Edinburgh tram goes live tomorrow!
Discussion
simoid said:
On the tram now for the first time. Pile of s
te waste of money. Should've just made a bus lane.
I quite like it! te waste of money. Should've just made a bus lane.
An hour into Hermiston Gait from home, parking space within 50 yards of tram stop, 20 mins into my office off Princes St. Zero hassle, quiet and comfortable. Much better than struggling to find parking spaces and getting stuck in traffic.
Leithen said:
simoid said:
On the tram now for the first time. Pile of ste waste of money. Should've just made a bus lane.
I quite like it! te waste of money. Should've just made a bus lane.An hour into Hermiston Gait from home, parking space within 50 yards of tram stop, 20 mins into my office off Princes St. Zero hassle, quiet and comfortable. Much better than struggling to find parking spaces and getting stuck in traffic.
Edinburger said:
The trams carried 1.5m passengers in their first hundred days and are now carrying 90K per week. I know lots of visitors who've agreed they are a welcome addition to the city. As far as I can tell it's fully integrated with other public transport options so I really don't any problem with them.
Spent a week in Scotland during the summer and used the tram to travel into the centre from out near the airport, thought it was a great stress free way to travel in and out every day.Leithen said:
I quite like it!
An hour into Hermiston Gait from home, parking space within 50 yards of tram stop, 20 mins into my office off Princes St. Zero hassle, quiet and comfortable. Much better than struggling to find parking spaces and getting stuck in traffic.
I'd like to see a cost:benefit analysis of the same route being a bus lane though... would Shirley have been a heck of a lot cheaper. Buses could do twice the speed on the straight bits too An hour into Hermiston Gait from home, parking space within 50 yards of tram stop, 20 mins into my office off Princes St. Zero hassle, quiet and comfortable. Much better than struggling to find parking spaces and getting stuck in traffic.
Yep, it certainly isn't quick. A dedicated bus road and some bendy busses would have been somewhat more cost effective I suspect. Anyway, it's there now and was very convenient for me to get from the office to the hotel and back again this morning. Having the right change for the ticket would have been a good plan of course.
Rush hour this morning was, err, pretty quiet really.
Rush hour this morning was, err, pretty quiet really.
Edinburger said:
The trams carried 1.5m passengers in their first hundred days and are now carrying 90K per week. I know lots of visitors who've agreed they are a welcome addition to the city. As far as I can tell it's fully integrated with other public transport options so I really don't any problem with them.
Yeah, 90K per week (assuming it is that, where did you get the figure?) from a total capacity of approximately 250K per week (based on the tram capacity and schedule and being conservative with frequency - it could be significantly higher) and I'm willing to bet that usage figure reduces as the novelty wears off and through the winter. EVERY time I've seen a tram other than rush hour it's been almost empty. And as for integrated, yeah it's an integrated mess that causes traffic jams due to the reduced road space for other vehicles. Anyway you paint it it's an massively expensive, unnecessary white elephant with a very limited use case.I've been using the thing on a regular basis outside rush hour times and it's usually standing only for sections of the route. So I'd say it is being well used - no sign of numbers dropping off, quite the opposite as the seats seem to be filling more quickly as times goes by.
Would it be better as a road solution rather than light rail? I'm not sure if that was ever an option given that a large part of the route is so close to main rail lines. I have to admit that I have a pet hate for buses. They are generally crude, uncomfortable and unpleasant to use. The trams are far more comfortable and relaxing. For the price they of course should be.
But given that we have what we have, it suits my needs nicely.
Would it be better as a road solution rather than light rail? I'm not sure if that was ever an option given that a large part of the route is so close to main rail lines. I have to admit that I have a pet hate for buses. They are generally crude, uncomfortable and unpleasant to use. The trams are far more comfortable and relaxing. For the price they of course should be.
But given that we have what we have, it suits my needs nicely.
Leithen said:
Would it be better as a road solution rather than light rail? I'm not sure if that was ever an option given that a large part of the route is so close to main rail lines.
Ironically a chunk of the line near Edinburgh Park was once a guided busway! If you look at the satellite photo on Google Maps, head east from Edinburgh Park station towards Bankhead & Saughton tram stops & you'll see the guided buses using it and (I think) a section under construction.Having just spent a fortnight in Musselburgh marrying off my daughter I have to confess to loving the trams. Six trips to and from the airport, several shorter trips shopping at the Gyle and Hermiston Gate, all of them pushing a wheelchair, the trams were excellent. I also used the bus from the centre to Musselburgh and Seton Sands chav park every day, nowhere near so user friendly or convenient, despite the excellent helpful drivers. The self loading freight were often a nightmare, ignorance personified, and several times I was told "Sorry standing only, no room for the wheelchair, there'll be another Number 26 in 20 minutes"
Thank feck for the Ridacard Scheme, I saved sixty quid over the fortnight.
Thank feck for the Ridacard Scheme, I saved sixty quid over the fortnight.
Leithen said:
I've been using the thing on a regular basis outside rush hour times and it's usually standing only for sections of the route. So I'd say it is being well used - no sign of numbers dropping off, quite the opposite as the seats seem to be filling more quickly as times goes by.
Would it be better as a road solution rather than light rail? I'm not sure if that was ever an option given that a large part of the route is so close to main rail lines. I have to admit that I have a pet hate for buses. They are generally crude, uncomfortable and unpleasant to use. The trams are far more comfortable and relaxing. For the price they of course should be.
But given that we have what we have, it suits my needs nicely.
That's certainly not been my experience and given the figures I'd suggest it isn't the norm. Besides even if it was the fact remains that it is an incredibly limited system that cost far too much to implement. I'm sure for those who can make use of the trams they are great but the fact is it's a small percentage of the population and the monies could have been better spent.Would it be better as a road solution rather than light rail? I'm not sure if that was ever an option given that a large part of the route is so close to main rail lines. I have to admit that I have a pet hate for buses. They are generally crude, uncomfortable and unpleasant to use. The trams are far more comfortable and relaxing. For the price they of course should be.
But given that we have what we have, it suits my needs nicely.
Greedydog said:
That's certainly not been my experience and given the figures I'd suggest it isn't the norm. Besides even if it was the fact remains that it is an incredibly limited system that cost far too much to implement. I'm sure for those who can make use of the trams they are great but the fact is it's a small percentage of the population and the monies could have been better spent.
One can only recount one's own experiences - all anecdotal - but yesterday was as busy as ever. Getting on at Hermiston Gait, there were no seats at 10:30am. No doubt official figures will be released as time goes by.The cost will always be held against the system, and it's entirely right that those responsible for allowing it to cost so much be held accountable. But the service itself is fine IMO. With continued airport growth I see it being vital in relieving the glasgow road / costorphine congestion.
The big argument will come when the council inevitably pushes for extension of the system. The potential costs will surely prevent it.
As an aside, I'm not at all surprised by the cost problems. We have owned commercial city centre property for over 100 years in Edinburgh. Nobody has a clue what is happening under the surrounding streets. If there was one civil engineering project worth spending billions on over the next ten-twenty years it would be a victorian style effort to create accessible connected service conduits alongside modern drainage and sewerage service throughout the city.
The benefits would be huge with far reduced interruptions for service connections/renewals/repairs/upgrades and would allow street paving/surfacing to be maintained at a high standard rather than the disaster it is now.
Projects like the trams would cost a lot less too....
Seems the tram has a capacity for 78 seats. My anecdotal evidence from Saturday at around noon was that all these seats were taken at the airport and anybody else who got on had to stand.
So I'm guessing that, as a double decker also has about 78 seats, if the tramway was in fact an exclusive bus lane with twice as many buses running as trams... you'd have twice as much chance of a seat?
So I'm guessing that, as a double decker also has about 78 seats, if the tramway was in fact an exclusive bus lane with twice as many buses running as trams... you'd have twice as much chance of a seat?
REALIST123 said:
If it cost £1B to build, and 4,500,000 people are using it once each year, that works out to over £200 per trip. Even over 10 years, and assuming no running costs, it works out at over £20 per trip.
How can that be worth it?
I didn't think long about this, my maths might be off.
Well it probably has a longer life term than 10 years.How can that be worth it?
I didn't think long about this, my maths might be off.
And that ignores the positive economic impact effects, and cost avoidance of other investments.
Vaud said:
REALIST123 said:
If it cost £1B to build, and 4,500,000 people are using it once each year, that works out to over £200 per trip. Even over 10 years, and assuming no running costs, it works out at over £20 per trip.
How can that be worth it?
I didn't think long about this, my maths might be off.
Well it probably has a longer life term than 10 years.How can that be worth it?
I didn't think long about this, my maths might be off.
And that ignores the positive economic impact effects, and cost avoidance of other investments.
I very much doubt there is any economic case for the tram system, but please enlighten me as to the other economic impacts and the likely cost of a bus lane.
Anyway, I'm just glad my taxes didn't contribute. I hope.
Leithen said:
One can only recount one's own experiences - all anecdotal - but yesterday was as busy as ever. Getting on at Hermiston Gait, there were no seats at 10:30am. No doubt official figures will be released as time goes by.
The cost will always be held against the system, and it's entirely right that those responsible for allowing it to cost so much be held accountable. But the service itself is fine IMO. With continued airport growth I see it being vital in relieving the glasgow road / costorphine congestion.
The big argument will come when the council inevitably pushes for extension of the system. The potential costs will surely prevent it.
As an aside, I'm not at all surprised by the cost problems. We have owned commercial city centre property for over 100 years in Edinburgh. Nobody has a clue what is happening under the surrounding streets. If there was one civil engineering project worth spending billions on over the next ten-twenty years it would be a victorian style effort to create accessible connected service conduits alongside modern drainage and sewerage service throughout the city.
The benefits would be huge with far reduced interruptions for service connections/renewals/repairs/upgrades and would allow street paving/surfacing to be maintained at a high standard rather than the disaster it is now.
Projects like the trams would cost a lot less too....
Well said.The cost will always be held against the system, and it's entirely right that those responsible for allowing it to cost so much be held accountable. But the service itself is fine IMO. With continued airport growth I see it being vital in relieving the glasgow road / costorphine congestion.
The big argument will come when the council inevitably pushes for extension of the system. The potential costs will surely prevent it.
As an aside, I'm not at all surprised by the cost problems. We have owned commercial city centre property for over 100 years in Edinburgh. Nobody has a clue what is happening under the surrounding streets. If there was one civil engineering project worth spending billions on over the next ten-twenty years it would be a victorian style effort to create accessible connected service conduits alongside modern drainage and sewerage service throughout the city.
The benefits would be huge with far reduced interruptions for service connections/renewals/repairs/upgrades and would allow street paving/surfacing to be maintained at a high standard rather than the disaster it is now.
Projects like the trams would cost a lot less too....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff