We dug ourselves into a hole over trams fiasco, admits senior official

Published on Wednesday 12 October 2011 12:26

A SENIOR official at Edinburgh City Council has admitted the authority made a “big mistake” by agreeing to shoulder the burden for problems with underground tramworks when the contract for the troubled project was being drawn up.

Dave Anderson said he expected the public inquiry to find that the construction consortium should have borne the risks involved with digging up the city’s streets, rather than the local authority’s tram company.

His comments emerged the day after Gordon Mackenzie, the councillor responsible for the project over the last four years, admitted he and his fellow project board members had lacked the “expertise” to properly scrutinise the scheme.

However, Mr Anderson, the council’s director of city development, said he did not believe Edinburgh would suffer long-term reputational damage from the project, which he compared with the Sydney Opera House, claiming that the capital had almost made a full recovery from the impact of the financial crisis in 2008.

Addressing business leaders in the capital yesterday, he said he was “confident” the council would press ahead with delivering a full tram line to the city’s waterfront, despite the lack of current funding, while he insisted further lines would also still be developed.

Mr Anderson also said there was a stronger economic case for building a tram line from the city centre to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and the city’s bioquarter at Little France than for the Border Railway.

Mr Anderson, the most senior transport official, was appointed by the council in the spring of 2008, just weeks before the crucial construction contract was signed off, replacing Andrew Holmes after he retired from the £110,000-a-year post.

Both figures are expected to be called to give evidence at the public inquiry into the tram project, which is running at least five years late and is now £400 million over budget.

The council’s tram firm, TIE, was locked in a costly dispute with the German-led consortium, Belfinger Berger, for more than two years amid wrangles over delays to utility works and the scale of problems discovered underground.

TIE – whose senior figures accused Bilfinger Berger of trying to hold Edinburgh to “ransom” – went on to lose a string of independent adjudications over the contract. The cost of delivering the first phase has soared to £776m, compared with a price tag of £545m 12 months ago.

Mr Anderson said: “With the benefit of hindsight about the complications with the utility diversions, it would have been preferable to have had the risk borne by the contractors.

“It was a big mistake with the contract that the client [TIE and the council] was responsible for any risks. They were able to make claims about the utility works, which caused delays and additional costs.”

Mr Anderson said the council had every intention of building the full tram line from Edinburgh Airport to the waterfront, insisting the city faced “gridlock” if it did not create a proper rapid-transit system to accommodate predicted population growth.

Meanwhile, opposition councillors expressed amazement at the admission by Mr Mackenzie that TIE’s board did not have the right technical expertise.

Labour transport spokeswoman Lesley Hinds said: “He has been on the board of TIE for at least four and a half years. We have discussed the tram project on many, many occasions. It is the first time I have ever heard him say this.”

Related Articles

• ‘Distracting’ public inquiry must wait for progress to be made

  THE Scottish Government has ruled out an immediate public inquiry into the tram project – saying it would be too “distracting” to have it while major work is ongoing.

  0 Comments

Comments

There are 83 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 6

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next >
• Show all

83

Richard Lionheart

Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 04:57 PM

NO MORE TRAM LINES IN EDINBURGH! There should be no plans formulated to extend the "White Elephant" tram line.

• Report Unsuitable

82

Auld Twa

Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM

#75 e2toe4 The risk for moving the utilities was not allocated to the contractor in the original contract but conditions were so vague that several well known companies did not submit tenders. The movement of utilities and laying the tracks should have been a single contract which would have avoided TIE being left holding the baby when utilities were not completed on time.

• Report Unsuitable

81

ReprievedSoul

Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 08:09 AM

If people would say focussed on their key responsibilities, use Councillors to run and plan for the City, Utilities companies to maintain their underground systems, Transport companies to renew transportation infrastructure methodically without fuss, we'd all be better off. We need the tram to connect with the Border Railway which 100 000 people in Tweeddale need. We need the Gogar station to give Scotland north of the central Belt access to europaean transport hubs. We need our share of eurotunnel through services.

• Report Unsuitable

80

col.blimp.iv

Friday, October 14, 2011 at 11:36 PM

❝❞ ツ ☂ ✔ ✂ ☢ ♎ ◕‿◕ ♫♬♪ ♩♭♪ ∛

• Report Unsuitable

79

col.blimp.iv

Friday, October 14, 2011 at 11:06 PM

••• § †— ♫ ☺ ♥ ☠ ☮ ♜ ☭

• Report Unsuitable

78

col.blimp.iv

Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:46 PM

¶ ¶

• Report Unsuitable

77

col.blimp.iv

Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:42 PM

▲

• Report Unsuitable

76

banquo

Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 01:48 PM

Comment removed by moderator

75

e2toe4

Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 01:09 PM

The 'acceptance' of liability for digging up the streets,wasn't an oversight, or regretable omission. It was done knowingly and deliberately because it had to be done that way. Had this liability been pushed onto any consortium contract the headline price in the beginning would have been so stratospheric the vanity project would never have had a chance to start in the first place. This illustrates quite well a 'technique' used extensively throughout this project, in many, many other areas, by the tiny group of 'public servants' who constitute just about the only real constituency who want this project pushed on. It may also help if the inevitable Public Inquiry is led by a Judge, and also if the initial definition of terms for it includes: "At what point on a gradient could the failure to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, be considered to be a lie?" "What ought to be the limits on a confidentiality clause in an employment contract in order to differentiate them from a bribe or hidden subsidy?" "What limits should commercial considerations be allowed to constrict the free discussion and debate of democratically elected chambers of Civic Governance?" and maybe to address the question: "Do we expect Edinburgh to embrace 'the Sheffield soultion" and sell the Tram , and bus service, to a private operator at 0.5p on each £1 of cost?

• Report Unsuitable

74

The View from Salisbury Crags

Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 08:40 AM

Comment removed by moderator

73

barney.mcgrew

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Whilst all seem to be cleansing themselves after a confession, (no offence to the RC Church as I would not want to breach the new sectarian laws). Can we not agree to write off £6-700k and use what is left - approx £300k to repair all the roads in Edinburgh? The picture yesterday of Gordon Mackenzie was like a toddler that had been potty trained, however decided to fill his nappy for the sheer pleasure of it. The council are an embarrassment.

• Report Unsuitable

72

Flour of Scotland

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Edinburgh is but a small city (in global terms), and yet an amount close to £1 BILLION will probably end up being spent on two of the most obvious WHITE ELEPHANTS on the planet, i.e. Holyrood and the trams! Can any other city beat that?

• Report Unsuitable

71

stravaiger

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 09:56 PM

The problem here is that the people responsible for the hash-up will never be held to account. Millions down the drain... never mind, it's just public money after all, doesn't matter does it? And the SNP can't get off the hook by saying they didn't want it. So John Swinney thought it might bring the government down if they objected to the hair-brained plan. Was it not worth the chance? Should have stood against the proponents.

• Report Unsuitable

70

Conan the Librarian

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 07:34 PM

67 Those trams were a lot lighter; if you needed to dig up the road a couple of Clydesdales could have towed them around the hole.

• Report Unsuitable

69

Tartancult

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 07:23 PM

#59 and then then a car driver was killed. (Trams do not stop easily). " Apparently cars do not stop easily either.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 6

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next >
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.