies spent to date, the current report before the council gives a negative net present value to all options for completion? That’s the sort of information which would have killed the project at outset…
#27 by John Ruddy on June 25, 2011 - 11:40 am
“What do you make of the fact that including the monies spent to date, the current report before the council gives a negative net present value to all options for completion? That’s the sort of information which would have killed the project at outset…”
If things just came down to money every time, we wouldnt do half the things we are doing now on renewables, let alone “100% renewables by 2020”.
This is something worth doing.
The reason why the blame is being spread onto the “one party which took a consistently principled stand against the project” is because that party was responsible for delivering the project. And chose not to. And as for being consistent, perhaps you should look at the comments from Kenny Macaskill that james highlighted? It just makes me feel that the SNPs stance is anything BUT principled. It seems from that they as soon as they saw that some people were against it, and that there might be some votes in it they changed tack. What other explanation could there be?
#28 by Colin on June 23, 2011 - 6:26 pm
Part of the SNP coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats in the council was that they would vote in favour of the tram project but take absolutely no part in its management.
Either way, had they voted against it – it would still have been passed by the other four parties. But I would note that of TIE’s four chief executives, two have been Liberal Democrats, one Labour and one Tory. There have been no SNP because they opted out of the management of the scheme.
I think Labour’s attempt to place blame on them is simply an attempt to try and hide blame from themselves. The agreement that the SNP were not involved in the management of the scheme was because they wished to maintain their opposition to it, whilst working in a constructive coalition with the Liberal Democrats on other matters in Edinburgh.
We will see what the voters think come 2012.
#29 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 10:30 pm
“Part of the SNP coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats in the council was that they would vote in favour of the tram project but take absolutely no part in its management.”
And there is the crux of the problem. They didnt want to manage the project. And the SNP Government didnt want to manage the project, so gues what happened? It didnt get managed. And what do you think happens to a project that isnt managed? It goes over budget and over runs.
So yes, the blame for this fiasco rests squarely on the shoulders of the SNP/Lib Dem Council and the SNP Government. Because why is Edinburgh the only city in the world which had this problem building a tram system?
#30 by Don on June 24, 2011 - 1:30 am
Hold your accusations until the public enquiry. As Salmond advised Labour rookie Kezia Dugdale, who called on him to back a public inquiry (like turkey’s voting for christmas, eh?), “some people and some political parties will have more to worry about than others”. I somehow don’t think he was referring to SNP as having more to worry about than others.
#31 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:20 am
The point is there has been no management on this project. The failures made by Labour in 2006 can have had little to do with what went wrong in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
The success or failure of ANY project – and especially one of this size – is down to the quality of the management. If a project aint managed, it WILL fail. Regardless of what Labour did or didnt do in 2006 (and remind me which Government was in place when final go-ahead was given?) this project failed because of poor (or actaully non-existent) management from either the Council or Government AFTER Labour left office.
#32 by Indy on June 24, 2011 - 10:43 am
Yes there has been management of this project. The management has just been crap.
Your suggestion that the Scottish Government should just have taken over is interesting.
Maybe some of the legal eagles out there could advise us how easy that would have been given that the legislation which authorised it was based on the Council being the promoter and responsible authority.
Would the Scottish Government have had the power just to over-ride that legislation and say we are taking this project over? Or if it hd required further legislation are you suggesting that the opposition parties would have been happy for the Scottish Government to have taken control away from TIE and given it to Transport Scotland?
Because I would suggest that the most likely outcome of such a move would have been for Labour et al to have cried foul and accused the SNP of abusing its powers.
#33 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:10 pm
“Would the Scottish Government have had the power just to over-ride that legislation and say we are taking this project over? Or if it hd required further legislation are you suggesting that the opposition parties would have been happy for the Scottish Government to have taken control away from TIE and given it to Transport Scotland?”
If they were able to make the case that the project was being mismanaged, and that removed TIE and putting in someone else who would be able to complete it on time and on budget, then of course they should have done. And how could Labour and/or the other parties have done anything except back it? Or is the real reason the SNP did so little in the last sesion is that they were so poor at making a case for doing things?
Bear in mind, it wouldnt have taken much to convince enough MSPs to vote with the SNP on this issue.
#34 by Don on June 24, 2011 - 11:06 am
As I say, there will doubtless be a public enquiry and, at that point (and not before), we can then claim to know where the bodies are buried.
At the moment, public perception is very much a case of this having little to do with the SNP. We’ll see if a public enquiry changes that perception.
#35 by Dubbieside on June 23, 2011 - 11:43 am
The tram fiasco was never “fumbled” under an SNP government. This was forced through by the Labour, Lib Dems and Tory opposition for no other reason than to thwart the new incoming government.
Alex Salmond asked in Holyrood how many people have ever died waiting for the No 22 bus? but people will continue to die on the A9 which is where the SNP wanted to spend £500ml.
Like all projects there comes a time when a realistic view must be taken and if it is a dog put it out of its misery. This project is a dog by any definition, over budget, unrealistic usage and revenue streams, minimal environmental benefit, particularly if compared to using trolley buses.
The only humane step is to put it out of it misery asap. Send a tram to the Scottish museum, it could be a lifetimes reminder of the duplicity and financial incompetence of the Lab/Lib/Tory opposition.
P.S. Which projects would you divert part of Scotlands pocket money from to pay for the completion. No mater how further finance is dressed up, bonds etc, there will still be costs which the SC will have to bear and these have to come from somewhere.
#36 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 11:54 am
“The tram fiasco was never “fumbled†under an SNP government. ”
Sure it was. I’m not saying there was a direct or even indirect link but the tram project was fumbled during the period 2007-2011 and that’s when an SNP Government was in power across Scotland and an SNP(/Lib Dem) council was in power in Edinburgh.
The unionists didn’t “force” the SNP to do anything, the SNP could have stuck to its gut instinct and thrown out the tram project but instead respected the will of the Parliament and went with the trams. If the SNP didn’t think it was able to deliver the trams between its council and its Parliament then it should have stuck to fixing the A9, satisfying itself that the opprobrium for ignoring other parties was going to be less than the opprobrium for messing up the delivery of the trams.
In the end of course, it didn’t matter as the SNP romped home in Edinburgh in May but I maintain that, even though the SNP didn’t come up with the original idea of the trams, it is their responsibility to find a solution. Unless they want to take seats on the Opposition benches, that is.
PS I think the spending on the Forth Bridge could be delayed or even markedly decreased if cabling work gets the green light in order to free up Capital for the trams. I also believe that borrowing powers could be used to finish the work and, as mentioned in the post, Tax Incremental Financing which the Scottish Government could assist with.
#37 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 12:00 pm
With the benefit of hindsight that is exactly what they should have done but at the time they were literally just in office and had not quite worked out that the other parties could unite to vote against them and they could still stay in office.
#38 by Dubbieside on June 23, 2011 - 12:47 pm
Indy
Very true, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact remains that this was forced through by the opposition parties for no other reason than political spite.
One of the things that propelled the SNP to their overwhelming victory in May was the people of Scotland recognised the opposition for oppositions sake from the other partys, and in the main they did not like it. Happily it does not look like a lesson that they have learned.
It is risible to suggest that killing off the trams would result in the SNP returning to the opposition benches in 2016. The people voted in May for strong decisive government, and the SNP should stick to their pledge of “not a penny more” for this dog of a project.
#39 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 8:12 am
And then, for no other reason than political spite, the SNP decided to not bother managing the project, so we end up with this mess.
#40 by Indy on June 24, 2011 - 10:46 am
I suggest that the reason the SNP decided not to manage the project was that it was never intended that the Scottish Government should manage the project.
#41 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:13 pm
Well, that may have been in the intention, but things change. Perhaps as soon as things started going wrong, the Government could have stepped in. Perhaps to mediate, or to arrange extra finance or to do something other than whinge about “its not our fault, we were forced to do it!”.
Governments are supposed to Govern, not wring their hands and pass the buck. At least this session, they wont have anywhere to hide.
#42 by aonghas on June 23, 2011 - 1:35 pm
“SNP could have stuck to its gut instinct and thrown out the tram project”
So, thwart the majority will in the SP? Many would say that would have been dictatorial. I think the alternative that the SNP went with, namely saying “OK, have at it Edinburgh council but we wont bail you out”, was fairer and absolves them of responsibility. I genuinely didn’t expect anyone would try to then blame the SNP in a weasel-worded construction, when it all went tits up.
#43 by James on June 23, 2011 - 2:05 pm
Except that the entire period of construction has been under an SNP/Lib Dem Council, not just an SNP administration at Holyrood. There comes a point when buckpassing from the likes of Steve Cardownie will have to stop, and if I were him I’d be taking my brown trousers to the cleaners at the thought of the newly Salmond-approved public inquiry idea.
#44 by Indy on June 23, 2011 - 2:37 pm
I don’t see how a public enquiry is avoidable.
#45 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 10:32 pm
The problem was a lack of firm management. And that happened because the SNP wanted the trams to fail. And so fail it did.
Edinburgh is the only city in the world where this seems to have happened to a tram system – andno one can come up with a good reason as to why.
#46 by Indy on June 24, 2011 - 12:59 pm
If this is the line Labour intend to take – that it was all an SNO plot – it will have the people of Edinburgh rolling in the aisles, not.
The people who supported this project and railroaded it through parliament and through the council ought to just grow up a bit and take responsibility for their actions.
#47 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:14 pm
What actions? What part of the management did Laboru take part in? Regardless of what the business case was like, or the amount of money allocated to it – all that could have been changed by Edinburgh Council or the Scottish Government since the start of the project in 2007. And guess who was in charge in both of those places?
#48 by Yonmei on June 27, 2011 - 1:23 am
Oh ffs, if the trams inquiry descends into party political backbiting, that’s going to annoy everyone in Edinburgh except the few who actually care more about their parties than about the city.
Labour, SNP, and even the Greens were responsible. None of them are going to gain any points by finger-pointing at the others. The whole damn thing’s a mess, it would be good to have that actually acknowledged without posturing with an eye to the next elections.
#49 by James on June 27, 2011 - 10:05 am
Not sure why the Lib Dems and the Tories get a free pass there 😉
#50 by Yonmei on June 27, 2011 - 11:59 am
Because they’re so insignificant in the field of Scottish politics?
The Greens are numerically small but they punch well above their weight (and they were enthusiastic supporters of the trams for ideological reasons – I say this as someone who usually votes Green when I can!)
Blaming the LibDems and the Tories would be politically too easy, like blaming Donald Dewar after he was dead for the cost of the Parliament building. For the two big parties to try and lay blame on each other for the trams fiasco just makes everyone involved look like a partisan nutjob.
Forget party politics. The trams are an Edinburgh problem *regardless* of party. Let’s admit that and let the people responsible stop trying to duck out by playing electoral politics!
#51 by Dr William Reynolds on June 23, 2011 - 12:14 pm
I recall the early days of the first ever SNP government,when the opposition forced then to approve the tram project.The SNP got it spot on and as a former resident of Inverness I do understand that spending the money on the A9 would have saved a lot of lives.Interesting how some are attempting to shift the blame for the tram fiasco to the SNP government.Smart tactics,use their minority status in parliament to force them to do something that they don’t want to do,and then blame them when their concern that the project will do over budget,actually happens.I got the impression in 2007 that a lot of support for the tram project was about sourness at losing an election and a perceived vulnerability in a minority government in the early days of its administration.A pity that the SNP did not have the majority that they now have.
However,I do agree with the argument that this project should be completed.Many will disagree but Jeff does raise some compelling reasons why the tram project should be completed.There is a question about where the money comes from and whether high quality project management can be achieved.Good project management appears difficult to guaranteed.This is suggested by the problems with the Forth Road Bridge and the problems building the Scottish Parliament buildings.The problems appear,irrespective of which party is in charge.
#52 by Fay on June 23, 2011 - 1:13 pm
Delighted to see this sane debate on the tram – and sound reasons for completing the project.
I am passionately in favour of the tram and believe we must remember why it was proposed in the first place: increasing connection, commerce and social mobility across the city while reducing congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions – all very much in line with the declared visions of the Scottish Government and right for a modern European capital city.
So I applaud Jeff’s argument. And last night’s Newsnight Scotland was one of the best news programmes I have seen on the whole crazy mess. Edinburgh is indeed “a great city let down by its elected representatives” now they need to redeem themselves.
#53 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 2:44 pm
Thanks Fay, we do try to keep it positive and constructive on here. Politicians redeeming themselves is a good way of putting it, especially with a year or so to go until council elections.
I didn’t catch Newsnight Scotland on the matter but I’m as interested in trams as I am uninterested in the sectarian debate (while still recognising its importance, it just doesn’t float my boat). So I will catch that one on Iplayer, especially if it’s as good as you say.
Oh, and if anyone else wants to applaud me, please form an orderly queue behind Fay. Needless to say, in my mind you’re still clapping….
#54 by Dubbieside on June 23, 2011 - 2:53 pm
Jeff
We may not always agree with you, but we will always applaud you for allowing us to take part in constructive debate.
#55 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 3:06 pm
Jings, this is brilliant, thanks Dubbieside.
It’s the polar opposite of the school of knocks I’m used to – ‘you’re nothing, you’re worthless, you’re weak, you’re stupid. Now go out there and prove yourself!’ Pas de applause.
(I made that up)
#56 by Joe on June 23, 2011 - 2:51 pm
The levels of high CO2 in some streets is only because of the tramworks and the council’s idiotic traffic management schemes forcing far too much traffic down back streets. Meanwhile big, open streets such as Shandwick Place remain empty.
We’ve known for years that an Airport-Haymarket line would be unviable and unnecessary. Who exactly would Airport-St Andrew’s Square serve? The vast majority of residents in Edinburgh would require at least one bus trip to use it – when they might as get a direct bus quicker and cheaper instead.
That how much will the fabled line down Leith Walk cost? A Billion? Quite frankly seeing as we can’t trust Edinburgh Council or TIE it quite probably will. And even then who will it serve? The Waterfront scheme effectively died in the financial crisis.
The trams will hardly remove any buses – especially if they don’t go down Leith Walk. Unless you penalise every Edinburgh resident who doesn’t live anywhere near the route (incidentally we still have to take into account distance from a tramline in planning applications even though the nearest line has long since been cancelled) by removing buses from Princes Street – actually that sounds exactly what the Council would do to justify themselves.
As for the cost of cancelling, anyone who has stood in the City Centre knows a huge amount of work will be required to put everything back to rights. Princes Street has been crumbling under the weight of buses (remember, the number of buses was to be reduced by a tiny amount) ever since it reopened. Indeed, they’re going to rip it all up from September and redo it. Not to mention the risks to cyclists. Haymarket is a mess of unsightly temporarily junctions. Leith Walk looks like a WWI battlefield as the trenches move back and forth. Mothballing the whole system will involve ripping up rails on the off street sections (can’t leave them outside to rust) and selling trams to other operators then buying them back at some point in thefuture (as we don’t have storage for them all).
The reputational and psychological damage is already done. How many more residents and businesses must suffer?
If any politician in Edinburgh had an ounce of integrity, they will tender their immediate resignation. Not preside over yet another council meeting where they stick their heads in the sand and blame everyone but themselves (the contractors won most of the arbitration issues btw) and definitely not carry on creaming expenses for another year.
#57 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 10:43 pm
I remember all this sort of nonsense being said in Manchester in the early 90s. Obviously it turned out they were right, wernt they?
I’ve lost count of the number of extensions its now had.
#58 by Joe on June 24, 2011 - 12:27 am
Metrolink is more light rail than tram I believe, with pretty substantial use of off street old heavy rail lines. I believe it was also managed fairly well?
Whereas in Edinburgh, Airport to Haymarket is the only off-street section. Any extensions beyond that will be on the busiest streets in whole city. Even then where is it going to be extended? Down South Bridge, god help us?
The prospect of any extension for years is off the table. Not just because of public outcry but the simple fact that the Council will not be able to afford. If it goes no further than Haymarket, the line will require a £4m subsidy every year. Getting to St Andrew’s Square would only make a profit of £2m a year – hardly going to pay off the costs, left alone fund expansion.
The Council were supposed to contribute £45m to the cost of the project, £26.6m of which was supposed to come from Developer contributions. Leaving aside the fact that Waterfront property prices have fallen 80% since that target was set, if were any developers left why would they contribute to a tramline that ends up nowhere near the Waterfront? No wonder that so far the council have only raised £17.6m of their £45m.
You just have to read the latest report to see how incompetent the whole enterprise is. They forecast that a modal shift from cars using the Ingliston Park and Ride will take a substantial volume of cars off road. Except by very definition of P&R, those cars are already off road in favour of buses. And those buses won’t be going anywhere because they’ll still need to serve the people of Corstorphine who are bypassed by the Tramline.
They also admit that they knew all along that the once the trams were completed there would be areas where air quality would deteriorate as a result of displacement of traffic from tram route.
This project has been ill thought-out from the beginning, pushed through by arrogant councillors to punish Edinburgh motorists and subsequently to punish the SNP minority government.
#59 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:22 am
“I believe it was also managed fairly well?”
This is my point exactly. The Edinburgh Tram project has been poorly managed. THAT is the reason why this has failed, not because of what Labour did or didnt do in 2006, before even a sod was cut.
#60 by Indy on June 24, 2011 - 9:19 am
Yes but you are ignoring the fact that the SNP raised issues about management as well as funding of the project. And were voted down.
It is a matter of public record – anybody can go back and read the Official Report.
Stewart Stevenson and others raised all the problems that they foresaw of costs spiralling out of control and the project not delivering what it was expected to deliver and they were comprehensively rubbished by opponents led by Wendy Alexander.
Now we are where we are – and I think people will see right through attempts to re-write history. The key point to answer for those who argue that the project should be funded to completion is what other projects should be cancelled or put on hold to achieve that?
#61 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:17 pm
I’m not re-writing history- I am making the point that the project was mismanaged, and that was the ultimate responsibility of Edinburgh Council and Scottish Government. Instead, they washed their hands of it, happy to stick to the line “Its all Labours fault”, despite Labour not having anything to do with it since 2006.
So what if their were rubbished? Maybe it was because they were more concerned with wriggling out of it rather than making them work?
#62 by Don on June 27, 2011 - 12:08 am
Labour, at every opportunity, poo-pood the SNP’s arguments, voted down their objections and kept pushing this project through. Some would claim this was just to score political points but regardless of the reason, Labour must take their share of the responsibility for this debacle.
#63 by Richard Thomson on June 23, 2011 - 3:39 pm
There’s one other option I’d like to see considered, and it relates to the the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL) which was effectively traded off against trams back in 2007.
EARL as proposed was an economic basket case, with a completely impractical underground station for diesel trains and increased journey times in the central belt, all for the princely sum of c £600m [yeah, right]. Scrapping EARL was, however, deemed acceptable by Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems, providing trams went ahead and linked to the airport, as happens at Newcastle with the Tyne & Wear Metro.
The tram depot at the Maybury is nearly finished, and the line is proposed to link to the heavy rail stations at Edinburgh Park and a new station called Edinburgh Gateway. How hard would it be to run trams from Edinburgh Park to the Airport, thus linking the city centre and more importantly, the rest of Scotland to the airport by a combination of tram and heavy rail, while mothballing the rest until such time as suitable funding can be found to finish it?
OK, it’s no-one’s favoured solution. However, it would at least see some trams running, and would resolve the connectivity issue for the airport and the business parks in Western Edinburgh which most agreed was a proplem initially. Perhaps BAA, RBS and the owners of Edinburgh Park could even be persuaded to chip in to help with the running costs, since they would be the primary beneficiaries from a link which otherwise might not be there.
#64 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 3:47 pm
A rail line practically runs through Edinburgh airport. I’ve never understood why a link up couldn’t be arranged to allow Edinburgh Waverley/Haymarket to get people out to the airport and back quickly and easily. The cynic in me suspect it’s because the profitable Airport Express is owned by Lothian Buses (and therefore by Edinburgh Council).
So, all that to say, your suggestion gets my vote Richard, particularly as it not only doesn’t rule out a more expansive tram network in the future but encourages it.
#65 by Yonmei on June 27, 2011 - 12:08 pm
“I’ve never understood why a link up couldn’t be arranged to allow Edinburgh Waverley/Haymarket to get people out to the airport and back quickly and easily. ”
Nor have I. It would entail building a halt and a connecting bridge at the airport (a fairly complex bridge with lifts to allow full accessibility, but no worse than Edinburgh Park). Plus a connecting road from the halt to the airport buildings, with shuttle buses.
We could have had that years ago. It would have cost very little and, if the tram project had succeeded, would have linked up with the tram connection at Haymarket: it would have brought added value to Edinburgh even without the trams.
Sadly I think you’re right and Edinburgh Council wouldn’t consider it because they’re a bunch of venal bastards, but still.
#66 by Jeff on June 27, 2011 - 1:33 pm
Yep, I agreed with you right up to venal, but that’s probably only because I don’t know what venal means…!
#67 by Richard Thomson on June 23, 2011 - 4:03 pm
Yeah – both the Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen lines pass within a short distance of the terminal. Two cheers for post-war central planning, I guess, though I don’t think that’s one that can be laid at the door of the ghosts of local authorities past!
The funny thing about EARL was that the last government tried to go for the most complex, expensive and least useful option. Ironically, those plans meant it would probably have been cheaper to build a new terminal closer to the railway than vice-versa…
#68 by Dubbieside on June 23, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Why does it always appear that Labour only want the most complicated and expensive option to any project. To tunnel under the main runway with all the liability then on the Scottish Government was totally stupid.
Anyone travelling to and from Fife is practically in the airport, so is it beyond our imagination to design a simple loop from the main line to near the terminal, a distance of what half a mile at most. Or is that too simple?
#69 by ReasonableNat on June 23, 2011 - 8:40 pm
Dyce Station is practically in Aberdeen Airport but again on the wrong side of the runway from the terminal and it’s not just airports that we’re apparently this type of stupid with. There are so many important public places, major shopping malls, business parks, industrial estates, and the like, with track running right past them, and no station, it just isn’t funny.
Pingback: Fay Young » Don’t scrap the tram
#70 by ReasonableNat on June 23, 2011 - 6:15 pm
Personally I’d like to see the public enquiry not only determine what has already gone wrong but also cost out the options from now on, before any more work gets done. This is a really tough decision and I can’t even figure out for certain how I feel about it – both sides of the argument appear, unusually, to have equally valid points of view. I don’t think we can really come to the right conclusion about whether or not to proceed without figures we can actually trust.
PS – they should have put tram-trains on the south sub instead 🙂
#71 by Richard Thomson on June 23, 2011 - 6:36 pm
But the south sub doesn’t go anywhere directly that people want to go!
#72 by ReasonableNat on June 23, 2011 - 8:33 pm
Having lived in both Newington and Morningside I’d have found it an extremely useful way of getting around the city, especially into Haymarket or up to Princes Street, avoiding the traffic on all the radial routes. It would have served the south side of Edinburgh much as the subway serves the west end of Glasgow. It would also have provided a mainly off road route to expand into the outer suburbs from. Anyway, I suspect this is probably too much of a tangent…
#73 by John Ruddy on June 23, 2011 - 10:46 pm
The problem with turning the south sub into a tram line is that its actually very useful for freight traffic. Not enough paths through Waverley for it all.
#74 by ReasonableNat on June 23, 2011 - 11:29 pm
Yes, I’ve heard that too, still, where there’s a will…
#75 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:23 am
I think that a case could be made for a heavy rail service on the south sub, but due to the freight, the frequencies might not be enough to attract folk from other means of transport.
#76 by Richard Thomson on June 23, 2011 - 6:18 pm
Type your comment here
Apparently, yes it was. Even though that was the solution which the consultants’ report said emerged best from their cost/benefit analysis.
#77 by douglas clark on June 23, 2011 - 11:25 pm
Jeff,
Given he photograph at the top of this piece, can you recall any other transport projects being cancelled at such a late date?
I cannot in recent history and I agree with your opinion piece.
#78 by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 11:36 pm
I’m struggling to recall any other transport projects at all to be honest. Wasn’t Crossrail nearly scrapped?
So, no, I can’t recall any in recent historty and I agree with my opinion piece too… 😉
#79 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:25 am
The only one I can think of is the northern extension of the Northern line in London. That was finally put to bed in the early 50’s, but only after some of the stations and the depot was built. LT managed to convert the depot into a massive bus garage, though.
#80 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 24, 2011 - 12:07 am
Because several years in I’m still waiting for anyone to explain to me why a tram is better than a No.22 bus. Putting something on rails but driving it up the street doesn’t make it magically able to pass through other traffic.
Seriously – if anyone can give me just ONE tangible reason why there was ever any point in the trams, it’ll be the first. They achieve nothing the bus didn’t already achieve, are notably inferior in several ways (lack of stops, difficulty of moving a broken-down one), and the difference they’ll make to the city’s carbon footprint is negligible to zero.
Even optimistically assuming they ever do get built, and assuming the best possible outcomes, they’d take 300+ years to pay for themselves. And that’s without factoring in the untold, uncounted millions they’ve cost the economy while the heart of Edinburgh’s been a warzone for years.
Just one reason. How hard can it be?
#81 by James on June 24, 2011 - 1:49 am
Here are seven reasons, mostly originally provided by Kenny Macaskill.
#82 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:28 am
Thanks for that James, that has really made my day! I am more than happy to say that, on this occaission, I agree with Kenny Macaskill!
#83 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 24, 2011 - 9:42 am
Oh dear, that’s truly feeble.
1. Those aren’t seven “reasons”. Those are seven refutations to arguments, several of which aren’t refutations at all, because they agree with the complaint (eg “the lines are inadequate”).
2. Bizarrely, the piece uses safety as a justification, comparing deaths on trams to deaths “on the road”. Which is weird, as the road is exactly what the trams will be running on. For some unfathomable reason, it’s also comparing directly tram-related casualties to ALL road deaths, ie including motorways and such. It’d be interesting to know how many people have died in road accidents on the projected tram route in the last, say, five years. I’m guessing zero.
3. The only thing approaching an actual reason in the entire piece is that some people are too snobby to get on buses and are more attracted to trams. And sure, that’s a good one – assuming those people are prepared to pay £500 a ticket to go from Haymarket to the airport. Every day. That’s about the only way the tiny number of people involved will ever provide enough money to justify the cost of building the trams.
4. This one is especially dire: “energy efficiency and massive investment in renewables can fulfill all our energy needs. And then the trams will run on clean energy”. Right. So all we need to do is have all of Scotland’s energy provided by renewables (you remember, the SNP goal everyone and his dog attacks as unachievable and ridiculous), and perhaps 1% of public transport in one of Scotland’s cities will be green. Awesome! The planet is saved! (Never mind how many decades this one pathetic line would then have to run to recoup the carbon cost of building it.)
Stripping all the bullshit and attacks on the SNP out of the article, those “seven reasons” break down to the following:
– a few snobs like trams better than buses (big whoop).
– the trams will serve routes that you currently need two buses for (LOL).
– somehow they’ll be safer (than getting from Haymarket to the airport on a pogo stick while drunk).
– the lines are inadequate, but that will improve at some unspecified point in the future when the city council suddenly finds a billion quid it left in a jacket.
– if we ever live in a country powered exclusively by green energy, Edinburgh’s single tramline will repay its carbon construction cost by 2195 and eventually reduce Scotland’s carbon emissions by 0.002%.
– they’ll be less expensive than building the new Forth Bridge (NOW I’m convinced!)
– they’ll cause a lot of congestion for years while being built, costing the economy millions, but eventually that’ll end. (Um, great reason.)
– they’ll “paint an aspirational picture of Edinburgh as a modern European capital”. (Well worth £800m, then.)
If those are your seven great answers to my question, God help us. Once again, I’m still waiting for a single tangible benefit of this ludicrous, embarrassing white elephant. And John Ruddy’s ridiculous fantasy about a fictional city-wide network that might exist one day doesn’t count, because we’ll all be in the cold cold ground long before Edinburgh City Council has the money to extend the “network”, or the insane, suicidal temerity to put such an idea to the voters.
Kenny MacAskill’s piece was written ELEVEN YEARS AGO, on an utterly different premise to the project that actually went ahead. I think it’s safe to say he changed his mind in the intervening time, given that he voted against the trams seven years later.
Just one REAL reason to justify all that money. It’s all I’m asking for. I don’t think you can do it.
#84 by Joe on June 24, 2011 - 12:57 pm
The environmental section mentions how much lower tram emissions are. What it fails to mention is what difference this would actually make! Perhaps because the trams (certainly their current form) will remove hardly any buses from the streets of Edinburgh. The business plan all along has had to allow for buses for those who aren’t on the route, are too far from tram stops or are too infirm for enforced interchanges. Meanwhile £500 million (let alone £700m) would have bought us an entire fleet of electric buses.
The costs are laughable. Lest we forget, the original estimate was £375m for lines 1 and 2 to be open by 2009. That increased to the £512m cited and 2011. Now we’re not getting Line 1 at all for £700m. Meanwhile the new Forth Road Bridge will cost £1.62billion and have benefit the whole of East Scotland.
3 years on, construction is still causing congestion and will go on causing congestion until 2014. A huge amount of congestion has been caused for nothing. Hardly green. And how exactly will it pass if you support expansion, especially down South Bridge?
And finally it is quite clear now that the whole project was built on quicksand. From forecasts of demand to estimates of costs. We’ll now end up with a half-line that makes a loss or a negible profit at the expense of our good bus service. The whole project has been one big disaster right from conception – not just poorly executed.
#85 by James on June 24, 2011 - 1:00 pm
I heartily recommend not assuming the current projected figure for the additional Forth Bridge will turn out to be right in the end, especially given not a single millimetre of it has yet been built.
#86 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 7:29 am
If what you claim is true, then why have Trams been introduced in hundred of cities across the world? Surely busses can do exactly the same, without the disruption?
How about you tell me in what way is Edinburgh different to all those other towns and cities (some of which have even better bus services than Edinburgh).
#87 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 24, 2011 - 9:49 am
“Hundreds”? I’d say “dozens” would be pushing it to breaking point, but feel free to prove me wrong with a list. The vast majority of cities seem to get by just fine without trams, and so did Edinburgh. So the entire premise of your question is bogus – trams are the exception, not the norm.
#88 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:25 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light-rail_transit_systems
I lost count after 400.
There are more Tram systems in Khazakstan than there in Scotland after the Edinburgh Trams are completed. Presumably the SNP are content for Scotland to be seen as a second class country. Well, I’m not.
#89 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 24, 2011 - 11:01 pm
You said “introduced” – half of those are trams that have simply kept running since about 1920, not been built in the modern era.
But I’m loving the definition of being a “first class” nation as having trams, given that we’re still waiting for a single actual benefit they’re going to bring Edinburgh.
Just so we’re clear – you consider Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Estonia, Puerto Rico, Cuba and Peru as “first class” nations, while Scotland is “second class”. And you wonder why people still accuse Labour of thinking Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to run its own affairs?
Disappointed to see this site adopt the same cowardly approach to perfectly civil debate as Labour Hame when it comes to rejecting posts that do nothing but point out some uncomfortable truths it’s got no answer for, but hey ho.
#90 by John Ruddy on June 25, 2011 - 11:43 am
My point is that we’re better than Kazakstan, Uzbekistan etc. In fact my whole point is that Scotland shouldnt be second class – if you acnt see that part of the argument, and prefer to introduce your own prejudices against Labour into it, theres no point in debate.
Why ignore the facts when you can get in a lie about Labour?
#91 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 25, 2011 - 3:23 pm
Er, what lie would that be?
It’s hard to take anything else from this:
“There are more Tram systems in Khazakstan than there in Scotland after the Edinburgh Trams are completed. Presumably the SNP are content for Scotland to be seen as a second class country.”
I’m absolutely blowed if I can see any possible meaning from that other than “the absence of trams makes us appear to be a second-class country compared to Khazakstan [sic]”.
#92 by Joe on June 24, 2011 - 12:19 pm
That is the same attitude the Council have taken and precisely what has been wrong with the project from the beginning.
Far too much focus on “all these other cities have trams so we should too” rather than the actual economics and practicalities of trams in Edinburgh.
#93 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:26 pm
And who are in charge at the council? Who have had 4 years to change things? Who has had more than ample opportunities to make this project work?
Hint, its the same people that have been content to do nothing, because hey, they can always blame someone else.
#94 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 24, 2011 - 11:09 pm
Why should the SNP councillors take the blame for a shambles of a project they never wanted anything to do with? They were elected on a platform of opposing the trams, and have tried several times to have the project cancelled. That’s called “representing the people who voted for you by doing what you promised to do”, and it’s a concept the other parties don’t seem to have quite grasped yet.
If there’s anything amusing about this abysmal, entirely predictable fiasco it’s watching Labour try to blame the SNP for it. That’s the SNP who voted against it in Parliament, got elected to oppose it in Edinburgh, tried to close it down via the council, and had no representative on the board of TIE, unlike the other parties. They’re the one party who can genuinely show clean hands in this mess.
The trams were never about Edinburgh – they were a pathetic, spiteful show of “strength” from three Unionist parties still sulking about the election result, and NOBODY but them is to blame for the mess that’s resulted. And the thing is, the electorate know that just fine – it wasn’t the SNP that Edinburgh rejected last month. One day Labour will wake up and face the reality of what’s happened, but it doesn’t look like it’ll be any day soon.
#95 by John Ruddy on June 25, 2011 - 11:46 am
Presumably the Tram scheme was such a spiteful show of strength about the election result in 2007, that Labour managed to start it before the elction result?
Why did many SNP figures support the Trams before they got into Government?
#96 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 26, 2011 - 10:50 am
“Why did many SNP figures support the Trams before they got into Government?”
Perhaps because there’s a big difference between the broad concept of a tram network and the specific ridiculous, wildly overpriced, dismal one-route joke that ended up being the actual proposal?
#97 by Joe on June 25, 2011 - 1:15 am
Labour are as guilty as any other party so stop trying to pretend otherwise. The project was never going to work – it was doomed to failure from the very beginning and the politicians involved in preparing the plan before 2007 are every bit responsible for its failure.
This is not a Labour v SNP issue. It is the residents of Edinburgh against councillors of all hues. If you cannot appreciate that then you’re putting grubby politics before the interests of Edinburgh.
#98 by John Ruddy on June 25, 2011 - 11:49 am
So the plans created in 2006 are a problem. Well, given that the SNp were “forced” into supporting the project, why didnt the SNP try to make the project work?
I do have the interests if Edinburgh and Scotland in mind. I want both to be better than what they are now. “At the start of C21 the route ahead for the City of Edinburgh is a light rail network” are wise words – this is exactly what Edinburgh needs, and those who oppose them are doing so for purely political ends. Politicians can lead public opinion, as well as follow it.
#99 by Joe on June 25, 2011 - 2:13 pm
How can you make something work when it is a complete nonstarter from the beginniing.
Those are the least wise words I’ve heard. McAskill is a much an idiot as David Begg.
And can you please stop banging on about networks; the plan all along has been a single line to serve a bunch of imaginary Waterfront developments. We’re not even getting a line now. And we never get a network – simply because there is no room for trams on the streets of Edinburgh.
Meanwhile our a real public transport network has suffered and continue to suffer to pay for the follies of politicians.
#100 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 26, 2011 - 11:29 am
“So the plans created in 2006 are a problem. Well, given that the SNp were “forced†into supporting the project, why didnt the SNP try to make the project work? ”
The SNP were never forced into “supporting” the project. They were forced into letting Edinburgh City Council go ahead with it, giving them a government grant and then leaving it as entirely their responsibility.
The SNP’s councillors in Edinburgh were elected on a platform of opposing the trams, and therefore quite properly continued to press within the democratic system for them to be abandoned, but were continually voted down by the other three parties. They had no responsibility to make the project work, they had a responsibility to the people who elected them to keep trying to save Edinburgh from this disastrous course.
As for the SNP government, they had neither the responsibility nor the desire to “make the project work”. They handed TIE the precise length of rope that TIE asked for, with which TIE could have built either a ladder or a noose. That they did the latter is entirely, wholly, 100% the responsibility of TIE, a body on which the SNP had no representation whatsoever.
Once again – you can try to spin it all you like on forums and whatnot, but the votes cast in Edinburgh last month indicate pretty clearly who the electorate (entirely correctly) hold responsible for this godawful mess.
#101 by Scottish republic on June 24, 2011 - 7:55 am
“””How could we look at those ill-conceived, ill-advised unused tracks without thinking ‘We’re a bit rubbish really’?””””
The Labourites live by the code of denying they’re rubbish and they are responsible for this mess. The SNP should kill the project, pay the cleaning up of Labour’s mess and put it down to Labourite stupidity as we must the UK debt.
#102 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:29 pm
In what way are Labour responsible for this mess? Other than by conceiving of the project in the first place?
Not a pound of soil has been excavated, or a cubic metre of concrete poured or a metre of rail laid except under an SNP administration.
After how long will the SNP take responsibility for projects? After 5 years? After 10 years? Never? Or only once things have been proven to be a success?
#103 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 26, 2011 - 11:33 am
“Not a pound of soil has been excavated, or a cubic metre of concrete poured or a metre of rail laid except under an SNP administration.”
Oh, this is straw-clutching of the direst order. The SNP had no part in the execution or administration of the Edinburgh trams contract, all they did was hand over the money. Next you’ll be blaming Alex Salmond for the fact that we played 4-6-0 against the Czech Republic and the fact that it’s been unseasonally cold and rainy this June, on the equally-logical grounds that those things happened “under an SNP administration” too.
If you need some help, I can explain the derivation of the word “administration”. It normally refers to things you actually administer, rather than things which are administered by someone else while you’re in the general vicinity.
#104 by Indy on June 24, 2011 - 10:14 am
Quite possibly the projected figures in 2001 were rubbish. But once the project was actually given the go-ahead by the SNP it was built within the budget that was attached to it and before the scheduled completion date. And if the figures in 2001 were rubbish that was part of the pattern that pertained then of deliberately underestimating costs. That is what happened with the Holyrood Project as well – they gave a ridiculously low cost initially so of course it ended up going massively over budget. The point is that public infrastructure projects should be costed properly at the start and then projects should be properly managed so that they do not go over time or over budget. And that should happen consistently.
Stuart Winton:
So, Indy, and to echo what James said, how do you square your claim with what Bill Jamieson said in today’s Scotsman:
“The same surreal public relations spin prevailed over the M74 extension. This began with an estimated cost in 2001 of £245m and a completion date of 2008. The final cost, including land, came to £692m and the extension is finally due to open next week, accompanied by farcical ministerial assertions that it had come in “£15m to £20m under budget†and that it was opening “eight months earlyâ€.â€
And Richard is also correct to be sceptical about the magnitude of and motivation behind the tram termination costs.
Thus I find it difficult to believe what anyone in officialdom says in such scenarios, and few have either the time, ability or inclination to look into these things and come to their own informed conclusions.
#105 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:32 pm
As oppossed to the policy of the SNP of talking up the “cost” of things such as the 2nd Forth bridge, so they can claim “savings” when it comes in “under budget”?
I am sure that the cost of that project will also come in over its alleged budget.
#106 by John Ruddy on June 24, 2011 - 6:45 pm
“The vision for Edinburgh has to be to aspire to be a truly Capital City. That means to have the public transport networks taken for granted in other European Capitals such as Copenhagen and Helsinki.”
#107 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 25, 2011 - 11:09 am
“Public transport network” and “trams” aren’t interchangeable terms. Edinburgh already had an excellent public transport network, before it was all turned to rubble for three years and counting. London has one too, but I don’t recall seeing any trams the last time I was there.
#108 by James on June 25, 2011 - 11:21 am
They have an underground. And a lot of light rail, the slightly bigger brother to a tram network.
#109 by John Ruddy on June 25, 2011 - 11:50 am
And a Tram system (in Croydon).
#110 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 25, 2011 - 3:20 pm
Surprisingly, I’m aware of that. Were we discussing Edinburgh’s failed underground system, that might be an interesting or relevant point. What it *actually* is is proof that you don’t need trams to have good public transport. (And as Edinburgh pre-2008 showed, you don’t need an underground either.)
Still waiting with bated breath for those actual, real, tangible benefits the trams will bring Edinburgh, if one ever runs.
#111 by Yonmei on June 24, 2011 - 8:40 pm
Why does anyone who’s ever been on the train as it passes right by the airfield even argue that the tram connection between Haymarket and the airport is worth sinking money into?
Build a halt at the airport, build a connecting road for shuttle buses, and you have a simple and relatively cheap solution to the problem of city-centre/airport traffic. No one who actually cares about saving money should be proposing anything else: anyone who argues that money should be sunk into building the tram line out to the airport is obviously not interested in the practicalities of Edinburgh traffic.
Whether or not we should consider if it’s worth building a tram line from Leith to Haymarket, that’s a question worth serious discussion. But the Edinburgh Airport Halt is a no-brainer: it’s just the right thing to do.
#112 by Observer on June 25, 2011 - 9:06 am
“If” they had been able to make the case that the project was being mismanaged? “If”???
You are totally trying to re-write history here. Your argument appears to be that the SNP was wrong to oppose the trams, that all of the objections they raised were mere political flim-flam but when – quite coincidentally and in a way which was completely unrelated to any of the points which the SNP had repeatedly raised – the project went to hell in a handcart the SNP should have stepped in, fished out the magic wand they keep down the back of the sofa, and made it all better again.
Quite ludicrous and the sooner we have a public enquiry to lay out everything that went wrong the sooner we will see an end to this nonsense.
Jeff:
“Would the Scottish Government have had the power just to over-ride that legislation and say we are taking this project over? Or if it hd required further legislation are you suggesting that the opposition parties would have been happy for the Scottish Government to have taken control away from TIE and given it to Transport Scotland?â€
If they were able to make the case that the project was being mismanaged, and that removed TIE and putting in someone else who would be able to complete it on time and on budget, then of course they should have done. And how could Labour and/or the other parties have done anything except back it? Or is the real reason the SNP did so little in the last sesion is that they were so poor at making a case for doing things?
Bear in mind, it wouldnt have taken much to convince enough MSPs to vote with the SNP on this issue.
#113 by Erchie on June 26, 2011 - 3:07 am
Were you in Scotland for the last Parliament?
Did you see the vote, for example, on Alcohol pricing? A Policy supported by the parties down south?
And you think “multi-partisanship” was going to break out soon?
#114 by Hamish on June 26, 2011 - 12:40 am
Jeff, you and your fellow contributors write well and cogently. For the most part. But this article suggests that going green has made you go mushy.
Excellently rebutted by Joe, Richard Thomson, Rev S. Campbell and others.
You claim to speak as a committed though exiled Edinburger, but you don’t even know that the tram depot is at Gogarburn not Haymarket.
And this reply of yours to a comment takes the biscuit:
“The SNP could have stuck to its gut instinct and thrown out the tram project”. Have you forgotten that at that time the SNP was a minority government?
James is no better, siding with the Chambers of Commerce to approve the environmental destruction caused by the tram scheme. The irony is that it is all about improving access to Edinburgh airport.
Let’s get real here. Current forecasts of costs are:
Airport Haymarket: £700mn.
Cancellation: £750mn.
Airport St.Andrews Square: £770mn.
Airport Leith waterfront: £1bn
Getting real means accepting that all the figures for continuation are underestimates, and the eventual figure will be much higher, probably double.
Remember that Holyrood was originally costed at £40mn and ended up costing more than 10 times that figure.
Edinburgh’s topology is not suited to trams. Line 1 is the easiest route in terms of engineering. Further expansion will be more costly per mile, not cheaper as John Ruddy naively suggests.
I had not heard the term ‘sunk costs’ before, but then I am not an accountant. I have heard of hidden liabilities and moving expenditure off the balance sheet, but sunk costs is a new one on me.
The only figure I reckon is on the high side is the £750mn bandied about for terminating the project.
It must be the ultimate incompetence to fail to bring in a project on budget if it is cancelled.
So I think it is fair to demand that the councillors and officials who have blindly pressed on with the tram project should personally pay, say, 10% of any excess over the original budget.
I predict that will result in a sharp reduction of the figure of £750mn.
#115 by Jeff on June 26, 2011 - 10:02 am
Hi Hamish,
You are correct the blog post has been excellently rebutted and I make no apology for being more than a little bit green-tinged with some of my thoughts. I’m happy to punt up a blog post and be quickly argued down; it’s the point of the exercise really and I am grateful for comments shaping my thinking. I only ever hope that what I write is valid, not that it’s 100% cast-iron correct.
Anyway, to your points. Fair enough, the depot is out at Gogarburn, that slip had less to do with my knowledge of Edinburgh and more with my loose vocab. There’s an interchange or something at Haymarket? There must be something cos they knocked down a fine pub to make way for it!
My understanding is that the Scottish Government had the power to not proceed with the trams, even if they didn’t have the numbers in the Parliament. Something to do with the processes for this particular project (e.g. they weren’t voting for a Bill but a project). I’m certain of that fact because I vividly recall the opposition parties ready to face the news cameras complaining about the SNP getting in the way of democracy but then, at the eleventh hour, the SNP chose to go ahead with trams and respect the will of the Parliament. So, yes, there was no majority in the Parliament but it was still the SNP’s choice.
You make a fair point that not only is the cancellation figure bound to be inflated but there’s a real risk that the costs to finish the projects have been lowballed or will run into inevtiable difficulties. I maintain however that there’s a real psychological cost and a financial expense attached to a City taking this on, failing and ultimately giving in. That’s perhaps wanting the moon on a stick as I can’t imagine Edinburgh has a spare £300m tucked away somewhere but a bit of imagination, a bit of flexibility between Scottish Government, borrowing powers and private involvement must surely be able to find a way forward.
Interesting idea that councillors and officials will put their salaries on the line if there are more over-runs. Of course none of them will vote for it but anything that will stop the ridiculous salaries (e.g. Richard Jeffrey) from such a bungled venture sounds appealing from where I’m sitting (which is, to be fair, 400 miles away!)
#116 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 26, 2011 - 11:41 am
“My understanding is that the Scottish Government had the power to not proceed with the trams, even if they didn’t have the numbers in the Parliament…. So, yes, there was no majority in the Parliament but it was still the SNP’s choice.”
This is basically correct. As I understand the situation it’s nothing to do with the specifics of the project, more the fact that the Scottish Government always has the ultimate power of veto over a vote of the Scottish Parliament. (But is obviously expected to accede to Parliament’s will under normal circumstances.) Someone will doubtless correct me if I’m wrong.
“I maintain however that there’s a real psychological cost and a financial expense attached to a City taking this on, failing and ultimately giving in.”
This is certainly true. It would be a major embarrassment. But faced with a choice between embarrassment and bankruptcy I know which I’d choose.
It will be very difficult to fund the remainder of the project, because the economic case for the single tram line is so weak that no investor or lender would be confident of making a return or even getting their money back. There simply aren’t enough people who need to get from even St Andrews Square to the airport often enough (but aren’t happy to go by car or bus) to make the line pay, and the truth is that even had it gone all the way to Leith there probably never were.
#117 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 26, 2011 - 11:54 am
Incidentally, Edinburgh would be far from alone in its red face. Other UK cities to have cancelled tram projects in recent years include Leeds, Liverpool, Portsmouth/South Hants, Avon and London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Supertram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseytram
http://www.lrta.org/southhantsnews.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_River_Tram
Most had already spent millions on the projects, though to my knowledge none on quite the scale of Edinburgh. Point is, there’s plenty of precedent right here in the UK in this century for knowing when the game’s up and not throwing any more good money after bad.
Pingback: Sluts, Trams, Bigots and Barbie – Scottish Roundup
#118 by Richard Thomson on June 26, 2011 - 1:15 pm
#119 by Jeff on June 26, 2011 - 2:22 pm
(Not sure if you’re quoting the right person there Richard. I can’t recall saying that.)
#120 by Richard Thomson on June 26, 2011 - 3:49 pm
No idea what happened there, Jeff. I was trying to respond to something John Ruddy said [first para, with the rest being mine], but I clearly made a hash of it somewhere along the line. Oops.