Edinburgh's disgrace II: Tram fiasco threatens to further embarrass capital

Published on Saturday 11 June 2011 19:12

Edinburgh's tram project is teetering on the brink of oblivion – along with the city's reputation

• The lack of progress with Edinburgh's tram project is clear for all to see, and top staff, such as Mandy Haeburn-Little, above, continue to resign

THE IMAGE is replete with irony. Mandy Haeburn-Little, the director of communications and customer services at Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (Tie), the arms-length organisation which has presided over the Edinburgh trams fiasco, stands, arms folded, in front of the infamous folly at Calton Hill. Edinburgh's first disgrace (the building was supposed to be a copy of the Parthenon, but was left uncompleted when the money ran out) is fronted by the spinmeister for what many view as its second.

Last week, as Haeburn-Little became the latest Tie board member to resign, it seemed increasingly likely the plan to bring trams to the capital might – like its predecessor – serve only as a humiliating monument to the city's incapacity to deliver on big civic projects.

Dreams for an ambitious tram system were abandoned long ago, as it became clear it could not be achieved within the 545m budget. But even the fate of the final scaled-down version: a line which runs from Edinburgh Airport to Haymarket (or, at best, to St Andrew Square) now hangs in the balance.

After three years of disruption, delays and legal wrangles with the Bilfinger/Siemens/CAF (BSC) consortium, 440m (80 per cent of the original budget) has been spent, but only 28 per cent of the infrastructure completed. As the scheduled completion date (February 2011) passed (and it was claimed the system would not be up and running until 2014) the trams commissioned from Spanish company CAF started to arrive, forcing Tie to find and pay for storage. Now it seems ten of them may be leased to Transport for London for use on the Croydon Tram Network.

Meanwhile, it emerged the track laid down on Princes Street would have to be dug up and relaid, after the weight of traffic, extreme weather conditions and poor installation led to cracks appearing.

With criticism mounting, Tie began haemorrhaging staff, with five directors – including Haeburn-Little – resigning in the last fortnight alone, a move which has prompted speculation the council is attempting to bring the project back "in-house". But radical action is needed if anything of the city fathers' dream for a 21st century tramway is to be salvaged. At the end of the month, councillors will consider a report which sets out the pros and cons of three options: scrapping the project, mothballing it until more money becomes available; or finishing the section to St Andrew Square.

Completing the line to St Andrew Square would cost at least another 200m and the Scottish Government has already made it clear it is not prepared to plough any more money in. This means the local authority would have to borrow the money, money which would – some argue – be better spent on schools or leisure facilities. However, the alternative – scrapping the scheme – would also come at a price as it is likely the contractors would make a claim for loss of profit, while the track lines would still have to be removed from Princes Street. Even mothballing it would require some investment as ongoing work would have to be finished off so it could be handed over at a later date. On 30 June, council members will have to look at the pros and cons and weigh up: is it better to cut their losses and admit defeat, or to plough ahead so they've something to show for their investment?

When plans for the Edinburgh tram system were conceived in the early noughties, the economy was still booming, although the city centre had been struggling slightly. In other British cities – Manchester and Nottingham, for example – light railways had proved a clean, efficient method of transport, and a catalyst for development and economic growth.

"The Edinburgh tram system was supposed to link the airport and the West

End, which is one of Scotland's major future growth areas for business, with the city centre," says Edinburgh's transport convenor Gordon Mackenzie. "It was also supposed to connect through to the north of the city, the Granton area, which again was seen as an area ripe for economic growth and regeneration.

"On the environmental side, there are no on-street emissions from a tram. Edinburgh is a growing city with more and more people commuting into it and we were trying to get them out of cars. The vision was quite grand, but it made a lot of sense and it still makes a lot of sense in terms of economic growth and environmental sustainability."

Despite the SNP's 2007 manifesto pledge to scrap the project, it won the go-ahead from the SNP-led minority government. It was split into four phases, and – after contracts were agreed – construction began in June 2008. It wasn't long before it ran into trouble, though. Working in a World Heritage Site was always going to be challenging, and the complexity of dealing with issues such as the rerouting of underground pipes caused major delays.

Businesses along Princes Street became increasingly frustrated as the thoroughfare was shut for ten months, causing takings to drop dramatically. Meanwhile, as the economic slump tightened its grip, Phase 1b – the line from Haymarket to Granton – was shelved to save 75m, while the operating contract with Transdev was cancelled. The worst delays, however, were caused by a series of disputes with the contractors over additional costs, which led construction to be halted on several occasions.

The disarray peaked at the end of 2010 when the then chairman David Mackay resigned calling the project "hell on wheels" and branding the contractors "delinquent". In the last few months, under the stewardship of new council chief executive Sue Bruce, there has been some movement.

In May, it was announced work at priority locations would be resumed while the future of the project was decided, although remedial work on the Princes Street track has been postponed until September. Many Tie board members – some of whom continued to draw six-figure salaries though the project was in stasis – have gone and the council is taking a more hands-on approach.

But it is still left with a difficult choice: abandon ship, and find itself the laughing stock of the world, or retain a semblance of dignity by building the line to St Andrew Square. Mackenzie says that although a subsidy will be required in the short-term reports have shown a tramline to St Andrew Square would "wash its face" in two or three years in time.

"The area between the airport and Corstorphine is a nascent hub of economic development and will benefit from the tramline, and it is still needed to link the airport with Waverley," he says. But the council's deputy leader, Steve Cardownie, says he doesn't believe the trams will ever make any money and fears it could take Lothian Buses down with it.

"We (the SNP] didn't think the scheme was financially viable from the outset," Cardownie says. "Now, we've been left with this daft Newhaven line which doesn't go through the main conurbations, it doesn't pass hospitals or universities – the places which make trams successful. In fact, the largest build-up of residents was at Leith Walk and that has been scrapped, so I don't think the business case for St Andrew Square stacks up either."

Cardownie says he understands the argument that too much money has been invested to jettison the scheme, but he is worried about the service's long-term future and the future of Lothian Buses. If it isn't financially viable, he says, then Lothian Buses will have to subsidise it. "I fear that in five years both the trams and Lothian Buses will be in the hands of the private sector," he says.

Viewing the debacle from a distance, Howard Johnston, publisher of Tramways and Urban Transit is more sanguine about both the cost rises – which he claims are part and parcel of any big construction project – and the logistical setbacks. Rather he believes Edinburgh is being short-sighted about the gains a tram system could bring the city.

"There are only two capital cities in Europe which do not have light railways – Edinburgh and Valletta – and there's a reason they're so popular: tramways are clean and modern and smart and slick, they turn dirty cities into clean cities, they attract investment and jobs," he says. "In the early days, there was opposition to the tramways in Manchester and Nottingham, but now people who are not on tram routes complain because the values of houses have gone up. In Nottingham, it has sorted out a lot of social problems."

Johnston says just completing the St Andrew Square section will act as a catalyst for future extensions: "I would guess in Edinburgh, if they do continue with this short section, it will become the area of the city people want to live and work in, and I have total confidence over the next ten-15 years the entire system will be built as originally intended."

Mackenzie is also optimistic and claims any funding shortfall could be overcome by looking at different ways of financing future extensions: "We could look at other models of delivery. There are people who have approached the council, saying: 'We would be happy to build extensions to a tram network', and then you get into a discussion as to whether they would run it or lease it to the council – that's a model which doesn't require the same upfront investment from the public sector."

Whatever councillors decide on 30 June, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that – in the end – the whole debacle will be the subject of a public inquiry. It is likely to focus on the way in which the contract between the council and the Bilfinger Berger-led consortium was drawn up. Some critics claim it was put together hastily in a rush to get the proposal approved by the Scottish Parliament.

"I think understanding why there has been a contractual dispute which has gone on for the best part of three years will answer many of the questions we are all asking ourselves about why the cost has gone up so much and why there have been so many delays," says Mackenzie.

Johnston, however, believes the roots are more prosaic: unrealistic expectations about how cheaply and easily the project could be delivered and a degree of short-termism: "I just don't think everyone in Edinburgh has bought into the tram scheme, which is rather a pity because other cities in Britain would give their eye teeth for one. People have complained about the disruption, but there's pain with everything.

Edinburgh continues to grow, there are more and more commuters and unless something is done to get them out of cars the city will seize up."

Most observers believe the council will decide to press ahead with the St Andrew Square line, funding the shortfall through borrowing. At the forefront of its mind will be its international reputation which has already suffered badly.

If it allows the infrastructure for the Edinburgh tram system to become one more folly, its reputation as a cutting-edge city will be in tatters; its claim to be the Athens of the North will be exposed as a sham. Because, let's face it, not only does Greece's capital city have an ancient Parthenon it is in the process of restoring, it has a 27-kilometre tram network, which employs 345 people and carries an impressive 65,000 passengers a day.