Edinburgh tram fiasco gets even worse!

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.

on the defense spending remember the time frames and complexity. If the project is large then the requirements will change over time and that's what the defense industry depends on. The IE bombs for example have changed the requirements for many vehicles. The defense industry quotes a low even loss making price at the start of the contract in order to get approval. Once the contract is in place and the changes come in there is very little room for negotiation. The American Air tanker is a classic, its been something like 20 years getting the contract in place.

Cheerio John

I can understand John that with large defense projects that new developments can come about very quickly and therefore changes to the initial specs for any procurement can have to be revised during production.

However, here in the UK to quote just one procurement, six new Chinook helicopters where ordered with specialized radar equipment installed. The problem is that they were delivered six years ago and have never flown a single mile because the specialized radar equipment simply does not work.

Well, I think like me the average British taxpayer would believe that you could just take out the unusable radar and put them into normal service with the RAF or Army. Answer, no.

Apparently the specialized equipment required a totally different wiring loom for the whole aircraft and therefore to re-equip the helicopters with a normal loom would cost more than it would cost to buy new aircraft. Therefore 14 new Chinook helicopters have just been ordered at the capitalization of hundreds of millions to the taxpayer while the six specialized aircraft remained sitting on the ground properly to be scrapped.

However, like the Edinburgh and Bristol tram systems, has anybody been brought to account for the hundreds of millions lost to the taxpayer, NO. Everyone working in private industry realizes that action would be taken against those responsible in any shareholder or privately owned company in the UK and it should be the case in local council or government bodies.

Again, that is why I believe projects such as the Edinburgh and Bristol rail projects should be totally handled through private companies with their finances based on commercial capitalization together with both commercial risks and returns. only if it can be shown that any financial problems are incurred through public bodies not having carried out their part correctly should any public money be given to those private companies.

In the above those responsible in the councils or central government (or those advising elected representatives) for the failures should be held to account and disciplinary action taken as it would in any private company.

That's How It Should Be
Bill

 

[paulzmay]

Hi Everybody.


I can understand John that with large defense projects that new developments can come about very quickly and therefore changes to the initial specs for any procurement can have to be revised during production.

However, here in the UK to quote just one procurement, six new Chinook helicopters where ordered with specialized radar equipment installed. The problem is that they were delivered six years ago and have never flown a single mile because the specialized radar equipment simply does not work.

Well, I think like me the average British taxpayer would believe that you could just take out the unusable radar and put them into normal service with the RAF or Army. Answer, no.

Apparently the specialized equipment required a totally different wiring loom for the whole aircraft and therefore to re-equip the helicopters with a normal loom would cost more than it would cost to buy new aircraft. Therefore 14 new Chinook helicopters have just been ordered at the capitalization of hundreds of millions to the taxpayer while the six specialized aircraft remained sitting on the ground properly to be scrapped.

However, like the Edinburgh and Bristol tram systems, has anybody been brought to account for the hundreds of millions lost to the taxpayer, NO. Everyone working in private industry realizes that action would be taken against those responsible in any shareholder or privately owned company in the UK and it should be the case in local council or government bodies.

Again, that is why I believe projects such as the Edinburgh and Bristol rail projects should be totally handled through private companies with their finances based on commercial capitalization together with both commercial risks and returns. only if it can be shown that any financial problems are incurred through public bodies not having carried out their part correctly should any public money be given to those private companies.

In the above those responsible in the councils or central government (or those advising elected representatives) for the failures should be held to account and disciplinary action taken as it would in any private company.

That's How It Should Be
Bill

The problem with the 100% private finance and build option is the NOTHING would EVER get built. Infrastructure projects simply have too long a payback (if they ever payback at all) for any private company to get involved, which is where these Public/Private partnerships come in. Unfortunately, they are typically expensive for the taxpayer, and the transfer of risk to the private sector simply doesn't happen in a meaningful way, leaving the taxpayer exposed to the cost of both partners cock-ups. I believe that the uneven nature of these deals has the potential to make things worse when things do go wrong.

I don't know the detail of what went wrong in this case, so it's hard to see what pitfalls the Edinburgh management fell into that the other UK systems have avoided. I read that utility relocation was a problem - as it's a major cost, poor management in this area (or utilities with incomplete records) could cause both cost blow-outs and knock-on delays. Of course, the council people would probably not have had much experience in this kind of project, so they would have struggled to keep the private contractors in line when they hit problems.

Of course, you could make the argument that anything that doesn't pay its way isn't worthy of funding, but this is a pretty extreme point of view by European standards (anywhere outside the US Republican Party, really). The point is that such infrastructure benefits many people and businesses in a way that doesn't get reflected in the fare-box revenue. You can't discount or ignore the benefit that infrastructure brings, but a purely private sector project can't make a business case on it either. And in some areas (defence procurement perhaps) there really is no alternative to government managing such projects.

I'm all for accountability, but I can't see that a 100% private sector model is practical, and I'm concerned that the hybrid models often used now can give the worst of both worlds.

Paul

 

[pfx]

Reading the news today, it now looks like the tramline is going to make it to St Andrew Square. It's a bit better but still a joke of a tram system. I always thought of the LUAS in Dublin to be a bit basic at 2 lines but this takes the biscuit. Not that I'm slagging the LUAS, it's a really quick way to get around a veritable traffic nightmare.

 

[NikkiA]

Of course, you could make the argument that anything that doesn't pay its way isn't worthy of funding, but this is a pretty extreme point of view by European standards (anywhere outside the US Republican Party, really).

Just to add, I believe that looking at the US as any kind of model for transit industry - other than as a 'model of complete failure' - would be a horribly bad idea.

Some things are invariably better done without direct regard for profit, transit and telecomms infrastructure are the biggest examples.

(And for anyone that thinks the US model of 'let the automobile dominate' is a viable and good solution to transit, come tell me that in 10 years when you can't afford petroleum based products)

 

[pfx]

Just to add, I believe that looking at the US as any kind of model for transit industry - other than as a 'model of complete failure' - would be a horribly bad idea.

Whooooaaaaaaah! I hope you have your rhino coat on today... ; )

 

[johnwhelan]

In the above those responsible in the councils or central government (or those advising elected representatives) for the failures should be held to account and disciplinary action taken as it would in any private company.

That's How It Should Be
Bill

Did you vote in the last election?

Cheerio John

 

[paulzmay]

Just to add, I believe that looking at the US as any kind of model for transit industry - other than as a 'model of complete failure' - would be a horribly bad idea.

Some things are invariably better done without direct regard for profit, transit and telecomms infrastructure are the biggest examples.

(And for anyone that thinks the US model of 'let the automobile dominate' is a viable and good solution to transit, come tell me that in 10 years when you can't afford petroleum based products)

A little bit unfair, as some American cities are doing quite well on public transport. Admittedly, many struggle to reach abysmal.

Paul

 

[NikkiA]

A little bit unfair, as some American cities are doing quite well on public transport. Admittedly, many struggle to reach abysmal.

Paul

Even then, it's usually a case of '... when compared to.'.

Everyone rants about how the NYC public transport is great, but get any further out than the Tapan Zee bridge and you're SOL for a 'sane' commute without a car.

About the only time I ever encountered any decent public transport in the US, was the very narrow corridor where Caltrain ran between San Francisco and San Jose. Even there, whenever I wanted to visit my doctor - a 3 mile journey - the bus route took 45 minutes, and that was a route specifically serving the hospital complex where my doctor had his office.

(I'd have cycled, as I did everywhere I went in the bay area, but my doctor would never accept 'I've just biked 3 miles in 10 minutes' as an excuse for why my blood pressure was elevated, even after I pointed out 'Because I didn't bike it, this time' the first time I took the bus, and he commented on how 'hey, that's a great improvement on last time')

 

[rjhowie]

I think pfx hits the nail on the head describing the thing as a joke. When you consider the original trumpeted plans not just west and city centre but east and south, Instead this pathetic rump even into St Andrew's Square. Machester has what is it, 3 lines? The plan is to have 6 and even that in years to come might be even further extension.

When they built the red and green tram routes in Dublin they had them as two quite distinct lines and un-connnected then later seen joining them made more sense. However they still did a sussccessful system. Much the same can be said for the other tramways introduced in England. The four political parties in Edinburgh should be heartily ashamed of themselves becuase along the way they have all contributed withut exception to this fiasco. Monumental stupidity, poor control and planning never mind ignorance. No small wonder some at the top of the tramway jumped ship. I still think they should have made further enquiries about the alternnative offer to produce a tramway at less cost but Edinburgh couldn't organise a raffle never mind a tramway.

The bets for Friday are that the line will go to the city centre.

 

[rjhowie]

NikkiA. It takes 45 minutes for a bus to do 3 miles?

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody

Did you vote in the last election?

Cheerio John

In answer to your question John, yes I did vote in the last election and have done so in every election since 1963 be that government, counsel, local district or parish. Contrary to what some forum members may think I am no right wing supporter by any stretch of the imagination.

As I stated earlier in this thread I left school at the age of 15 in 1960 with no qualifications whatsoever. I joined a trade union in 1964 and continued my education in maths and English through that union’s education facility. On becoming a heavy goods driver in 1967 I was elected as trade union shop steward at the large distribution centre. I remained in that position until 1983 and took a very active part in the national road haulage strike in 1979 which continued for five weeks before our solidarity won the day.

In 1983 I was elected health and safety representative for a very large distribution centre near Bristol and went on again through trade union education to obtain an NVQ4 occupational health and safety qualification. I was then appointed by my employer as health and safety officer over six distribution centers in the Southwest region. I then continued on through various posts to become the senior accident/incident investigator for the company in 1994.

I decided to take early retirement in 2007 but was asked by my employer to continue my investigation role on an independent basis. Since then several other companies within the UK road transport industry have requested I undertake similar roles for their organizations and thereby I formed my own company.

I think most people would agree that is hardly the background for any right-wing thinking. However traveling the country I often find myself amongst manual workers in the British road transport industry who work 10, 12 hours a day, and with heavy goods drivers this can regularly be 15 hours per day. These workers earn between 20 to 35,000 pounds (British sterling) per year for all their long hours of work. However they see one third of their wages taken from them in tax and national insurance before the remainder is placed in their bank accounts by their employers.

The foregoing is why I get so annoyed when you see central government and local councils wasting millions of pounds of those workers hard earned tax on showpiece projects such as the Edinburgh and Bristol tramway systems with no one being held to account for the miss-appropriate and downright thoughtless spending. It is easy to spend money when it has come to you easily and it is not your own. That is not right wing thinking that is left-wing thinking.

That money wasted on those tramway systems could have brought a better living standard to thousands of ordinary workers throughout the UK had the money been retained by them. Therefore let our public servants look at how we can make better use of our roads in the city centers through use of bus lanes etc from existing railway stations rather than the overpriced overvalued showpiece projects that even when they are built rarely match up to the expensive promises made for them.

Bill

 

[NikkiA]

NikkiA. It takes 45 minutes for a bus to do 3 miles?

It surprised me, but yes, in this particular case, it took 45 minutes for 3 miles.

I can understand why, too, due to the lack of experience with mass transit, the american mind that had planned the transit system had approached the problem backwards. They had clearly decided that they needed a bus to service the hospital, and then started with 'well, we'll start here, then travel towards the city center, oh, but then we need to go down this street for the post office, since old people go to the post office a lot, and they need the hospital.... hmmm, but we also need the train station 2 streets across, so wind around that way, oh, we're near the city center again, well, never mind, wind around that way, go via the cinema, oh, and people might want to go to hospital after buying fruit, so better stop at the fruit market, oh, and the supermarket here...'

In the end, rather than having routes that converged on a set of interchange stops, then diverge back to their targets, they had a bus route that had to pick up every conceivable person trying to get to the hospital, since 'it's the only bus route to the hospital' (2 buses, '1 an hour', with a 15 minute layover for the driver at the hospital end)

I just tried looking up the route on the Santa Clara valley transit website, but sure enough in the last 15 years they appear to have sanitised their routes (Although, they no longer have any bus that picks up from where I lived/worked, so the route still takes 46 minutes because it factors in 20 minutes of walking to the city center.

*shrug*

 

[wholbr]

Hi Again Everybody.
Further to my posting earlier this evening, I do feel that buses can play a much bigger role in commuter mass movement than they are achieving at present. There are two examples both good and bad in the Bristol city commuter area which was demonstrated on local television yesterday evening.

The first one is the park-and-ride system setup by first group for car commuters wishing to enter Bristol from the south side. The park-and-ride was setup at the end of the long Ashton bypass (see Google maps) at the cost of one and a half million by the company which has a parking area for over 2000 cars (I believe).

An express bus service running through bus lanes takes the commuters from the above the 3 miles into the city commercial area calling at very limited stops in both directions. Buses run every 10 minutes from 6 AM to 10 PM Monday to Saturday. The scheme has been a huge success with a flat fare of 2 pounds for the journey.

However, Bristol city Council then decided they would get involved in setting up a similar Park and ride enterprise on the northern side of the city. The car park has been built costing three and half million pounds with parking for fewer cars than the long Ashton park-and-ride.

The smaller carpark has not been a problem as only 198 cars have parked their since the site was opened three months ago. The reason why the project has been such an abject failure is that the carpark is over half a mile from where the nearest bus stops. The bus company has stated that they were not consulted regarding extending the existing bus service from Bristol Parkway railway station prior to the work on the park-and-ride project starting.

However, they have now been requested by the city Council to look at how the bus service can be re-scheduled to run from the railway station to the park-and-ride. First Bus stated in the television interview that it could take several months of planning due to the extensive changes to existing services that would have to be made to encompass the park-and-ride.

The report on the television must like me leave everybody thinking how the hell can you build a park-and-ride bus service without consulting with the bus company who you expect to provide the service. a further unaccountable three and a half million gone up in smoke together with the millions wasted on the Bristol tramway project

Another triumph for public spending:hehe:
Bill

 

[johnwhelan]

NikkiA. It takes 45 minutes for a bus to do 3 miles?

Some London services used to be scheduled at 2 miles per hour and had trouble keeping to timetable because of congestion.

Cheerio John

 

[pfx]

Bill, interesting point on park and ride. There was a news item here yesterday and they were discussing the pros of using park and ride. There's a 700 space one in South Belfast that has free parking, a large, modern shelter and £3.50 return on the bus.

Despite this, the usage is generally 150-180 cars a day and when they interviewed the drivers, they were typically quoting savings of upwards of £50 per month on the parking fees alone. One woman was saving £100 not including the additional petrol for sitting in traffic jams.

The way to encourage use is to promote these savings which would hopefully encourage others out of their cars. This is not done currently and I think the thought of saving anything up to a hundred beer coupons and possibly more, would be just the type of carrot required.

Perhaps surprisingly, Belfast is one of the worst cities in Europe for gridlock though driving standards are far, far worse than those I've experienced elsewhere. Various plans have been made to tackle these and one was, yes... Trams. That idea has been dropped for those weird tram/bus things which look disturbingly like a bendy bus. We're getting a lovely new set of 'bus corridors' which only cover 2 routes so I can't see there being much improvement.

 

[masontaylor]

Edinburgh's trams may be an ongoing nightmare, but at least it's quite well served by Park and Rides: there are seven that I'm aware of, including a particularly useful one north of the Forth at the end of the M90 adjacent to a bus exchange hub with frequent connections over the road bridge to both the city and the airport as well as many other destinations. The other six fan out west, south and east on the Lothian side, thus offering the service to would-be visitors arriving by any of the major routes.

 

[pfx]

Edinburgh's trams may be an ongoing nightmare, but at least it's quite well served by Park and Rides: there are seven that I'm aware of, including a particularly useful one north of the Forth at the end of the M90

Given it's in Fife, I hope there's a secure carpark? ; )

 

[masontaylor]

Given it's in Fife, I hope there's a secure carpark? ; )

Well, naebody's made of wi'it yet....

Yep, it's secure. Should've mentioned that it's a cooperative venture between Fife council and Stagecoach, and that it's been so successful they've had to expand it....

http://www.ferrytoll.org/htmlpages/about.html

 

[dgattenb]

for these light rail system to work , you have to have the drive from the political system . Take Portsmouth light rail , half of it was already there ( Fareham to Gosport line ) , all they needed to do was to link up the Portsmouth side .
As there was no the will , and cash was changing hands re bus operators, the tram line has been scrapped , and is now a BUS route. They are spending millions of pounds building a bus route , to the only major town in the UK with out a train station.

 

[johnwhelan]

I think most people would agree that is hardly the background for any right-wing thinking. However traveling the country I often find myself amongst manual workers in the British road transport industry who work 10, 12 hours a day, and with heavy goods drivers this can regularly be 15 hours per day. These workers earn between 20 to 35,000 pounds (British sterling) per year for all their long hours of work. However they see one third of their wages taken from them in tax and national insurance before the remainder is placed in their bank accounts by their employers.

The foregoing is why I get so annoyed when you see central government and local councils wasting millions of pounds of those workers hard earned tax on showpiece projects such as the Edinburgh and Bristol tramway systems with no one being held to account for the miss-appropriate and downright thoughtless spending. It is easy to spend money when it has come to you easily and it is not your own. That is not right wing thinking that is left-wing thinking.

That money wasted on those tramway systems could have brought a better living standard to thousands of ordinary workers throughout the UK had the money been retained by them. Therefore let our public servants look at how we can make better use of our roads in the city centers through use of bus lanes etc from existing railway stations rather than the overpriced overvalued showpiece projects that even when they are built rarely match up to the expensive promises made for them.

Bill

I suppose you could argue that the bank bail out that has caused the UK pound to sink rapidly recently and the cut backs was not the fault of private industry, ie the banks at all but rather the public sector. After all the Canadian Government managed to make a profit on the bank bailout, it lent funds to the local banks secured by mortgages that it was already insuring and no local banks went under.

Cheerio John