Let somebody else steer our transport

Published on Tuesday 1 November 2005 11:46

ON those exciting occasions where I've been granted an audience with those who inhabit our hallowed City Chambers, I could not help but notice what a fantastic view many of our municipal leaders have of Edinburgh.

From their lofty perch, the councillors can see not only Princes Street in all its glory - from way up there you can't see how tawdry and tacky it's become - the still splendid New Town and, on a haar-free day, the not-so-distant hills of Fife.

I often think it is a shame that this marvellous vantage point does not lend a wider perspective to some of their decision-making - perhaps the air is a little too thin on the upper floors - and nowhere is this more apparent than in the council's approach to transport policy.

There has been much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth at the council of late, most of it by council leader Donald Anderson. In recent weeks, he's confessed to us that the city centre traffic management system is a "bizarre" mess.

It has also emerged that the leadership is far from confident that the trams are on the right lines - and one of Steve Cardownie's parting shots as he defected from Labour to the SNP was the scheme, the cost of which has swelled to more than 700 million, is a "costly mistake".

Now Mr Anderson has waded into the Waverley Station controversy once again. I surely can't be the only one who has lost count of how many times he's described the station as "third rate" and a "hole in the heart" of our great city . . . yadda, yadda, yadda.

Of course he is right. The station urgently needs a major revamp - and fast - if it's to cope with the projected increases in passenger numbers. The Executive is, indeed, running out of time with which to pull out its proverbial finger.

But the city council has got so much so badly wrong on transport that one does suspect that few people are going to bother to listen to its earnest bleatings. And that's bad news for the city.

The good news - at least in my humble opinion - is that most of the really big decisions about transport are going to be taken out of the hands of Messrs Anderson and Burns and transferred to a new statutory authority, Sestran, next year.

The only snag is that the council has been predictably complaining that it won't have a big enough say within the new body, which will include representation from eight local authorities in the south-east of Scotland.

But will that be a bad thing? Sure, Edinburgh is the capital city, and it is a growing hub for air and rail travel. But we cannot plan the transport needs of the city in isolation from the rest of the region, or the country, for that matter.

After all, squabbling with our neighbours did not get the council very far in its well-intentioned, but ultimately doomed, plans to introduce congestion charging.

Edinburgh needs to get off its high horse and start working with other smaller councils to achieve the best possible integrated transport system for the whole region.

Glasgow has benefited from a regional transport authority for decades, and look how much more it has to offer users of public transport.

It remains to be seen whether Sestran will deliver the kind of radical step-change that Edinburgh and the rest of south-east Scotland need to tackle congestion and get more of us using reliable, efficient, affordable public transport.

But the question has to be asked, could it fare much worse than the city council?

Wipe this carbuncle off the city's face for good

WAVERLEY Station might be looking a little tired, Princes Street might have a few rotten teeth in need of pulling out. But at least neither can be described as a monstrous carbuncle on our fair cityscape - unlike the much-maligned St James Centre.

The irony is that, 40 years ago, when the plans for this giant shopping centre were being formulated, people were queuing up to warn that it would be brutishly ugly and spoil a large chunk of our city centre. George Bruce described it as an "Alcatraz" and warned that "we must suffer now, and must do so for at least 125 years, from Edinburgh's latest and worst eyesore."

At least he got the 125 years bit wrong - people all around the city have been cheered up no end by the news that this horrible structure is being sold for redevelopment. But what will go in its place?

There is a danger that we knock down one ugly eyesore and then replace it with a blander, slightly less offensive version of the same sort of monolithic thing.

So before any prospective developers dream up their schemes, the council, leading city architects and the Cockburn Association could unite to find out what people want to see on this site.

This is a once-in-generation opportunity to create something really special for the city. Let's hope we don't squander it.

Orchestras should know the score

IT'S little wonder that many people feel somewhat disengaged from the high arts when 55 professional orchestras seem to think they are above such boring, mundane little details like, oh yes, remembering to pay their freelancers' National Insurance contributions. On the face of it, there is absolutely no reason why HM Revenue and Customs should not pursue them all for this massive 33 million debt, and if some of them have to bow out after facing the music, then so be it.

But, (un)fortunately, the arts lobby is vocal enough to prevent this from happening. So the taxpayer will probably still end up footing the bill . . . and that means that forcing them to cough up the cash could cost us even more in bureaucracy.