Minutes of the Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting on Thursday 09 February 2023 at 5:15pm, at Trams project compound (165 Leith Walk)

Actions and decisions are red italic. ‘TT’ means ‘Trams Team’. Names are mostly abbreviated to initials.

[text in square brackets] is glosses, i.e. implications unspoken at this point but drawn from other spoken items.

CCTT’s minutes-take apologises for late publication of these minutes, due to need to obtain clearance to publish

1 Prelims

1.1 Welcome, apologies

1.1.1 Present

Robert Armstrong*	TT/CEC
Mike Birch*	CCTT/NTBCC	Jennifer Marlborough*	CCTT/LHNCC
Steve Jackson†	TT	Bruce Ryan*	CCTT minutes secretary
Rob Leech†	TT	Harald Tobermann*	CCTT/LCCC
Andrew Mackenzie*	CCTT/LLCC	Chris Wilson*	TT/CEC

* = in person, † = via MS Teams

1.1.2 Apologies for absence

Charlotte Encombe	CCTT/LCCC	Angus Hardie	CCTT/LLCC
Don Giles	CCTT/LHNCC	Carol Nimmo	CCTT/NTBCC

1.2 Draft minutes of December 2022 meeting

These were approved.

2 Action Log 2021 – 2022: open items identified by CCTT in January 2023

This section also records actions (some from the December minutes) that were discussed at this point.

• Action: RA to provide TT’s initial responses to enable CCTT to update statuses
• Item 42 on the log: Ocean Drive lights are still not providing sufficient light.
• Action 1.3c on December minutes: there is need for clarity on the action about vandalism of fencing, i.e. whether this is permanent or temporary
• Action 2.1a on December minutes: Action: RA to provide responses to the points identified in walk-throughs last year by close of business on 2023_02_10.
• Action: MB to send copy of Road Safety Audit from Council website to RA.
• Action: RA to arrange for discussion with MB regarding final design of Blenheim Place public realm prior to work recommencing.
• The drawings provided showing the location of bus shelters are all correct with exception of one on Croall Place, which will be located next to the bridge parapet. Implicit action: TT to correct the relevant drawings.
• Commitments Register is still to be issued: Implicit action: TT to issue it
• Action 5.2 from December minutes: Action: TT to review reporting of hard landscaping, then report this to CCTT.

3 New queries and issues identified by CCTT

3.1 LCCC

3.1.1 Role of over-sized planters that have appeared between Pilrig and Balfour?

TT: these are being removed: they will be repositioned following further consultation with local Councillors and CCTT

3.1.2 When will enforcement of illegal pavement parking start?

RA: tickets can and are already being issued to motorists parking on pavements next to sections of road with double yellow lines. Almost of all of Leith Walk will have double-yellow lines and thus be covered by a relevant legal ruling.

3.1.3 Are maps of bus shelter locations dated 22-3-22 up to date? (actions OCT+DEC22)

See item 2 (point 7)

3.1.4 Permanent plans for Brunswick Street/Leith Walk junction

TT: there are plans to make changes, which may need a TRO but could be implemented under the existing ETRO.

3.1.5 Permanent plans for signage at approach to Leith Walk/London Rd junction (southwards)

TT: new signage will be installed with information on the route to be followed.

3.1.6 Tram Team position toward BT hubs with advertising and Police Box application in Leith Walk?

• TT: we have not been previously approached for comments, and hence have not reacted. TT understands that a planning application is required.
• HT: CCTT hopes that the work will be joined up, rather than a plethora of small work-sites.
• HT: this planning application has been submitted. LCCC will respond to it.

3.2 NTBCC

3.2.1 Progress of revised design for a graded path to and from the pedestrian crossing by Toppings (Blenheim Place)

See also item 2 (point 6)

• TT has raised concerns with planners, because submitted plans did not match what is on the ground, and to ensure that CEC planning has the most up-to-date plans from TT.
• CW: work is now due to start at Blenheim Place in March.
• MB: CCTT/NTBCC needs to be sure – before work starts – that the outcome will be as previously discussed with TT.
• SJ: Blenheim Place work started yesterday, thanks to resource becoming available.
• CW: this work is at the carriageway-side, not on the graded path.
• RA: there was no promise of changes to the design, just that drawings would be updated to match reality.
• MB: there was discussion of adding tactile paving, grading sections carrying desire-lines. It is not clear on any landscape drawing that these will be implemented. I am unhappy that that TT has provided no record of the relevant pre-Christmas conversation, that your recollection is at odds with mine, and that you now say that no commitments were made. However, these matters could be resolved with a constructive conversation: I am not looking for a complete redesign of this area, but I will not accept a safety hazard remaining.
• MB: traffic lights at the Leopold Place pedestrian crossing are still not bagged. When is TT going to ensure that Class One does what it should? (CCTT is aware that TT has pushed for this several times, so what is the effective escalation route?)
• HT: the lesson is that all subcontractor should have representatives co-located in TT HQ, and attending meetings, to be immediately aware of important matters.

3.2.2 Will there be any means of highlighting when the continuous footpath is crossing a side junction for the visually impaired?

MB: this will be covered in the walkthrough discussions.

3.3 LHNCC

• JM: LHNCC’s queries are about the periphery of the tram-route, e.g. removal of a box junction at North Leith Sands when this road was retarred. This is a key access point to/from Melrose Drive.
• Action: RA to pick this up with CEC’s roads team.
• JM: other queries depend on the report on the walkthroughs.
• RA: this report will be issued tomorrow.

3.4 LLCC

• AM: when will the ‘builder yard’ on Bernard St, near Pierino’s, be removed? TT materials left here have added to flooding.
• CW: I have spoken with Pierino’s and the print-shop recently. Works here will start in February, and be complete in April. 5 tree pits are to be installed, and the ‘yard’ currently contains slabs that will be installed in this area. TT’s priority has been electrification of cables etc – landscaping/public-realm work will occur after this.
• AM: removal of old streetlights is occurring slowly and intermittently: pushchairs can’t get past these ’dig-sites’.
• AM: tram poles on Stevedore Place are being dug up because they have not been earthed, apparently.
• CW: continuity test was always part of the planned process. Poles were earthed previous, and are now being tested as electricity lines are installed, followed by re-earthing/reinstatement.
• CW: 42 poles are in footpaths. (The majority are in central reservations.) These 42 each required lifting of one or more stones to enable earth-testing. 25 of these 42 are in Constitution St, giving an unfortunate impression.
• AM: The sequencing of traffic lights at the Queen Charlotte St/Constitution St junction is maddening. Drivers (including the police) are disobeying red lights here.
• CW: the sequencing is set up as if trams are already running, in preparation (i.e. driver education) for when they are.
• HT: could these lights be hooded, and temporary lights, sequenced for current conditions, be installed?
• HT: is it true that there is out of hours grinding work in this area.
• CW/RA: this work, which is taking place from Picardy Place to the Foot of Leith Walk, is being done out-of-hours to minimise delays to traffic. The work is removal of imperfections from the tram-rails.
• CW/RA: grind proceeds at about 5 km/h, but due to other parts of the process, currently 700 metres are being cleaned each night. The work cannot be done finish before 11pm – working earlier would lead to significantly less productivity due to traffic etc, and thus would jeopardise the first test-runs of trams (due in late February).
• JM: this raises concerns about trams making noise at night once service is established along the route.
• CW/RL: trams will ring their bells when they leave stops, or if in heavily congested traffic. They will not run all night.

4 Lessons learned

4.1 Proposed dates, shape and terms of the ‘lessons learned’ exercise

• RL I suggest starting the regular April or May meeting early to accommodate this exercise. I would take 3 or 4 hours.
• HT: I would prefer a separate session.
• Action: HT to propose dates.
• RL: participants would include me, Hannah Ross, CCTT members but not many TT staff – they will be concentrating on finishing the project. The important thing is to listen to CCTT.
• HT: I would like certainty on terms.
• RL: it will cover sections of time such as (1) consultations; (2) design development; (3) construction. Section 1 discussions would examine how things might be done earlier, before contractual lock-in. Section 2 [and section 3] discussions would cover what went well, and what could be better.
• HT: the discussions will be confidential, but outcomes should eb published, even if there is disagreement between TT and CCTT over the actual lessons.
• Action: RL/HT to meet separately to draft the discussion sections before 9 March, for agreement at March TT/CCTT meeting.
• Action: CW/RL to issue a timeline of how the whole project (including consultations) took place in reality.

5 TT reports and updates

(papers here and here by area)

There was no discussion of sub-items in this section, or of the related papers, unless TT members brought up specific issues.

5.1 Latest (February 23) progress dashboard with period lookahead (visual section-by-section format), progress metrics and other key metrics (including visualisations of quality/non-conformance data)

• MB: it is welcome that the ‘Quality’ dashboard slide now shows numbers of closed and open items. Is the low number of closures simply because this slide covers January?
• RL: TT has been adversely affected by labour issues and by very inclement weather before Christmas, so work is behind schedule in some areas. TT is hence concentrating on quality issues that are delaying electrification of the lines. It will then attend to other issues. At this point, the numbers of outstanding issues should markedly reduce.
• HT: why ae paving etc taking a back-seat to other work – do they not involve different skills/workers?
• RL/CW: some areas need authorisation to work once lines are live, so TT aims to finish work in those areas first. Decisions are based on proximity to (potentially live) lines, including whether equipment (including delivery equipment) will be near to these lines.
• AM: after electrification, houseowners will need to pay for authorities to work on their own properties.
• Action: CW to engage with relevant people in Edinburgh Tram about how such costs can be mitigated.

5.1.1 Timeline/Countdown (140 days) to completion with narrative of what we can expect to see and when to understand (and believe) how the project is dealing with the latest challenges on the ground (inter alia, repairs to already damaged infrastructure; lighting still missing from central tram poles at Pilrig and between Picardy and London Road, delays to the completion of Leith Walk north of Pilrig)

• HT: I am now concerned that the final delivery date will not be met. Please reassure us that the final delivery date will be met, without rushed (and hence slapdash) work.
• RL: if slab-laying etc had been done while temperatures were too low, it would need to be redone. Hence 7 to 10 days work on landscaping etc were lost before Christmas because of sub-zero temperatures.
• RL: hence work has been rescheduled into parallel landscaping and energising ‘tracks’ to achieve the final delivery date. TT is not rushing the work.
• RL: TT is confident of achieving the final delivery date, absent further unforeseen forces majeures.
• HT: TT had promised full reopening of Leith Walk before Christmas – that is 2 months ago. While CCTT understands that 1·5 weeks were lost to inclement weather, this doesn’t explain all of the delay. Also, TT needs to show that issues which are now arising will be resolved, and that landscaping, traffic management and modal change will be achieved.
• AM: these meetings have covered the trams project’s coherence about public realm work, co-ordination with Lothian Buses etc. However, in ‘coastal’ Leith. There are projects which do not appear to cohere with each other and the trams project. (These include low-traffic neighbourhoods, controlled parking zones and ‘Leith Connections’.) Hence CC members are exhausted, and locals are facing streets being dug up again – and many may not even know about this.
• HT: these are not part of the trams project, and so are is up to CEC (including its transport convenor). However, if trams-work, i.e. frontage to frontage along the route, slips, then TT must publicise this.

5.2 Latest (February 23) H&S metrics

5.3 Latest (February 23) route progress map

5.4 Latest (February 23) construction phasing map

5.5 Latest (February 23) map showing all current temporary pedestrian crossing points along the route and distances, location of temporary bus stops, and diverted or narrowed (below 1.2m) footpaths

5.6 Maps or lists of traffic management measures (locations and brief description, dates) agreed and coming into force in the coming 5 weeks: road traffic diversions and lane closures, bus route diversions inside and outside the main area of TTN works anticipated diversions of bus routes and general traffic.

5.7 Ongoing ‘business health’ indicators

• CW: the next update is due in March or April.
• HT: I have looked at available retail properties on Leith Walk. They are quickly being taken up at higher rants, and the typical new use is a bijou drinking place, thus lowering diversity. However, our area’s non-driving nature is facilitated by having services available within easy, nearby reach.
• CW: changes to Leith are also happening across the UK. I am surprised that Tesco is opening a ‘metro’ at Stead’s Place.

5.8 Latest (January 23) comms dashboard and latest geographical breakdown of incoming comms

5.9 Call centre stats and Support for Business Update

5.10 Summary of the most recent Tram Project Board (and sub-groups) meeting/s on a confidential basis

• RL: the board is being kept appraised of the key issues, which have been covered above.
• HT: are any tram-project staff or board members participating in the Hardie enquiry? I understand that the Hardie report is being Maxwellised[a]
• RL: some were involved in the original tram project. TT has no idea when the report will be published.

5.11 Summary of TT meetings with Active Travel and Business Groups

• HT: is it true that CEC’s active travel forum is closing after not meeting for 2 years?
• RA: there was an active travel meeting with Spokes yesterday. These meetings take place monthly.

6 AOB

6.1 Sectional completions

• MB: what is the status of sectional completions/handovers (SC2s)?
• RA: TT is working on these. The Rennie’s Isle section was handed over in December 2022.
• RA: the next SC2 will hand over the Balfour St to Foot of Leith Walk section.
• RA: SC2 handover means that the section is handed over to CEC maintenance, parking enforcement etc, and that all safety-critical TT work has been completed, even though test-running of trams has not yet been undertaken.
• RA: completion handover will be achieved by spring 2023.
• Action: RA/TT to provide a list of completed SC2s.

6.2 Different specifications in different parts of the tram-route.

• HT: in December there was discussion of the different specifications for parts of the route within and outwith the World Heritage area. Also, Constitution St will be repaved with Caithness Slabs while Leith Walk will be (re-)paved with pre-cast concrete slabs and pavements north of Ocean Drive will be tarmacked. I had asked for the exact specifications, and a map showing the precise areas for each specification.
• SJ: these specifications came from consultation with CEC planning. For example, Constitution St was already due to receive Caithness Slabs, so this specification was maintained. Skidmore is mandated for the World Heritage area. CEC planning specified pre-cast concrete for Leith Walk, and tarmac for north of Ocean Drive.
• SJ: the specifications came from CEC planning during drafting of specifications.
• HT: does this mean that the trams contract contains specifications arising from undocumented meetings?
• RL: all specifications/requirements were drafted by consultation with different CEC departments, including planning.
• RL: TT can share the information on exactly where each specification is applicable.
• Action: TT to implement this.

7 Date of next meeting/s and guests

9 March