Skip directly to content

Festive Picture Quiz

e2toe4's picture
on Fri, 12/28/2012 - 16:52

A Festive picture quiz comparing the tram projects in our own Incr-Edinburgh and another European Historic City with a World Heritage centre; Reims, In France. (Thanks for people pointing out this typo in the original -- Reims NOT Reins!!)

1) Which Tram project started planning in 2003, i) Totally Incr-Edinburgh, ii) Reims or iii) Both?

2) Which Tram started running operationally in April 2011, i) Absolutely Incr-Edinburgh  ii) Reims?

3) Spot the Difference

Study the two pictures carefully




 3) i) Which City (Reims or Barking Madinburgh)planning it's Tram project  decided to bury the wires in the ground to avoid a pole forest obscuring views in their World Heritage Site Central area...

      ii) and which did not?


4) i) Which City decided to go for industrial scale metal poles 'to save on costs' ? 

4 ii) In light of the above cost saving which City completed it's Tramway of 11kms in 2011 for £255,000,000 or so?? (and the original typo in this as well!!)

4 iii) and which is still building it's 13.1 Kilometre line for £1,000,000,000 and still counting? (ie a kilometre or two further, 4 years later and 4 times the cost)


5) Which Historic European city of a similar size, or with similar heritage heritage and cultural issues to identify and overcome  did Drop-Dedinburgh (pop 477,000)  Council Officers pick for their first fact finding jolly (er- surely 'misson'? Ed) was it a) Duisberg (pop 496,000) in rainy Germany, b) Exotic Antwerp (pop493,000) in Boring old Belgium c) The Hague (pop 503,913) in a ferry boat ride away, Holland or d) Sun soaked Melbourne in faraway Australia (pop 4,100,00)?


6) Spot the Odd one out in the pictures of Reims and Utterley-Incomp-inburgh below.

In these five pictures four of them show a city that thought about what needed to happen to traffic if they displaced it from former main routes. They built large urban traffic ways, motorways extending very close to the City centre, large absolutely central NON_RESIDENTIAL (in the main) boulevards, some sunken dual carriageways to keep traffic away from people while getting it away from the central and residential areas and accepted the Tram was a part of an integrated 21st century Traffic Plan.

The odd one out picture is from a City where the administration simply  pretended everything would work itself out, did no prepatory planning, displaced the traffic by stealth into residential streets and pretended it was only going to be this bad while the tram was being being built, to buy a little more time--like four extra years, provided by equally incompetent project management. This City sacrificied their 'Dis'-integrated traffic plan in order to avoid having to say they got it wrong.  Can you see which picture is the odd one out????






7) In the first detailed study of the expected impacts of the Tram Project in Reputation-Shreddedburgh (in 2003) how many households in the city of around 226,000 in total, (not individual people but homes) did the experts tell the Council would have worse air quality BECAUSE of the creation of the tram than they would have had if THIS particular tram project had not been built?- Was it ?

a) None at all...

b) One or two here and there

c) Okay then - quite a few

d) You CANNOT be serious!--- WHAT!!! 139,500 households experiencing HIGHER levels of the most severe pollutants produced by traffic BECAUSE the City chose to build the tram this way and not, like say, Tyneside where they used off road existing trackways from the railway age (linking many heavily populated commuter and dormitory suburbs WITH tunnelling for the mile or so through the City Centre????


8) How many people did a recent study show to die prematurely in London every year because of the effects of traffic created pollution?

200?, 300?, 4,500?


Final supplementary question, study the image below (or go to the street and watch the traffic any time, any day!)

This one is important because the distance of the traffic from the kerb affects the pollution levels recorded by Edinburgh Council...the further the traffic runs from the kerb the lower the sums make the pollution measurements look.  





Now decide which statement best describes the position the traffic takes travelling on this road.

a) The traffic drives straight down the Kerbside just a few inches from the kerb because ( In Council Fantasyburgh there are no parking spaces provided on this street)--happily (for the Council) this makes the measured pollution they have to reveal very low

b) The traffic skims the doors of parked vehicles (because in the real world of boring old Edinburgh there are in fact parking spaces provided on this and many other streets) in effect drivers go down the street just a few cms from their doors?  Less happily (for the Council) this makes the measured pollution they have to reveal higher than in a)

c) The traffic goes down the centre of the carriageway. Even though unhappily for the Council this means that the measured level of the pollution they would have to reveal  is not only inevitably higher than in a) or b) but so high that it may well already exceed the EU statutory level of 40.  (We know this because of emails elsewhere on this website that were released under Freedom of Information requests that showed the Head of the Council scientific Services department telling senior executive colleagues this--although it has never been said in any reports to Councillors, or the public.)



1) Both

2) Reims

3) -i Reims

3) - ii Barking-Madinburgh

4) - i Yup!! Us

4) - ii) Right again- the Fiendishly clever French of Champagne Capital Reims.

4) - ii) Yup again!!  Never-Ending-Sagaburgh

5)- Melbourne! Chosen not because of the Sun, Sand and Sheilas but because at just 8 or 9 times larger than Edinburgh, being very  flat, having wide modern New world streets and street grids it provided a perfect case study for our narrow, twisting, very hilly city!!-(?)

6) The 'odd one out' is the final pic of a sea of traffic, stationery after being squashed down unsuitable residential streets incapable of carrying that volume of traffic.The others are from Reims and show how planning to cope involves more than wishing and hoping--with extra elements like making sure all those nasty but possibly unavoidably necessary cars, vans, buses, LGVs and HGVs are properly directed AWAY from where people live (everywhere else) and not INTO streets where people spend their lives (Edinburgh).

7 - d) Is the correct answer. Apparently not a result surprising enough to warrant any further investigation into the possible effects, or even enough to have it ever mentioned again by the Council.

It appears the phrase  "139,500 households worse off in terms of PM2.5-10s" is just not as nice to say in press releases and statements as lovlier things such as 'Big', 'Shiny', 'New',  'Green'World Class' or the classic, oft repeated, but sadly not entirely accurate 'On Time and On Budget'

8) 4,500 -- translated to a city Edinburgh's size that is over 250 people a year.  Which is bad enough. But what makes it ten times worse is having just about the only Council in Western Europe who are pursuing a transport designed to make this number worse. (The same report DID take into account all those people who will stop driving and take the tram by the way---it's just the effective removal of so many major arterial routes is so severe the 'good' effects are overwhelmed by the bad where pollution is concerned.



9-11 Congratulations you are a normal human being able to make rational judgements, chew gum AND walk at the same time,  you can be trusted to read facts and then make up your own mind about them in order to arrive at well founded conclusions---You can be anything you want to be!  Okay-! It has to be said this little quiz hasn't been Rocket Science, but at least you have established you posess the basics to build upon.

5-8   Oh Dear! Never mind though , you can chew the gum after you stop walking, and it's probably safer to be honest as you have bumped into so many things trying to do both at once-------While you don't mind looking at facts sometimes,  you find it better to have the key points summarised in a one page (max!) executive summary by those nice people in the big office down the hill.  You may find future career paths limited and seeking to become an elected representative may be the only real choice.

1-5  Not good is it! Let's face it you do tend to bump into things very frequently even when not chewing anything-- You find facts hard to recognise---it's all just words really, isn't it?---and prefer not just to be given an Exec Summary of Key Points, but also to be told what they mean and, preferably,how to vote-- ----- A future serving on a Council Committee beckons, where you will find yourself in great demand, and the fact your head scans from side to side and your lips move up and down when you read won't be held against you, in fact quite the opposite!

0 - C'mon admit it!  You must work already in a well-remunerated, prominent executive position in what used to be called 'Public Service',  and like Tweedledee and Tweedledum refuse to allow facts to get in the way, ever ---- After all the crew up the road in the City Chambers couldn't be relied on to win 'best of five' at Rock, Scissors and Paper against a team wearing oven gloves could they? --- You know that out there in voter-land they all say they  want the truth But ***----'You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with brains. Who's gonna do it? You? The councillors???............ ' I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. ...... Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

*** (Award yourself a Final Festive Bonus point for 'getting' the [paraphrased] final film reference in the italicised quote.

Name of Actor and Film title only will do --- it is from a film and not from any Edinburgh Council Commitee Minutes, at least none that have been published that we know of!

BUT deduct all points if you google the answer, and score yourelf at zero, because cheating in an unimportant and  pointless peice of nonsense like this may be a very positive indicator of your fitness for Public Service senior executive employment, in which case head immediately to interview and quote your zero score in your CV!

Post new comment