Edinburgh Residents Ask First Minister To Be "More Active" On Trams

Following the outcry over the anticipated cost overruns for the crisis hit Edinburgh trams project, Alex Salmond today in first minister's question time called a public inquiry into the project "an excellent thing to do". Salmond and the SNP did not support the trams from the start, and have kept their distance from the project and its ongoing woes, saying it should be dealt with by Edinburgh City Council.

The latest trams report, officially published today, leaked yesterday, looks at the various options for resolving the troubled project. Edinburgh City Council deliberates on 30th June what its next move will be. The report acknowledges £461m has already been spent on the project and the eventual cost of just scrapping the trams could be as much as £740 million.

An issue that has been eclipsed by the massive cost and time overruns is the unintended consequence of air pollution caused by closing city roads for the new trams and diverting traffic through residential neighbourhoods in the New Town.

One city centre residents' group has written an open letter to Alex Salmond expressing their concerns that information isn’t being presented to Councillors and the Public as the Council's meeting on the future of the tram on the 30th June approaches.

In the letter they say: "The Scottish Government need to be more active. They deemed this project worth £500 million of public money and should insist on a further examination of the project finances".

The full text of the open letter (dated 21st June 2011) to the first minister follows below.

"Dear First Minister,

Edinburgh Trams – Step in now to stop disaster

After a reasonably constructive meeting with Sue Bruce, the Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council and Vic Emery, Chairman of Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (tie) there appears to be hope for a degree of realism and a somewhat more open approach to resolving the ongoing tram project problems.

However, despite this improved atmosphere, many citizens of Edinburgh remain concerned lest political ambition and fear of the personal consequences of apparent failure, should force through a decision that the project must be finished – or part finished - at any cost. Analysis available to the public provides no clarity on whether these fears are groundless. Decisions are being framed by assumptions about what is viable before the data is available, leading some Councillors to reportedly state what they believe to be viable, even though they claim no confidence in the predicted costs. On this dubious logic, Haymarket is eliminated from consideration, whilst St Andrew Square is considered capable of 'washing its face' in only two or three years time by
the Transport Convenor, Councillor Gordon Mackenzie [Scotland on Sunday 12 June 2011]. Even at this late stage in the project, however, Councillor Mackenzie cannot tell the public what any option will cost to build and finance, what benefit any option will bring, nor what the operating deficit is likely to be. Why this drive to borrow yet more money to get trams along Princes Street – is it just to salvage political reputations? The time for that is long past.

The Scottish Government need to be more active. They deemed this project worth £500 million of public money and should insist on a further examination of the project finances and the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of each of the first phase options by Audit Scotland. During this process it would be prudent to ensure that the public purse is not committed to further long-term expense - at a time when public finances are so stretched we need a careful pause in proceedings to ensure that existing cuts to Council jobs and services are not made far worse by a project that, in the short term, can only replace or compete with an existing and highly efficient, bus network. The examination by Audit Scotland is essential as the public cannot be expected to have faith in financial statements made by the Council regarding the trams project, given such a poor record by the Council and tie of getting cost predictions right.

We welcome the Scottish Government original commitment to limit the amount to £500 million "and not a penny more". We would ask that the new administration confirms this position. It is simply not right to commit any new money, either as capital or lease, on such an uncosted extension. Better to cut now rather than squander more of our limited resources.

Any attempt by the Council to cover cost inflation through a Public Finance Initiative (PFI) should be vetoed as this would introduce a set of stakeholders whose interests trump those of tram users whilst setting an even higher bar for the revenue targets to meet. The consequence would be much higher fares for the benefit of what is a very short extension from the transport hub at Haymarket as a first phase.

No matter which tram plan is adopted, one outcome that must be guarded against is the use of Lothian Buses as the cash cow for the larger operating costs of trams as against buses. The tram follows existing bus routes, but is neither as flexible, nor as capable, of serving the communities using these services. Cancellation of existing bus routes to force use of the tram, or imposition of a tax on ticket prices will reduce the quality of service enjoyed by many and increase costs for all.
This will all reduce the city's overall public transport user numbers – in direct contravention of the tram project's stated objectives - and open Lothian Buses up to more competition on profitable routes or even to be sold. In turn this makes it harder for Lothian Buses to invest in the low and zero-emission technologies which will have a far greater impact on future air quality in Edinburgh than a single tram line can provide. These impacts could have very serious implications for the viability and future of Lothian Buses which has hitherto been one of the local taxpayers' greatest assets.

The Council should not focus on an accounting return for this project, based on sunk costs being written off and assumptions about subsidies from concessionary fares schemes. It should consider whether continuing with the project in its present form, under existing management and flawed financial and contractual planning, is compatible with the aims of the project – to provide a clean, integrated and affordable transport system.

Several technical engineering challenges remain and although the Council states that it is confident that everything has been resolved, this confidence should be considered in the light of ill-conceived predictions on cost and failure to appreciate that the light-rail system planned was too wide to allow integration with traffic in many places including Shandwick Place. It is not possible to say how accurate the Council's predictions are about the future, but the public does not have grounds for confidence. Indeed the public have been 'outsiders' for most of this project. Abstractions from the analysis have considered the 'public benefits' but have not acknowledged that there would be significant losers in this project as well.

Vitally, the public health impacts of this project have, so far, been largely ignored in the presentation of the tram as 'Clean and Green'. The Council's own 2003 STAG report predicted that when the proposed line was completed, some 134,500 homes (275,000 people approximately) would be exposed to a worse level of air pollution, from NO2 and Particulates. However, tie's Chief Executive stated some 5 years later that the tram, "will enhance Edinburgh's reputation as a good place to live, work and visit through a range of environmental benefits from air quality to noise reduction to less congestion."

Having apparently missed the fact that air quality, noise and congestion would deteriorate for 134,500 households, it would be bordering on the criminal for the Council to ignore this huge potential liability for damage to health in any analysis of the benefits, costs and future liabilities of this project.

An independent review is desperately needed.

Yours sincerely,
Ashley Lloyd
Rory O'Riordan
Ted Ditchburn
Alistair Laing
Allan Alstead
John Stirling
James G. Fraser
Derek Shepherd