COME rush hour you cannot move in Princes Street for buses.
One evening recently I stopped counting after 40, few of which were in motion. Were they not so packed you could manage another hour's work while aboard. As it is, all one can do is stare dumbly out of the window as the driver attempts to shepherd flocks of change-poor foreign language students into his pen. Once he has, the doors close and we inch forward. Sometimes it can take as much as half an hour to go from one end of the street to the other.
It would be overly optimistic to suggest the advent of the trams can solve such congestion. For a start, there are far fewer trams than there are buses and those that there are rarely go to places people need to get to. But the trams have already, after just a few days, provided Edinburgh with a much-needed facelift, dragging it kicking and whining into the 21st century and giving it the air of a modern capital of a distinctive country.
In all of this, of course, there is a rich vein of irony, for it was buses that finally composed the requiem to the trams in the 1950s. Back then, when fuel was relatively cheap, buses were deemed to be the very definition of progress. Moreover, they offered a far-reaching service and instant flexibility. Soon, however, ticket prices escalated, not least because of the Suez Crisis in 1956, the year the last tram was decommissioned.
Later came the realisation that the more buses you put on the road the less quickly you are likely to reach your destination. Then there are the questions concerning climate change and air pollution. Tourists from the Far East are conspicuous this summer and not just because there are so many of them. In Edinburgh, as in Tokyo and Beijing, it would appear de rigueur for those with respiratory disorders to wear masks. It is either that or they are all surgeons who can't be bothered to change after leaving the operating theatre.
The trams offer hope our capital may yet have a breathable future. But for the moment their legacy is painful. The cost was immense and the damage to individual businesses and the city's reputation will linger long in the memory. What happens next depends to an extent on the public's inclination to forgive and forget. One trusts that will be sooner rather than later. If it is, work could soon begin on extending the tram route down Leith Walk to Newhaven, where it was originally intended to go. There are already enough trams and track in store; all that is needed now is the wherewithal to pay labour costs. After that we can consider further development. These are decisions Edinburgh's embattled councillors must make.
Meanwhile, what should Glasgow do? Throughout the trams debacle Glaswegians basked in the glow of schadenfreude. Nothing so delights them as the misfortune of its rival at the other end of the M8. Perhaps they thought the trams would never run and that they could look smugly on as Edinburgh sank deeper into a mire of its own making. That all changed last weekend. As one Glaswegian transport expert told me as we travelled by tram, it is imperative Glasgow does not get left behind.
It is all very well its hosting the Commonwealth Games and, in the process, regenerating the East End, but without proper connectivity this will count for little. The way forward is not just to alight on hitherto blighted areas and offer their residents better places to live; these are givens. What must also be provided are links to other parts of the city that break down the postcode lottery which stigmatises much of Glasgow. Often, when one hears the denizens of the West End talk of their counterparts in the east of the city, you could be forgiven for thinking you are in a country that practises apartheid.
High class public transport can help to destroy such barriers. In the first instance, trams running between the soon to be refurbished Queen Street Station, George Square and Celtic Park would be a giant step in the right direction.
Another would be the resurrection of the planned rail link between Glasgow Airport and Central Station. All - all! - this requires are vision and ambition.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article