DING! DING! THE TRAMS ARE COMING – WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
John McGurk
Ding! Ding! Here comes the Edinburgh tram again. Just another few weeks and it'll be starting up for real. The citizens can't wait and everything is wonderful, say the comrades at the city council. Well, they would say that wouldn't they? Despite the seven years and £776 million it's taken to complete the line which won't be used by most folk because it's not going their way…
It's little wonder the launch of the trams is to be a “no frills affair to avoid being triumphant,” according to 27 year-old Tom Norris, the general manager who was in charge of the trains which served the London Olympic Park.
It's likely that we will be hearing a lot from Mr Norris, particularly since his name is associated with the critically acclaimed 1935 novel “Mr Norris Changes Trains” by Christopher Isherwood in which the mysterious Mr Norris, travelling by rail from Holland to Germany, is later exposed as a spy and has to flee post-war Berlin.
The last words of the story, spoken by Norris, are “What have I done to deserve all this?”
Our own Mr Norris may well pose the same question when he realises that the elected officials responsible for this whole sorry saga are delighted to have recruited him to carry the can when the inevitable happens and things start to go wrong.
There doesn't appear to be a tram system anywhere in the world that doesn't have difficulties.
Research conducted a year ago on the tram system in Melbourne, Australia, concluded that on average, there were more than two collisions a day between trams and other vehicles. In one street, there were 253 collisions over four years.
During one 12 month period, the emergency braking system caused 880 tram passengers to fall and injure themselves.
The researchers said one of the biggest causes of emergency braking were taxis doing sudden U-turns. Now there's a surprise.
In the Netherlands, they reckon that for every kilometre travelled, accidents are 12 times more likely in a tram than in a car.The culprits are mobile phone users who are staring at their screens and not paying attention; young people wearing headphones who are unaware of what's around them and folk simply trying to cross the street to get to the tram platforms.
When they looked into the causes of tram accidents in Gothenburg, Sweden, they discovered that 60% of victims were drunk. Perhaps just as well our trams are not travelling up and down Lothian Road on Saturday nights.
A few weeks ago, 33 people were injured when three trams collided in Rotterdam. The following day, 22 people were injured when two trams collided in Belgrade.
Sadly, nearer to home, a 13 year-old girl was killed instantly at a tram level crossing near Nottingham two years ago and a man died in January when he fell under the wheels of a tram in Manchester city centre.
These things can be dangerous and no wonder. Each tram weighs 55 tonnes, is 155 feet long and can travel at up to 45 miles an hour.A major drawback is that they can't swerve to avoid obstacles.
As for cyclists, don't get your wheels caught in the tracks and fall over in front of one. And be best advised to cross the track at right angles.
Workmen have been told to stay clear of those overhead wires in case they accidentally come into contact with 750 volts because survival is severely limited.
In Frankfurt, they're trying to reduce accidents by fitting optical sensors to the front of trams. These cameras will scan the road 60 metres ahead and automatically evaluate risks. An acoustic warning will alert the driver before an automatic braking system is triggered.
In Australia, they've introduced a “30 Rhino” campaign which is attempting to reinforce the dangers. Each tram weighs as much as 30 Rhinos so if you step in front of it, it's liable to flatten you.
The harsh reality is that no amount of “dings” is going to prevent Edinburgh from having its fair share of accidents and incidents.
There are some very narrow roadways between Haymarket and the West End in particular. They've all been deliberately created, of course, with one aim: to make life even more frustrating for drivers. Our friends in the council clearly hope that drivers will be persuaded to give up their cars so these obstacles are just another little reminder.
The comrade-in-chief, Lesley Hinds, who is forever telling us how lucky we are to have such a far-sighted, prudent local council which has worked really hard to introduce our trams, is comfortingly upbeat as usual.
Following a recent trip to see the Dublin trams in action, she announced: “What struck me was how quickly the tram was able to leave the stop as there was no need to wait for traffic.”
In other words, just like a bus in a bus lane.
But don't we have these already?
John McGurk is a former editor of The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday and was managing editor of the Daily Telegraph.
MORE POWERS: WEST MIDLANDS WON'T STAND IDLY BY
Unionist parties at Westminster hope they can fast track more powers through the Commons in time for draft legislation by next January. Dream on.
Not only will any new legislation be subject to keen scrutiny – that’s what parliaments are for – but it will also have to contend with arguments from economically struggling areas elsewhere in the UK that they should not be overlooked.
This is the Pandora’s Box that the Scottish referendum has sprung open. In an important article, Paul Forrest (pictured, third from left), head of research at the West Midlands Economic Forum, sets out why his region should not be disadvantaged by Westminster rushing through more powers for Scotland.
The Scottish Referendum debate has centred on whether Scotland is stronger in the Union or outside it – little attention has been paid to which option benefits the England and the West Midlands. The impact on the region of Scotland remaining in the UK could indeed be negative for the region.
The No-side appear to have adopted a negative campaign, simply stating that Scotland would be £1400 per head better off if it voted No. The Yes campaign, with its romantic populist approach, argue that the Independence windfall would be £1000 per head.
Whatever happens, major changes can be anticipated. The three main Westminster parties have already made un-costed commitments to further devolution if the vote is No, effectively moving toward further Scots financial autonomy in all areas, except defence, foreign affairs and social security.
Assessing the impact of either outcome is difficult, not least due to lack of hard data. It is relatively easily to quantify relations between national economies as they have clearly defined economic spaces, trading and tax regimes. Defining relations between sub-national entities such as Scotland and England or the West Midlands is reliant on assumptions, which can be politically slanted, because of data weaknesses.
Scotland and England have no single-defined border to determine the extent of the respective economies - according to some there are at least nine internationally acceptable variants of the North Sea border.
There is no agreement on the division of the continental shelf in the North Sea, currently the fisheries zones are used for determining allocation of North Sea energy resources. Statistically these resources are allocated by the ONS to the Continental Shelf (or Extra-regio). Proponents of Scottish independence assume North Sea revenues should be allocated to Scotland. With these revenues, Scotland per head provided an estimated £789 more in tax than the UK as a whole in 2012-13. Scottish public expenditure per head, however, in the same period was some £1256 (11%) higher.
If Scotland does vote yes, the true fiscal position will become quickly apparent and negotiation commence on an equitable and transparent redistribution of national asset and liabilities, including natural energy resources, debt and currency reserves as well a range of cross-border issues that have yet to be identified or quantified.
What could be the impact of the Scots remaining within the UK?
The current structure of funding is via a combination of the Scottish block grant and UK Departmental expenditure north of the Border.
Currently public expenditure in Scotland is equivalent to 9.3% of the UK total, despite an 8.4% population share. In 2012-13, per person this equated to £7932, 16% higher than the UK as a whole (£6722).
Annual recurrent public spend per head was 12.5% higher, and annual capital spend per head 48.2% higher than for the UK.
Significantly, Enterprise expenditure per head in Scotland was three times higher and the differential with the West Midlands, which received £262 per head, was more pronounced with Scotland’s receipt of £1001 per head. Similarly on transport activity, the West Midlands received £1112 per head compared to Scotland’s £2722.
There are arguments that Scotland receives more because of its greater relative deprivation and isolation, however there are parts of the West Midlands that suffer equally, if not more badly in terms of poverty and structural employment, whilst in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire there are communities that are as equally isolated as many Scottish populations.
It is also argued that the Barnett Formula that determines the block grant is based on needs. However the baseline was calculated on the expenditure levels current when the political fudge was struck in 1979, with expenditure raised incrementally and proportionality since.
Expenditure was allocated according to 1979 population levels, although political expediencies subsequently have seen major funding variations. For capital expenditure, the national basis of the calculation has the perverse impact that London capital expenditure (by far the main recipient) reduces the available capital for other English regions, whilst simultaneously increasing the allocation available for Scotland.
The key problems of the Barnett Formula is its lack of transparency in its calculation and focus on political expediency rather than addressing very real social problems which are usually concentrated in specific pockets within regions, rather than generically to regions as a whole.
If there is a long-term structural unemployment problem in Wolverhampton it should be treated as equally urgently and effectively as if it were in East Kilbride or Newport.
With Scotland being promised control of some income and other taxes, such as Air Passenger Duty (APD), unless the Barnett Formula is restructured, or indeed a new methodology altogether adopted, this will exacerbate the asymmetrical devolution of governance that currently exists and put devolved administrations at a fiscal advantage.
If, for instance, the West Midlands took control of APD this could radically alter Birmingham Airport’s potential and consequently significantly boost the regional economy. The Davies Commission has implicitly and more recently explicitly stated the strengths of the Airport, but cited some reluctance on the part of international carriers to fly there, reducing or abolishing APD could transform its international attractiveness.
London, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have institutions that take strategic economic views and lobbying for their implementation. English Regions, however defined, have no comparable capacity with no consensus on how devolution, if at all, should proceed. There are interesting proposals for combined local authorities, and both the Heseltine and Adonis Reviews have suggested ways forward. Proposals to give City Regions greater powers offers some scope, although again there needs to be mechanisms for them each to work together effectively. The One North proposal is an innovative approach that incorporates disparate City and local identities and harnesses them collectively to create a new regional approach.
The West Midlands, and indeed the Midlands collectively needs to decide how it can move forward and strengthen what is already one of the more dynamic and productive regions globally.
This article first appeared in The Birmingham Post
