Re: Scottish government withholds Edinburgh tram funding.
The Real Doctor
> What's your analysis as to how things will play out? (That is, as
> opposed to your opinion on what should happen - i.e. what do you think
> will actually happen?)
>
> SNP councillors voting in favour of a scheme that they'd thus far
> opposed would be interesting, to say the least.
It's difficult to say, really, because if you wanted to get /there/, you
wouldn't start from /here/.
Left to themselves, Edinburgh City Council are quite stupid enough to
leave things as they are, which is probably the worst solution.
My guess, though, is that the Holyrood SNP will realise that this makes
them look bad as well and the SNP group on the council will come off the
fence to vote through the line to St Andrew's Square, funded 50:50 by
the council and Holyrood.
Unfortunately I then predict that the costs will once more go through
the roof, and that well be here again in a year or eighteen months with
no trams and a bill for a billion and rising.
Ian
PS What I think /should/ happen is cancelling the whole damn project,
and as a second best compulsory purchase of the car park where the old
Haymarket train shed was for two new tram platforms, T1 and T2. Then in
due course we can get tram-trains à la Karlsruhe running from Waverley
to the airport.
Scott
I think there should be an open invitation to any organisation to bid
to complete the work at no cost to the public purse, in return for a
share of the profits.
The Real Doctor
> I think there should be an open invitation to any organisation to bid
> to complete the work at no cost to the public purse, in return for a
> share of the profits.
Before or after we hang the entire staff of TIE and every city
councillor from the Calton Hill temple (another aborted civic project)
and allow the public to use them as pinatas for a week or two?
Ian
Scott
No, put that job out to tender as well !
The Real Doctor
Nah - if you want a job done right, do it yourself.
Ian
tsha...@aol.com
> I think there should be an open invitation to any organisation to bid
> to complete the work at no cost to the public purse, in return for a
> share of the profits
What profits would these be?
--
gordon
Scott
That's a good question given the uncertainty over the figures.
My understanding was that the route to Haymarket could be completed
with present funding but would lose money. This seems to be the
Scottish Government's argument. The route to St Andrew Square would
involve borrowing an additional £230 million but would make a profit.
This is what was voted down by Edinburgh City Council. Therefore the
'extra mile' from Haymarket to St Andrew Square makes the difference
between loss and profit project. If all of that is true - and I know
it's a big if - then somebody might be able to complete the work in
return for a share of future profits.
tsha...@aol.com
> If all of that is true - and I know
> it's a big if - then somebody might be able to complete the work in
> return for a share of future profits.
I can't imagine any self-respecting organisation would want to touch
this lot with a 10ft disinfected trolley pole.
--
gordon
ian batten
>
> My understanding was that the route to Haymarket could be completed
> with present funding but would lose money. This seems to be the
> Scottish Government's argument. The route to St Andrew Square would
> involve borrowing an additional £230 million but would make a profit.
The scheme's immensely over budget and over schedule, and yet you're
willing to believe that nuanced calculations over ridership in
different scenarios might lead to profits? Who on earth would take
the risk, even for 100% of the profits, of a scheme in which a wheel
hasn't yet been turned and where completion is extremely risky?
Linking a small provincial airport to a small city, competing with
perfectly serviceable roads that already exist, is hardly the new US
transcontinental railway, is it?
ian
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>Can't we tie them to the tracks on Princes St, and watch them starve?
>
You've missed one of the general features of tramlines. You'll have to
use glue instead.
OTOH I see there is still a mercat cross on the Royal Mile. All you
need now is a bag of nails and suitably-attached piece of wood :-
http://www.edinburghseasons.com/2009-06-13/the-edinburgh-mercat-cross/
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>
>The entity calling itself Charles Ellson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:32:37 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Can't we tie them to the tracks on Princes St, and watch them starve?
>>
>> You've missed one of the general features of tramlines.
>
>Being flush? Not the way they've been installed on Princes St - the road
>tar surrounding the rails has broken up.
>
>This is one of the more peculiar things about the abandonment of the
>Haymarket to St Andrews Sq stretch - they will still need to repair, at
>some expense, the rails in Princes St, even thoug they will not be used.
>
>> OTOH I see there is still a mercat cross on the Royal Mile. All you
>> need now is a bag of nails and suitably-attached piece of wood :-
>> http://www.edinburghseasons.com/2009-06-13/the-edinburgh-mercat-cross/
>
>It's also, conveniently, over the road from the City Chambers.
>
So, we can avoid further disrupting the buses ? ;-)
Windmill
>>Can't we tie them to the tracks on Princes St, and watch them starve?
>>
>You've missed one of the general features of tramlines. You'll have to
>use glue instead.
>OTOH I see there is still a mercat cross on the Royal Mile. All you
>need now is a bag of nails and suitably-attached piece of wood :-
>http://www.edinburghseasons.com/2009-06-13/the-edinburgh-mercat-cross/
Ah. Mercat forces!
--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
Til...@Nonetel.com @ O n e t e l dot c o m
J.R.R. Tolkien: All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost
Tim Bradshaw
> The route to St Andrew Square would
> involve borrowing an additional �230 million but would make a profit.
Would it make a profit *including the cost of repaying that �230
million*? What about if we assume it's actually double that cost?
tsha...@aol.com
wrote:
> Ah. Mercat forces!
Perhaps they need to try Meerkat forces.
Seeemples.
--
gordon
tim....
"Scott" <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3slq57d27h8937dmg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT), "tsha...@aol.com"
> <tsha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 30, 9:51 pm, Scott <newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I think there should be an open invitation to any organisation to bid
>>> to complete the work at no cost to the public purse, in return for a
>>> share of the profits
>>
>>What profits would these be?
>
> That's a good question given the uncertainty over the figures.
>
> My understanding was that the route to Haymarket could be completed
> with present funding but would lose money. This seems to be the
> Scottish Government's argument. The route to St Andrew Square would
> involve borrowing an additional £230 million but would make a profit.
In suspects that means:
operating loss
and
operating profit.
It won't return that extra 230 mil spend
tim
Scott
I have tried to present a reasoned argument. If you are not willing
to do likewise, perhaps you should consider just reading what others
have to say rather than making postings that add nothing to the
debate.
Scott
I think you have misunderstood my post (not helped by your selective
quoting). It usually helps to read the whole post and not just the
first half.
What I actually said was that the figures were uncertain (I used the
word 'if' twice) and suggested an open tender. The purpose was to
allow others to look at the figures and reach their own conclusions.
Charles Ellson
So, ears nailed to the mercat cross and meerkat food applied to a
suitable area of the offenders body ?
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
Conveniently, the 'Market' bar at Haymarket has hung a canvas banner across
their frontage advertising themselves as the 'Meerkat Bar Simples!'.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".
tsha...@aol.com
> I have tried to present a reasoned argument. If you are not willing
> to do likewise, perhaps you should consider just reading what others
> have to say rather than making postings that add nothing to the
> debate.
Ooops I seem to have trodden on somebody's corns. Ironically my
Meerkat thread drift seems to be generating as much interest as your
notion of the Edinburgh tram system being likely to turn a profit :-)
--
gordon
Neill
of this. A few disconnected pieces of infrastructure and track, the
section along Princes Street which will have to be relaid if it was
ever to carry trams. Add to that the disruption while the roads were
being dug up for services to be relocated and any pending disruption
when they are dug up again for tracks to be laid. What was once an
attractive looking system from the airport to the centre with
connections in phases to the outskirts, is now a vastly truncated
mess, that will serve no real purpose other than to dump airport
passengers far short of their desired destination in most instances.
The airport bus does that job excellently already and actually does go
into the city centre.
The point about the airport being a small regional one is true. I
wonder whether it would have been better to start from the other end
and run in from Leith, terminating in the centre, with a connection to
the airport at a later date. Then you have a reason for the system,
one serving a potential regeneration area as its prime objective,
rather than catering for the relatively small pickings from the
airport.
Neill
Graeme Wall
> The point about the airport being a small regional one is true. I
> wonder whether it would have been better to start from the other end
> and run in from Leith, terminating in the centre, with a connection to
> the airport at a later date. Then you have a reason for the system,
> one serving a potential regeneration area as its prime objective,
> rather than catering for the relatively small pickings from the
> airport.
Problem with that is that potential regeneration areas don't always
happen. See the Sheffield Supertram and the Cambridge Misguided bus for
examples. At least the airport actually exists.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Tim Bradshaw
> The point about the airport being a small regional one is true. I
> wonder whether it would have been better to start from the other end
> and run in from Leith, terminating in the centre, with a connection to
> the airport at a later date. Then you have a reason for the system,
> one serving a potential regeneration area as its prime objective,
> rather than catering for the relatively small pickings from the
> airport.
It would indeed have been better, and they spent years fucking up Leith
walk for this. Unfortunately the depot (which seems to be the size of
a small city itself) is out near the airport, so they cant do this,
even if they wanted to.
Bruce
>
>You have to wonder exactly what the people of Edinburgh have got out
>of this. A few disconnected pieces of infrastructure and track, the
>section along Princes Street which will have to be relaid if it was
>ever to carry trams. Add to that the disruption while the roads were
>being dug up for services to be relocated and any pending disruption
>when they are dug up again for tracks to be laid. What was once an
>attractive looking system from the airport to the centre with
>connections in phases to the outskirts, is now a vastly truncated
>mess, that will serve no real purpose other than to dump airport
>passengers far short of their desired destination in most instances.
Until now, the people of Edinburgh (and their politicians) were happy
to ignore the tram project because it wasn't going to cost them a
penny.
Now watch them (and their politicians) howling with displeasure
because there is a possibility that they might be asked to pay
something towards the cost!
Richard Tobin
Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Until now, the people of Edinburgh (and their politicians) were happy
>to ignore the tram project
You just make it up, don't you.
-- Richard
Neil Williams
> Problem with that is that potential regeneration areas don't always
> happen. See the Sheffield Supertram and the Cambridge Misguided bus for
> examples.
The misguided bus certainly seems to be attracting passengers in, if a
quick ride last Sunday was anything to go by. I overheard a number of
positive comments.
The whole thing had somewhat of the feel of a rural branch line with
one of those curious double-deck Pacer-a-likes DB had for a while on
it.
Yes, building it was a fiasco, but I'm less "unconvinced" by it than I
was.
Neil
ian batten
> You're simply wrong on this. The council is, and was paying, for it
> (albeit there was a sizeable amount coming from the Scottish
> government). The problems really arose as the original plan was for
> funding to come from a congestion charge.
I've never understood the "congestion charge to pay for public
transport" concept. It seems to relay on the basic premise failing.
If public transport succeeds in the objective of tempting people out
of their cars, the extra revenue stream to pay for the capacity dries
up and all you're left with is the farebox and direct subsidy, both of
which you had to start with. If, of course, you don't succeed in
tempting people out of their cars you have lots of lovely money to
play with, but because the congestion hasn't been improved people will
start to rumble and ask why they're paying a tax for things to remain
precisely as they are.
ian
Andy Breen
> On Sep 1, 3:22 pm, Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Problem with that is that potential regeneration areas don't always
>> happen. See the Sheffield Supertram and the Cambridge Misguided bus
>> for examples.
>
> The misguided bus certainly seems to be attracting passengers in, if a
> quick ride last Sunday was anything to go by. I overheard a number of
> positive comments.
Got a couple of friends in Cambridge. They're using it a good deal, and
seem delighted with it. "Brilliant" was, I think, the considered opinion
after the first couple of trips..
--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself
Tim Bradshaw
> Until now, the people of Edinburgh (and their politicians) were happy
> to ignore the tram project because it wasn't going to cost them a
> penny.
That's just not true. I don't know who pays, but people in Edinburgh
have been vocally unhappy about this for a long time (years).
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>Not only that, but the entire scheme initiated by the City of Edinburgh
>Council, and was (incompetently) run by TIE ltd, a company wholy owned
>by ... the City of Edinburgh Council.
>
That will be the council of the "largest English town in Scotland" ?
Graeme Wall
> On Sep 1, 3:22 pm, Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Problem with that is that potential regeneration areas don't always
>> happen. See the Sheffield Supertram and the Cambridge Misguided bus for
>> examples.
>
> The misguided bus certainly seems to be attracting passengers in, if a
> quick ride last Sunday was anything to go by. I overheard a number of
> positive comments.
>
Possibly so, but the major development that it was supposed to serve,
and its principal raison d'etre, isn't likely to happen in the
foreseeable future.
Scott
If you read back you will see it is not 'my notion'. I was commenting
of Edinburgh City Council's figures. However, you are obviously not
capable of following a reasoned argument so stick with Meerkat though
WTF it has to do with uk railways I don't know.
The Real Doctor
> The point about the airport being a small regional one is true. I
> wonder whether it would have been better to start from the other end
> and run in from Leith, terminating in the centre, with a connection to
> the airport at a later date.
There was never any point in running to the airport. Remember that when
the tram system was first proposed we were also supposed to get EARL,
the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, which at that stage made the idea of
building a tramline there even more fatuous.
The reason the trams head west is to serve the RBS headquarters - you
may not believe this, children, but there was a time when every
politician going was desperately sucking up to the RBS in the hope that
they'd pay for, well, everything really.
Ian
The Real Doctor
> Until now, the people of Edinburgh (and their politicians) were happy
> to ignore the tram project because it wasn't going to cost them a
> penny.
Rubbish.
Ian
The Real Doctor
> My understanding was that the route to Haymarket could be completed
> with present funding but would lose money. This seems to be the
> Scottish Government's argument. The route to St Andrew Square would
Which is interesting, isn't it, as most of the diversion works have been
done and a quarter of the track laid. £230m, let us not forget, is more
than the entire Nottingham tram system cost.
Ian
The Real Doctor
> What about if we assume it's actually double that cost?
You reckon there's a chance it'll come in that cheap? You starry-eyed
idealist, you.
Ian
Scott
I think somebody said £100,000 per metre!
That was why I suggested inviting bids to see what could be done.
However, the latest seems to be that Edinburgh City Council is to
discuss this again tomorrow (due to a material change of
circumstances) with the SNP group apparently supporting the LibDems
instead of abstaining.
This is the same SNP that AIUI opposed the project at the start,
pledged no more Scottish government money, abstained at the Council
meeting allowing the opposition parties to vote to stop at Haymarket,
threatened to withhold the rest of the Scottish government funding
unless the route continued to St Andrew Square and are now expected to
vote to continue the route to St Andrew Square !!!
Charles Ellson
That is the difference between something that only existed on paper
and something that is now a major loss-cutting exercise.
Mike Dickson
>
> The entity calling itself Neill wrote:
>>
>> What was once an attractive looking system from the airport to the
>> centre with connections in phases to the outskirts,
>
> airport. It was scaled back in phases, first terminating in Newhaven,
> then Leith, then St Andrew Sq, and finally, Haymarket.
There was a point where it was even going to be ending up at Newbridge.
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
Mike Dickson
> Until now, the people of Edinburgh (and their politicians) were happy
> to ignore the tram project because it wasn't going to cost them a
> penny.
Bruce, if you are going to be posting garbage like this then I suggest
you stop drinking, or at least don't do it before you post anything here.
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
charles
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> THat was part of the proposed third phase (the second being completing a
> loop from Haymarket to Granton, via Crewe Toll. These wilder shores of
> lunacy were never part of the funded scheme plans
while it might vaguely sound like lunacy, it would have been on the old
suburban railway track which already exists. Most other tramways have made
use of abandoned rail routes.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
The Real Doctor
> That was why I suggested inviting bids to see what could be done.
> However, the latest seems to be that Edinburgh City Council is to
> discuss this again tomorrow (due to a material change of
> circumstances) with the SNP group apparently supporting the LibDems
> instead of abstaining.
According to the Scotsman today their cunning plan is to make Lothian
Buses buy the trams and lease them back as well as covering the
operating losses. Great. They're going to sink Britain's best bus
service as well as bankrupting the city.
Ian
1506
> In article <87k49rpeix....@news2.kororaa.com>,
would have been to:
1. Buid a station box under Princess Street at the Southern end of the
old Scotland Street Tunnel (The heavy investment part).
2. Refurbish the tunnel and the trackbeds leading onwards to the
Northern side of the City.
3. Utilize street running as required in Leith, et al.
OTOH The best way (least expensive) to reach the airport would be Tram
Trains from Waverley, branching off to reach the Airport terminal
buildings.
No wonder Edinburgh Council Tax is so high the way the local
government like to do things.
charles
<aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> Which "old suburban railway track"? I'm unaware of on on that route.
Haymarket, Roseburn , Craigleith (where the line split to go to Barnton),
Granton Road, Newhaven. Currently shown on my Edinbugh Street Atlas as
"Cycle Path". I used to use it in the 40s/50s, it was freight only by 1959
when I was working at Bruce Peebles (2 wagons of coal a day were
delivered). It's pretty obvious on Google Earth.
Bruce
Perhaps most Scotsmen posting here are drunk, but I'm never drunk.
Most Scotsmen, wherever they happen to live, appear to be permanently
drunk. Perhaps there is some kind of national obligation to drink the
country's best known liquid export?
Anyway, please don't judge me by your rock-bottom Scottish standards;
I stand by what I wrote.
charles
<aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> Except Tie's, admitedly vague, maps showed the Newbridge extension
> springing from the airport/depot branch, which is nowhere near Newhaven.
I wasn't referring to the Newbridge extension but to the one you called teh
second phase Haymarket to Granton. There was even muttering, in the press,
about the removal of the cycle route. BTW, the line did run to Granton -
as an alternative to Newhaven - but it was freight only in the 40s. It
separated from the Newhaven line at Crewe Juction (beside Crewe Toll).
have a look in "Rail Centres No 15 Edinburgh" by Booklaw Publications ISBN
1-901945-25-1
The Real Doctor
>
> The entity calling itself Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/2011 14:39, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until now, the people of Edinburgh (and their politicians) were happy
>>>> to ignore the tram project because it wasn't going to cost them a
>>>> penny.
>>
>
Why "either ... or ..."?
Tony Polson's been screaming in this hysterical way about Scots and
Scotland for years. You will be unsurprised to learn that he also claims
that many of his best friends are Scots. Mind you, he also claims to
have run several open cast mines, worked in every nuclear power station
in Britain, run shops in Preston and Yorkshire, written Labour's 1997
manifesto and taken cover photographs for Vogue.
Ian
Bruce
>
>The entity calling itself charles wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't referring to the Newbridge extension but to the one you
>> called teh second phase Haymarket to Granton.
>
>Ah. I didn't think that phase (TIE called it 1b) was lunacy - there are
>people living along that route, unlike the 1a route from Haymarket to
>thr airport, through a golf course an industrial estate, and a business
>park...
Of course workers at an industrial estate or a business park offer no
demand for public transport ...
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> Of course workers at an industrial estate or a business park offer no
> demand for public transport ...
It depends partly on the number of stops the tram would make. Not all that
many workers want to walk miles across a huge business park to get to a tram
stop, if bus stops are much more easily accessed.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".
charles
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> The entity calling itself charles wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't referring to the Newbridge extension but to the one you
> > called teh second phase Haymarket to Granton.
> Ah. I didn't think that phase (TIE called it 1b) was lunacy - there are
> people living along that route, unlike the 1a route from Haymarket to
> thr airport, through a golf course an industrial estate, and a business
> park...
round the edge of Carrisk Knowe was again an old suburban railway line
Corstorphine to North Berwick.
Mark Robinson
> Perhaps there is some kind of national obligation to drink the
> country's best known liquid export?
The Scots drink oil??
Cheers
mark-r
Richard Tobin
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>How does that work, then? As Lothian Buses is 90% owned by the City
>Council (the rest being East and Mid Lothian), any losses will still end
>up with the Cooncil.
But they will be able to increase bus prices to cover part of the cost.
-- Richard
Tim Bradshaw
> But they will be able to increase bus prices to cover part of the cost.
Also, if Lothian Buses is a limited company, it can go bankrupt, and
the owners's losses are limited to their shares becoming valueless,
which limits their losses, conveniently.
The Real Doctor
> Brilliant wheeze - we could end up with no buses, and an abandoned
> billion pound tram line that never went anywhere useful. That's a
> sure-fire election winner!
The next election campaign will be fun - but I confidently predict that
the same bunch of numpties will, by and large, be re-elected.
Ian
The Real Doctor
> cadidates. It's not as if we're short of smart, practical people in
> Edinburgh; we're only short of them in the city chambers.
Marchmont keeps re-electing Marilyne MacLaren. If that can happen in the
educated university ghetto area, how much are intelligence and
independence going to matter elsewhere?
Ian
Murff
> I hope the citizenry will rise up and field inteligent independent
> cadidates. It's not as if we're short of smart, practical people in
> Edinburgh; we're only short of them in the city chambers.
So: are these high altitude pigs, or low ?
Murff...
Tim Bradshaw
> Brilliant wheeze - we could end up with no buses, and an abandoned
> billion pound tram line that never went anywhere useful. That's a
> sure-fire election winner!
No, we'd have busses: someone would buy the (profitable, I guess) bit
of LRT that ran the busses out of bankruptcy.
In my consipracy-thriller version of the world, this will be one or
more councillors, and the whole scheme will turn out to have been a
scam to hand ownership of the bus company, and the reulting imcome to
them.
Neill
> In article <87sjofnxoa....@news2.kororaa.com>,
Apparently they've now reversed the decision and the trams will run to
St. Andrews Square again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14751711
By 2014 apparently. I won't hold my breath. Obviously the bunch down
at Holyrood witholding all that funding had the desired effect.
Neill
Sam Wilson
<c7d18d61-4867-4a3f...@fi7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
ian batten <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2:49 pm, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
> > You're simply wrong on this. The council is, and was paying, for it
> > (albeit there was a sizeable amount coming from the Scottish
> > government). The problems really arose as the original plan was for
> > funding to come from a congestion charge.
>
> I've never understood the "congestion charge to pay for public
> transport" concept. It seems to relay on the basic premise failing.
> If public transport succeeds in the objective of tempting people out
> of their cars, the extra revenue stream to pay for the capacity dries
> up and all you're left with is the farebox and direct subsidy, both of
> which you had to start with. ...
The initially high income from the congestion charge pays for the
startup costs of the PT provision. The, hopefully lower, PT running
costs are paid by fares, subsidy and the rump of the congestion charge.
Makes sense to me.
Sam
Sam Wilson
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk>
wrote:
> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course workers at an industrial estate or a business park offer no
> > demand for public transport ...
>
> It depends partly on the number of stops the tram would make. Not all that
> many workers want to walk miles across a huge business park to get to a tram
> stop, if bus stops are much more easily accessed.
Can you say integrated ticketing? No? Neither can Lothian buses.
Sam
Sam Wilson
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
But it uses hardly any of that route. West from Balgreen Road (the
Jenner's Depositary) it runs parallel to the main railway line rather
than branching off to Corstorphine.
Sam
Jack Campin
> need now is a bag of nails and suitably-attached piece of wood :-
> http://www.edinburghseasons.com/2009-06-13/the-edinburgh-mercat-cross/
They got that wrong. Being nailed by the lug to the Tron was for
forgers, not criminals in general.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> West from Balgreen Road (the Jenner's Depositary) ...
You mean 'Repository'. ;-)
Sam Wilson
> Sam Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > West from Balgreen Road (the Jenner's Depositary) ...
>
> You mean 'Repository'. ;-)
Yes, of course I do. Actually I was wrong about the apostrophe.
Sam
ian batten
> The initially high income from the congestion charge pays for the
> startup costs of the PT provision. The, hopefully lower, PT running
> costs are paid by fares, subsidy and the rump of the congestion charge.
>
One tramline between a small city centre and a small airport costs a
billion quid. The congestion charge scheme for London, a city ten
times the size of Edinburgh, takes in a about a quarter of a billion.
If every penny of the congestion charge went to the traim, and that
"initially high income" persists for forty years, and you can borrow
money free, you can buy the tram line.
ian
The Real Doctor
> By 2014 apparently. I won't hold my breath. Obviously the bunch down
> at Holyrood witholding all that funding had the desired effect.
Yeah - the SNP-in-Holyrood plan to sit smugly on their hands and blame
everyone else didn't look so smart when it was clear that they and the
SNP-in-City-Chambers were going to share the popular derision.
Ian
The Real Doctor
The congestion charge in Edinburgh was an insanely stupid plan to tax
everybody crossing the city boundary (effectively). Hardly any roads in
Edinburgh have any significant congestion, and those that do are only
clogged for an hour or so per day, so the populace instantly worked out
that this was simply a scheme to grab more money for the incompetent
prats who run the City and told them where to stick it.
Ian
Scott
wrote:
>
>The entity calling itself Neill wrote:
>>
>> Apparently they've now reversed the decision and the trams will run to
>> St. Andrews Square again.
>
>That's St. Andrew Square.
Actually 'Saint Andrew Square' on the road sign.
Sam Wilson
<75d6de74-4d34-4b9b...@33g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
ian batten <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
Sorry, I didn't make clear that I was not supporting the proposal, nor
had I done the sums, just saying that the basic principle made sense to
me.
Sam
Sam Wilson
The Real Doctor <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The congestion charge in Edinburgh was an insanely stupid plan to tax
> everybody crossing the city boundary (effectively). Hardly any roads in
> Edinburgh have any significant congestion, and those that do are only
> clogged for an hour or so per day, so the populace instantly worked out
> that this was simply a scheme to grab more money for the incompetent
> prats who run the City and told them where to stick it.
Have a look at the list in [1]. No, I don't know what it means, but by
some measure at least Edinburgh counts as pretty congested. That
doesn't make the proposed congestion charge sensible, of course.
Sam
<http://www.inautonews.com/brussels-the-most-congested-city-uk-most-conge
sted-country>
ian batten
> In article
> <75d6de74-4d34-4b9b-ac0d-989b57714...@33g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Most financial schemes make sense until you do the sums. The problem
is that capital required to do major civil engineering in cities to
significantly enhance public transport provision is order of magnitude
more than then plausible annual take, and in most cases the interest
on that capital (unless you do it on the PSBR guaranteed by central
government) is more than the revenue from the congestion scheme. So
you're either gambling on your projects being ineffective for decades
in order for the congestion charge scheme to pay for them, or the
projects being able to generate enough revenue themselves to repay
their own capital costs, or the magic money tree providing the money.
So in Edinburgh, the question is "can a congestion charge raise enough
money to fund a billion pound project?" That means, to pay for the
project over thirty years, pulling in perhaps forty million a year, or
about a sixth the revenue from the London scheme. Or in London,
Crossrail is 16bn, the congestion charge is 250m per annum, you do the
sums.
ian
The Real Doctor
> Have a look at the list in [1]. No, I don't know what it means, but by
> some measure at least Edinburgh counts as pretty congested. That
> doesn't make the proposed congestion charge sensible, of course.
The bit I know is Morningside/Bruntsfield down to the West End. Yes, it
gets pretty blocked up from about 8.30 - 9.00 every weekday morning, but
by 9.15 there's tumbleweed blowing down Bruntsfield Place again.
Likewise at the West End - bad for half an hour morning and evening,
otherwise completely free running.
Except for the fucking tram works, of course. Ah-ha. So that's their plan.
Ian
Mike Dickson
>> Bruce, if you are going to be posting garbage like this then I suggest
>> you stop drinking, or at least don't do it before you post anything here.
>
> Perhaps most Scotsmen posting here are drunk, but I'm never drunk.
So what are you shooting into your eyeballs, then?
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
Mike Dickson
> The entity calling itself Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I stand by what I wrote.
>
> Then you are either ignorant, or an idiot.
You can be both, you know.
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
Robert Sneddon
<Sam.Wilson-EB326...@news.eternal-september.org>, Sam
Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>Have a look at the list in [1]. No, I don't know what it means, but by
>some measure at least Edinburgh counts as pretty congested. That
>doesn't make the proposed congestion charge sensible, of course.
The first time I ever saw gridlock reported in Edinburgh city centre it
was caused by diversions and roads being closed around Princes Street to
allow for the start of tramworks construction.
I live near the Haymarket junction which is about to be dug up again
for six months over winter according to the leaflet put through our
letterbox a month ago. Traffic is getting rerouted through residential
streets and buses diverted up past schools and hotels to get around the
planned holes in the road presumably for more utilities diversion work.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Richard Tobin
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>> West from Balgreen Road (the Jenner's Depositary) ...
>
>You mean 'Repository'. ;-)
See how the mighty are fallen:
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>Which quite generous of them, as it was clearly aimed at taking money
>from the residents of East, Mid and West Lothian who had the misfortune
>of working in Edinburgh.
And anyone living in Edinburgh who wanted to visit elsewhere.
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
>Also, if Lothian Buses is a limited company, it can go bankrupt, and
>the owners's losses are limited to their shares becoming valueless,
>which limits their losses, conveniently.
An excellent plan, but let's do it with some company other than LRT.
-- Richard
Charles Ellson
wrote:
If they can't then I'm sure their majority shareholder can.