Recently in Transport Category

tramedinburgh.jpegYesterday certain parties got very excited here and started claiming that the Edinburgh tram project was about to be scrapped. Journalists here naturally thought this would be a huge story, and ran around frantically trying to find out the truth. 

The spin then softened to "Line 1B is under threat". This then became one piece in the Evening News with a headline which wasn't substantiated in the copy. 

Shirley-Anne Somerville makes a big play to be the Nats' environmentalist representative in the capital, but like most of the rest of her party she's clearly closer to the motoring lobby. Line 1b would be "sheer lunacy", she says. Yup, imagine an urban public transport system that covers more of the city. Madness, I tells ya. Oh, except her researcher's had to come clean to the BBC: her press release was entirely unsubstantiated.

The bottom line is that an SNP/Liberal local authority is failing to deliver the trams properly. One half of the adminstration never wanted them, and sabotage is suspected. The other half wanted them, but in a half-hearted manner. It's like hitching a lame donkey to either end of a wagon and hoping they'll take you somewhere. 

Imagine trying to deliver a massive public project with Councillors overseeing your work who want you to fail, who call for your resignation over their decisions, and who leak anything, however feeble, that goes against the project? No wonder the staff are leaving. The mystery is why the Nats in particular aren't worried about taking the blame should something actually go wrong with the project.

Also, what is specifically wrong with SNP/Liberal coalitions? Edinburgh: incompetent, arrogant, vainglorious. Fife: service-cutting, bridge-lobbying. Aberdeen: so massively incompetent that they risk being nationalised.

It strikes me that SNP and Liberal councillors are like Baileys and Guinness. Pretty unpleasant apart, but truly revolting when mixed. (if you like either drink, please imagine some alternative combination that curdles)
pieeyed.jpgWhen both the Scottish and the UK climate change legislation proposals first appeared, aviation and shipping were mysteriously absent. The Nats have since pledged to remedy this oversight, incidentally.

Such an exemption is clearly absurd, and I'm pretty sure that we came up with the killer line on it (specifically either Robin or Patrick - I can't remember who thought of it first).

Either way, Robin told the Chamber on September 3rd that "having a climate change bill with an exemption for air transport is a bit like having a diet plan with an exemption for pies, beans, chips and black puddings". It even inspired a charity challenge, sadly not risen to by the First Minister.

By October 16th, the Liberals had gotten in on the act. In the Commons, Steve Webb said "However, Mr Miliband appears to think he can simply ignore the hugely polluting aviation and shipping industries. It's like telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes." Amusingly, this was billed on the party's blog as his "cream cake triumph". (thanks to Adopted Domain for the spot)

Today Friends of the Earth have in turn recycled it, in a new and more potent form, as "a drink-driving law that doesn't count whisky".

It's not clear where the Tories are on this, although the last link there implies they're also on side with the forces of good. If so, I await their press release comparing the bill as it stands to "a detox plan with an exemption for crack."


How roads are built.

| | Comments (0)
closeupprotest.jpgOur friends at the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route Inquiry bring reports of yesterday's events. First, as discussed here, the Reporter decided to ignore his responsibilities under European law, thus exposing the taxpayer to the risk of judicial review should Ministers decide to build the road. 

Oh, wait, they've already decided.

Then the consultant from Jacobs took the stand. He first admitted that the road's objectives were changed to include traffic relief on the A90 after the route was selected. So you choose your route, then select your objectives? Sentence first, then trial!

He also confirmed that the route layout at Kingcausie was wrong because "of a simple mixup between East and West". These people are in charge of a massive bulldozer and are about to be let loose on the Aberdeenshire countryside. Reassured? Me too.

Despite supposedly being the lead consultants on the route, it also transpired they were told about the hybrid route which Tavish foisted on Aberdeenshire just 30 minutes before the press release went out. He will have loved the front page of yesterday's P&J - this headline, slating him, above a massive pic of protesters

Finally, many of the local community support a tunnel, some seeing it as a positive project and some on the basis that it would be less worse than the AWPR. Jacobs looked at the tunnel, and we'd always been told there was a report from them which it wasn't viable. 

Astonishingly, when pressed on the nature of this report, Galbraith admitted it was "more like a few chaps around a table with a sketch who took a look and said, 'I don't think that'll work'."

I leave a review of this extraordinary statement to "Bystander", one of our pals at the Inquiry.

"So there you have it; Jacobs' definition of a report. I hope all you people in industry and commerce are taking note. Were any other 'reports' from Jacobs like that? Were the few chaps on their second or third bottle? When you are next in a town-centre pub, have a close look at the beer mats- one of them may well have the 'report' of the Murtle tunnel on it."

Absolute Worst Possible Route.

| | Comments (1)
awprsnappers.jpg
Yesterday I had a lovely day out in Aberdeen with Greens and other activists, joining Aberdeenshire locals protesting outside the Inquiry into the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.

There's little more rewarding in politics than supporting local community campaigners, although this campaign will be a hard one to win when the First Minister is prepared to bend the truth in the name of forcing a road through. Our protest pointed out that this is an Inquiry where the decision has been taken to build the road no matter what, where all discussion has been prevented about the AWPR's effectiveness on traffic reduction, its economic, social and environmental impact, and about the alternatives available.

Salmond then went on the radio urging everyone to take part, as people always find this kind of Inquiry worthwhile, neglecting to address the fact that no-one I've spoken to has ever seen an Inquiry where the answer was known in advance. It's pure window-dressing (see above).

After our protest, Road Sense's QC pointed out a flaw in the Inquiry under European law. Because of the protected nature of at least one of the environments under threat, the Inquiry has to look at all the options, including not building the road. The Reporter will rule on this today, but the road's supporters should be urging him to back this line of argument, for two reasons.

First, if your road can meet the usual tests, the same ones the M74 failed, then make the case in public. Second, if the Inquiry continues on the current path then it will be obvious how any final decision by Ministers can be judicially reviewed. Do you really want that?

Hopefully I'll be able to keep updates coming here from my friends on the inside. P&J coverage is here and here, along with an absurd editorial here. Scotsman here.

Thanks to all who turned out at such an ungodly hour, including Ben, Daniel, Lindsay, Sarah, Sarah and Tom, who also posted on this, as follows. Love the title.

Update: the Reporter's decision is out. They ignored the legal concerns. No surprise there.

My top six green ways to get about.

| | Comments (8)
boots.jpg
1. Foot. Still wins for me. For those of you that don't do it, it's like cycling except the equipment's cheaper, you don't arrive at your destination as sweaty, and you are less often required to have the dangerous experience of mingling with cars.


tgvduplex.jpg
2. Train. If you've brought your own food and your MP3 player is charged, is there a finer way to get from A to a reasonably distant B? The views are excellent, and no other form of transport reasonably allows you to work on the move. If I could take the train every time I left Edinburgh that'd be fine by me. Especially if it was a TGV.


constitutionsttram.png
3. Tram. When Edinburgh's trams arrive, they will mysteriously cease to be unpopular even with SNP candidates. Instead they will be revealed to be just as comfortable, smooth, affordable and clean as they are everywhere else in the world. Unless the Liberal/SNP local authority botches it all up.

lothianbus.JPG
4. Bus. Edinburgh is blessed with buses, and I love them. Apparently even Maggie didn't hate them as much as had been thought. They lose some points for fossil fuel use, though, and it'll be a while before we get electric ones.

teslaroadster.jpg
5. Electric car. So many to choose from. Personally I'm more interested in a Tesla Roadster than a G-Wiz, but the EV-02 sounds promising too. They all lose a lot of points because of the energy it takes to build them, and obviously we need to scale our renewables ambitions up even further if this is going to be practical. But if something's going to kill the internal combustion engine, it's probably the battery.

multibike.jpg
6. Bike. I would really have to be pressed to use a bike. See the section on walking. Also, you can't ride a bike and safely listen to music, so that's a big black mark for me. I know I should be more keen: perhaps a recumbent or a multi-person bike (left) might persuade me otherwise? Or the Solo-Duo, which fuses the electric car and the bike, and which looks like something from Woody Allen's Sleeper? No, that'd be cheating.

This is just my list, for me. I know the embodied energy calculation makes bikes greener than electric cars: in fact, I'm sure they're #2 in any objective list that goes just on green-ness.

Facing both ways.

| | Comments (0)
makeithappenclegg.jpgNick Clegg recently published a summary of his views, coincidentally called Make It Happen (pdf link). 

Whether it's party policy or just his policy isn't clear - if you search for it, Google thinks it's called "Front Page Nick Only". They seem to have decided to go really personal, because they think that's worked for the Tories. 

Anyway, one of the sections caught the attention of a friend. On page 7, Nick says (emphasis mine):

"Labour have let us down. They make big promises about cutting emissions, but then they back dirty coal-fired power stations and plan another runway at Heathrow. And they build expensive new roads instead of funding proper public transport."

Just like Liberals when they get into power. Tavish Scott and Nicol Stephen, as Transport Ministers, rammed through a series of expensive new roads, including the Aberdeen Western Peripheral, the M74 Northern Extension (against the Inquiry's report), and the M80 project (delivered through PFI). 

But where's the Aberdeen Crossrail? The Glasgow Crossrail? Languishing still, despite four years of Liberal Transport Ministers and eight years of Liberal coalition with Labour. 

The page this hypocrisy appears on is ironically titled "Why is it so hard to go green?" Actual Greens find it pretty straightforward to go green, but it certainly seems impossible for the Liberals.

Thanks to Rayyan Mirza for the delighful montage to the left. 

Lost in space.

| | Comments (0)
carinspace.gifGristmill note that the most recent American government figures on driving show a substantial drop: a 4.7% reduction in mileage, motivated by the increase in oil prices (154Kb pdf).

A 4.7% drop amounts to a staggering 12.2 billion miles. In other words, one year's reduction in U.S. driving is equivalent to 489,940 fewer car trips around the world, a standard unit of mega-distance.

Looking at the bigger picture, the total American mileage over the last year is 2,954,326,000,000 miles, roughly. That's a little more than half a light year, the next largest such unit. Now, the nearest star system to our own is, as everyone knows, Alpha Centauri, which is 4.37 light years away. 

Over George Bush's term of office, therefore, Americans will have collectively driven as far as Alpha Centauri, more than 25 trillion miles, and all at about 24.6 miles per gallon. Other sci-fi dorks may find this as shocking as I do.

More trams please.

| | Comments (2)
constitutionsttram.pngSome people have got a real bee in their bonnet about trams. By "some people" I predominantly mean the SNP. I got into a constructive debate about this with Jeff at SNP Tactical Voter, and realised there's a lot of misunderstanding out there. 

Let's address some of their concerns, drawing on an article by Kenny Macaskill in 2000, in which he explains why we should all back trams, not the guided busway.

But we've got buses already..
True, we do, and Edinburgh's buses are about the best of the lot, given that the Council sidestepped the worst of de-regulation and retained control of the buses. (declaration of interest: my old man was LRT's general manager during much of the 1980s)

However, as I pointed out in that debate with Jeff, trams appeal to a much wider audience than buses. People who (unreasonably, in my view) look down their noses at buses are happy to take the sleek, efficient tram. For a comparison, consider attitudes to the train versus the humble coach. The evidence is clear: light rail is six times better at getting people out of their cars than buses are. 

There are still some parts of the city inadequately served by buses, and some common routes across town that you need two buses to do. Trams will give Lothian Buses the opportunity to do that. 

"Instead let us recognise that at the start of [the 21st century] the route ahead for the City of Edinburgh is a light rail network that adds to both existing and reopened lines and that compliments and dovetails with other current and future modes of travel." - Kenny Macaskill

Safety
My dear pal Calum Cashley has particular anxieties about safety, and when he talks about trams he tends to use accident photos. I suspect he was taken on a Blackpool tram as a child and dropped his stick of rock onto the floor. Nevertheless, what is the safety record?

In 2007, the Office of Rail Regulation recorded a single death on Britain's tramways, and that was a suspected suicide on the Sheffield network. So no accidental deaths whatsoever. (see table A6 of this substantial pdf)

In contrast, there were almost 3,000 deaths on Britain's roads. Now, obviously, there are a lot more passenger-kilometres on the roads, but still, I know where I'd feel safer.

Trams aren't green - they run on coal and nuclear power
This is the most spurious of all. As you'd expect, I believe energy efficiency and massive investment in renewables can fulfill all our energy needs. And then the trams will run on clean energy. Until buses go electric, they'll always pump pollution out in town centre, less than the equivalent number of cars, but still worth tackling.

Even using the current power generation mix, trams emit just 65g of CO2 per passenger kilometre, compared to 89.1g for buses. The Nats' beloved cars stick out 182.2g, for contrast. (BBC figures)

The lines are inadequate
Agreed. Line 3 will make a huge difference, if there's ever the political will to build it. And more should follow that, too. Trams work best as a network, and while they're starting in a sensible way, the improvements will ramp up as the network grows.

"Bit by bit the network can and will be extended." - Kenny Macaskill

Trams are expensive
Sure, there's a cost to building trams, currently estimated at £512m, and that's less than an eighth of the £4.2bn the SNP propose to waste on a replacement for the entirely repairable Forth Road Bridge.

"[A light rail network] will be costly and it will take time. However this is a network not just for a few years but for many generations to come. It will be the basis upon which Edinburgh can grow and flourish. It is after all the physical arteries that are the lifeblood of the community. Better therefore to take our time to get it right than progress at pace and repent at leisure. Moreover in transport like most other things in life you get what you pay for. Do it on the cheap and you'll get the quality it merits." - Kenny Macaskill

The construction causes congestion
Again, true, it does. I think the Council could have handled this much better, and paid more for overtime to get the job done quicker. Much of town, especially around Leith Walk, is virtually impassable for much of the day. But it'll pass. As Kenny noted before me, we do need to move quickly on this project.

"Time is of the essence as the difficulties mount and the traffic flows continue to increase. It is not enough to simply bemoan that Edinburgh has become a victim of its own economic success. Action is needed in view of the problems that are arising and the timescale for construction." - Kenny Macaskill

Edinburgh simply doesn't need trams
The Nats' shift since 2000 is poor politics for the longer term, and an abject failure of vision. If I were in the SNP, single-mindedly focussed on independence, I'd want to paint an aspirational picture of Edinburgh as a modern European capital. Wouldn't you?

"The vision for Edinburgh has to be to aspire to be a truly Capital City. That means to have the public transport networks taken for granted in other European Capitals such as Copenhagen and Helsinki." - Kenny Macaskill

Thanks Kenny. I couldn't agree more.



About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the Transport category.

Tech is the previous category.

Westminster is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.