Minutes of the Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting on Thursdau 11 August 2022 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.
0 Summary of actions
| Item | Action |
| 1.2 | RL to advise if TT approves June minutes |
| 3.3 | CW to ensure latest version of route-map with sectional completion dates is on TT website |
1 Prelims
1.1 Welcome, apologies
1.1.1 Present
CCTT: H Tobermann, J Marlborough, A Hardie
TT: Steve Jackson, Rob Leech, Chris Wilson
1.1.2 Apologies
R Armstrong, Andrew Mckienzie, Carol Nimmo, Mike Birch, Don Giles, Charlotte Encombe
1.2 Minutes of June 2022 meeting
Approved as-is
1.3 Actions from June meeting (not included on agenda below)
None
2 CCTT’s planned deputation to the August TEC, noting progress and constructive engagement with Tram Project Team, and addressing rational solutions to real issues, all summarised in a ‘Commitments Register’: before the trams run, during the defects period, and as committed CEC projects
2.1 Introduction
- H Tobermann: CCTT intends to be constructive, and ensure achievement. CCTT is undertaking this deputation because, while in general the trams project is on time and the trams team has done well, there are some matters that are not satisfactory. CCTT intends to work on these in a rational, non-sensational manner, unlike a recent newspaper article.
- R Leech: TT was concerned by the newspaper article, and questioned the source of its claims. TT has engaged with councillors to explain the background to the issues raised in the article, and to provide reassurance, while acknowledging that there are some defects.
- HT: CCTT hopes that what it will say will also provide reassurance.
2.2 Discussion
- HT: CCTT believes there are 4 types of issue:
- ‘pre-completion’ – those that will be handled by TT before the tramway is handed over to CEC.
- ‘defects’ – issues that arise within 2 years of completion. There is a contractual mechanism to deal with these.
- ‘commitment register’, e.g. where issues cannot be dealt with during the project, so have been ‘parked’ for later action by CEC (not TT)
- ‘parallel matters’ – these go back to before the final business case, e.g. CPZ roll-out, integration of tram and bus ticketing. CCTT seeks reassurance that these will be on CEC’s agenda.
CCTT seeks a report from CEC saying how these issues will be handled.
- R Leech: the first two types were discussed today to gain clarity. Commitments have been given for some of the other types.
- HT: CCTT would appreciate TT adding to calls for CEC to complete the work around the basic tram-line.
- HT: CCTT is concerned about whether CEC can ingest all the assets created by TT. G Barwell had promised to send CCTT examples of how CEC ingests assets but these have not yet been received. CCTT is also concerned that TT will disperse, so unknown quantities will handle defects.
- RL: TT does have a plan, but resourcing is not yet secured. The handover strategy will include defects, but it’s up to CEC how it handles these (in-house or external). TT can explain what will happen, and how defects can be advised to CEC.
- HT: CCTT and TT seem to in accord on this, but CCTT wishes to know relevant dates and details.
- S Jackson: completion is due in Spring 2023. The defect-handling period will start at the completion date.
- A Hardie: what sort of matters will be handled as ‘defects’?
- SJ: the contractor is liable for any issues, e.g. failure of manhole chambers, arising in the 2-year period.
- RL: It’s unlikely that there will be defects that are not resolved, except where contractors are not contractually bound to fic them. (The current major labour shortage may be a factor.) However anything critical to safety or the running of the trams definitely will be fixed. Other matters that can be fixed without affecting construction may be pushed to after the completion date, because TT is under major pressure to complete the work.
- SJ: all potential defects have been recorded on TT’s systems, so TT can work out with the contractors whether they need to be fixed immediately or later. For example aesthetic matters that are not safety- or operations-critical can wait.
- AH: what is the process for deciding which matters are critical/to be fixed?
- RL: in simple terms, the contractor needs to demonstrate whether any relevant item meets specifications. If not, the contractor must remedy it. All specifications have tolerances that must be met.
- SJ: TT does not hide its defects list – it is very open to the contractor. Inspectors are in the field, recording and immediately making the contractor aware of any issues.
- HT: CCTT would like to know how many defects there are, and how many of these are critical.
- RL: there will be a dashboard showing such data.
- SJ: if a utility company does not reinstate matters to specification [after completion/adoption by CEC], it is up to CEC to pursue the company. (There was discussion of a current example.)
- SJ: the contractor has records of its work, so if another company spoils any of this, CEC can pursue this.
- RL: the contractor is ‘naturally’ incentivised to complete on time because it will not want to work next to running trams.
(Some non-minutable matter was discussed at this point.)
- There was discussion of how to discuss which defects are dealt with immediately and later.
3 TT reports and updates
3.1 Latest (22-07-22) progress dashboard with period lookahead and progress key metrics
No matters raised by CCTT
3.2 Latest (22-07-22) H&S metrics
No matters raised by CCTT
3.3 Latest (July 2022) route map with sectional completion dates
- SJ: this is the latest version
- HT: I could not find it version on the TT website.
- Action: C Wilson to ensure it’s available
- SJ: any date-changes are due to TT focussing resources according to the labour shortage. The majority of the civil engineering work will be finished within 2022, enabling testing in 2023.
- JM: does this include landscaping etc?
- RL: planting will depend on what’s appropriate for the plants.
- CW: all heras fencing etc (apart from a small amount needed for fixing defects and sorting non-critical public-realm) will go by the end of 2022.
3.4 Latest (dated) 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
- HT: The Pilrig area now has quite a few permanent crossings. What is happening at the foot of Leith walk?
- JM: crossings here are generally OK. Signage for crossings at Elm row is absent/not working well.
3.4.1 Separate map or annotation to 3.4 showing any planned changes (one month ahead)
No discussion
3.5 Map or list of general 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
Held over to next meeting
3.6 Latest (dated) map showing general traffic management arrangements to accommodate site investigations works and utility diversions outside the main area of TTN works
Held over to next meetiing
3.7 Ongoing metrics regarding ‘business health’
- CW: the next data-set will cover January to June 2022. I have chased for it, and hope to present it to the board and CCTT in September. The last data showed Leith has 78 closures and 74 openings. In Scotland there were ~2 closures per day.
- HT: please classify the types of business covered when this data is available.
- JM: it is likely that the figures will be affected by the current cost-of-living issues.
3.8 Latest (22-07-22) comms dashboard (Stakeholder & Communications) and latest (August 2022) geographical breakdown of comms
- CW: traffic management has been changed at the Baltic junction, permitting right turns from Seafield in Constitution St.
- CW: there was an increase in communications (2 to 14) about Rennie’s Isle, mostly about buses. The new signage in response appears to be working but TT will monitor this.
- JM: there was a call about walls/barriers on Victoria Bridge and Melrose Drive. There is no information on their replacements on TT’s website.
- JM: there may be a safety issue here for pedestrians and cyclists sharing the path. Also, the barriers are not aesthetic – they look like the sort used on motorways. European trams have more fitting barriers.
- RL: there is much less risk of trams going off their rails than of cars going off the carriageway. However, these barriers are necessary to prevent any trams that come off the rails going into the water.
- HT: this will need to be a post-project fix because it would not be sensible to replace them at this stage – CCTT will add it to its deputation-list. It is unfortunate that information on the unattractive barriers was not published, and that alternative solutions were not found during the design.
3.9 Call centre stats and Support for Business Update
- CW; this is covered in the dashboard. Increasingly, enquiries arrive by email rather than phone or social media. The summer months have been relatively quiet. There have been about 200 applications support for business TT continues to push for redemption of ‘itison’ vouchers, resulting in ~400 being used. (~500 are yet to be redeemed.) More will be issued in the run-up to Christmas.
- CW: the logistics hubs continue to work but are being attenuated as construction is completed.
3.10 Summary of the most recent Tram Project Board meeting on a confidential basis
This section is confidential. Topics included the previously-mentioned newspaper article, labour resources and a forthcoming short curtailment services to the West End to connect electrical services.
3.11 Summary of TT meetings with Active Travel and Business Groups
- CW: I met with the Constitution St organisation about 3 weeks ago – another meeting is due soon. Cost of living is very topical. Correspondence about Leith Walk has reduced somewhat but engagement continues.
4 Queries and issues identified by CCTT
4.1 Follow up on July written Q&As
4.1.1 Commercial waste at logistics hubs (item 2)
- HT: Logistics hub staff should not have permitted businesses to leave the pallets etc at the hub.
- CW: staff do try to prevent this but suffer verbal abuse.
4.1.2 Bus shelters (item 4)
- HT: many people are upset about the position of the shelter at Croall Place.
- RL: there is no alternative location – we have discussed this previously.
- JM: temporary bus shelters do not show which buses will stop there.
- TT: this will be resolved when the permanent shelters are in place.
4.1.3 Closed cycle lanes (item 7)
- HT: people are not obeying signage.
- RL: pedestrian use of the cycle-lane seems to have reduced.
4.1.4 Broken paving
- SJ: if TT had to instruct a contractor to replace paving slabs broken by a 3rd party, this would add to TT’s costs.
- CW: legislation to prevent pavement-parking is not yet in place, so CEC is not yet able to act on this.
4.1.5 Temporary lights (item 13)
- SJ: as work progresses down Leith Walk, TT is installing permanent lights. They should all be in place by 19 November.
4.1.6 Resident issues (item 14)
- RL: TT continues to engage fully with this resident. TT tries to respond to all issues reported to it.
4.1.7 Dangerous pothole (item 16)
- HT: the adjudicator has said that the hole was not deep enough to be dangerous, and that I could not have cycled into this hole.
4.2 LHNCC
- JM: can any of the signage at Lindsay Rd be rationalised?
4.3 LLCC
- AH: there have been concerns about the security of the Constitution St compound.
- SJ: this has been picked up with the relevant manager. I will check whether it has been resolved.
- What is the timescale for sorting the Foot of the Walk junction?
- SJ: track was installed last week. Another 5 changes are now needed to traffic management needed to work on kerbs etc on each corner of this site. This will take up to 3 months.
- CW: 93% of track has now been laid. As of next week, there will be track all the way to Melrose Drive.
4.4 LCCC
- HT: all issues in LCCC area covered above
4.5 NTBCC
- HT: NTBCC has asked about night-working in its area.
- SJ: there will be some cable-pulling, which should not be noisy.
- AH: the poor road surfaces make turning into London Rd (when coming downhill from Picardy Place) difficult.
- RL: the temporary surfaces are an inevitable unfortunate consequence of any such work. TT is vituperated if it erects ‘please dismount’ signs. TT could install signs that warn rather than give orders.
5 AOB
- SJ: the London Rd clock will be reinstalled at Elm Row on 16 August.
- SJ: TT has instructed the design for the Pilrig Wheel to the contractor. TT has budget for this work.
6 Date of next meeting(s) and guests
- RL: this will need to be after the next tram board meeting, i.e. after 2 September.
- CW: the all-party oversight group has not yet been established. Hence TT is briefing party transport spokespeople each month. The next briefing is on 6 September.
- Decision: 8 September, possibly hybrid
lhncc.org.uk 