Letters: Lothian Buses heading for uncertain future with TIE

Lothian Buses chairman Ron Hewitt's unquestioning support from the outset for the tram project flies in the face of the much discredited Tie Final Business Case (FBC). Had he bothered to read it, he would have seen that TIE had two downside scenarios which "coincidentally" reflect the current economic climate and the mess the project is in.

The first is called "Lower and delayed new development – New development at Granton is 25 per cent of that in the central case and in other areas, including Leith and Edinburgh Park, is delayed by five years". This would result in an opening loss of 6 million for Lothian Buses and losses year on year of a similar size up to the end of their projection in 2031.

The second downside case is called "Lower underlying economic growth – Long-term background patronage growth is 50 per cent of that reflected in the central case". This would result in an opening loss of 12.5m growing to a loss in the year 2031 of 47m.

The first downside scenario is upon us with delays in residential development with no expectation of substantial change in the next five to ten years.

The second scenario is a real possibility. Given that TIE completes any part of the line, it might terminate at Haymarket or St Andrew Square. In either case it will result in a substantial loss of patronage; this will guarantee an early "fire" sale of the bus company and its trams to stem increasing losses.

How can TIE get more passengers from fewer trams? TIE's initial FBC figures were premised on 24 trams running routes 1a and b. If the line terminates at Haymarket only four of these trams will be needed.

TIE's credibility is in tatters; to allow it to hide the revised patronage figure will only add to the uncertainty and the risk to be heaped on Lothian Buses.

John R T Carson, Kirkliston Road, South Queensferry

Where will the cash come from?

IF there is one policy area that highlights the state of politics today, it is tuition fees.

In 1997, Tony Blair told voters that "He had no plans to introduce tuition fees".

Then he did.

In 2005 he said they had no plans to introduce top-up fees.

This year the Liberal Democrats pledged to campaign against Tuition Fees.

Yesterday, no, they didn't.

Who can students, or indeed the public, trust?

In the 2005 General Election campaign, I was invited to a high school hustings. I took the opportunity to conduct a straw poll, by asking pupils: "How many of you have a close relative – brother, sister or cousin – who left the country after graduating?"

I was not surprised to see around ten to 15 per cent of the pupils put their hands up.

If Scotland were to avoid introducing tuition fees, where would the money come from?

Mev Brown, Independent candidate for the Lothians region

Right to benefit from troops' help

I WAS shocked to learn that one of the factors getting in the way of the British Army clearing snow from the streets of Edinburgh is that the local council would be asked to pay for their deployment.

When the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have benefited from the services of our military at no charge to themselves, I do not see why UK taxpayers in our hour of need should not benefit similarly.

John Eoin Douglas, Spey Terrace, Edinburgh

SNP have to take share of blame

MARTIN Hannan exhorts the SNP to leave the coalition in Edinburgh, having roundly condemned the city administration for their alleged short-comings in the recent winter disarray (News, December 7).

Surely the SNP are as responsible for any problems in Edinburgh – be they tram or weather related – as the Liberal Democrats, wherever there is a role for the council to lead or administer.

Harald Tobermann, Pilrig Street, Edinburgh