You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This will be of interest to all the Edinburgh riders who cycle about town. The Edinburgh Tram project is proposing to extend from Granton to the Bioquarter through the city centre and to do it their preferred route is to use the old railway line that has now become National Cycle Route 1 on the Roseburn Path. They've also identified an alternative route which would be all on road, but say that one of the bridges on the route is a "constraint". They've proposed the alternative route as the new route for bikes, who'll be mixing with cars again. Ironically, they're just in the process of finishing a brand new traffic free cycle path to link the end of the Roseburn Path with the Union Canal at a cost of £12.5million, which will now be pretty much useless.
The path is a real boon for cyclists and walkers - it's always busy, and because it doesn't have traffic lights or any cars on it people really go out of their way to use it rather than more direct routes. It doesn't look wide enough to me to provide two tram tracks and a cycling route alongside.
If you've got any thoughts on it, keep an eye out for the consultation and get in touch with your councillor. While I'm all for the trams, I think it should be at the expense of how easy it is to get about by car, rather than by bike.
I guess that if it becomes an on-road lane, then it'll no longer be signed as NCN1 anyway. That seems to be a defining limit for Sustrans.
Seems a bit retrograde but I can see that it makes more sense for a tramline to use the old railway alignment, probably avoiding new bridge requirements and making the whole project more cost effective. It would be nice to think that someone has done the numbers to see if the team extension will take more cars off the road than the better bike infrastructure, but I somehow doubt it.
making the whole project more cost effective
We're talking Edinburgh Trams here - who managed to spaff Boris Johnson levels of cash against a wall to produce one 18km tram line - that exactly replicated at least one existing bus route - while managing to make it cost almost as much as the entire 100km Manchester tram network put together.
This is annoying, another Tram route that will be of no use to me taking away a cycle route that I use frequently.
Cycling is the most environmentally friendly wheeled transport, I wish they would spend more on infrastructure, education and promotion of cycling rather than making it more difficult/dangerous.
Remember Edinburgh Council tactics tactics in the past - propose something people will really hate (congestion charge) then fall back to something they will hate less (trams).
That is a frustration - I have used Blackhall Path - Roseburn Path a few times and it is always busy with walkers and cyclists and is a lovely traffic free route into town.
I get that trams are 'good', but walking, cycling and access to nature are 'better'?
And I agree that the replacement route will be on road and not as nice 🙁
Cyclists would still be able to benefit from the route by simply specifying plenty of bicycle carrying space on the rolling stock and making travel free for anyone with a bicycle.
Cyclists would still be able to benefit from the route by simply specifying plenty of bicycle carrying space on the rolling stock and making travel free for anyone with a bicycle.
Haha that would be the most Edinburgh council thing ever. "Yeah we are taking away a popular route that people like you use daily, and you can't cycle on it anymore, but if you want to take your bike for a tram trip that's free now"
This was first mooted 30 years ago. 30 years after the last train on that bit of land
I get that trams are ‘good’, but walking, cycling and access to nature are ‘better’?
That depends on the numbers. If tram passenger levels far outweigh the number of cyclists and walkers then it becomes a lot less clear.
Beware tram lines, they’re deadly if the front tyre gets caught in one
FIFY
Beware tram lines, they’re deadly if poorly designed without consideration for cyclists, the front tyre gets caught in one
There are plenty of places where trams and cycle lanes co-exist safely, they have just been designed better. Edinburgh is not one of those place.
They’ve proposed the alternative route as the new route for bikes, who’ll be mixing with cars again.
I take it they’re not proposing a proper, segregated cycle lane along that route?
Disused railway is always going to be easier to reinstate for trams than street running…
They are planning to keep a path along the route, only cycling will be "discouraged".
Fine if you are a dog emptyer. Too good a route to lose.
Used to live right on that path and commuted to work on it, get to the Pentlands, just daunder about. To my mind it's unthinkable to remove it.
Mind @tjagain when we removed 3 tonnes of rubbish from it too? That was good.
Bearing in mind the ongoing works on North Bridge, will this be crossing the Water of Leith, and is the bridge up to it?
I use the path regularly (though getting through Haymarket isn't fun, due to the tramlines) and it would suck to lose it.
I used it back when I worked in South Queensferry and I've used it a few times since then, it'd be a shame to lose it. It also seems to function as a bit of a wildlife corridor, I imagine that would also be affected if there were trams running along it.
That's my daily commute route knackered then, Cramond to the centre of town.
Cheers for the heads up, I'll have a think about what provision cycling would get, what my commute would be, and respond to the consultation. In principle I'm very pro trams too.
I actually worked on the feasibility of that section in about 2003! 🤣
Given the general state of finances, is this actually feasible- at least any time in the next 5-10 years? The Scottish NHS is on its knees, the government has pretty much stopped any major capital projects...?
This proposal has been there for 30 years. No chance of it in the next few. Neither Scot gov or Edinburgh council have the money!
We sure about that TJ? They have the act of Parliament which allows them to use that route.
I am torn about it - we need better, greener public transport and the trams are a good way to do that. Up the Roseburn Path is an obvious choice, but if an alternative exists that loses one of many options for cars rather than lose one of very few traffic free options for bikes then that has to be the answer.
This proposal has been there for 30 years. No chance of it in the next few. Neither Scot gov or Edinburgh council have the money!
That's about the right sort of timeline, I've seen large transport schemes that have been around for that long on the past including various road schemes.
And the money would be from a variety of sources. DfT, Scottish Government, grant funding, stakeholders, you can use a metric called land value capture as well which models how much house prices will increase as a result of new transport scheme and then effectively "sell" that value to developers. They can also be asked to contribute under something called Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (although it might be different in Scotland).
Things like that don't come exclusively from council funding.
We sure about that TJ? They have the act of Parliament which allows them to use that route.
Yes
Just great..... thanks for the heads up.
Ive just been offered a role in Lochrin Square, and i was counting on that path to get from Inverkeithing Park and Ride to get to the office when i need to go in.
Looks like the cycle will get binned off in favour of the motorbike or train.
I have objected to this. The Roseburn-Telford route is idyllic. I used to be pro tram but I will never forgive them if they ruin one of the best amenities in the city. What next? A tram along the Union Canal and up the Water of Leith? Concrete over the Pentlands? Absolute vandals.
Apparently the alternative route for the tram was Crewe Toll, Orchard Brae but they ruled this out as it was felt the tram could be heald up by congestion. It seems the council don't want to stop cars using roads for the trams but they're quite happy to take away cycling infrastructure
We’re talking Edinburgh Trams here – who managed to spaff Boris Johnson levels of cash against a wall to produce one 18km tram line – that exactly replicated at least one existing bus route – while managing to make it cost almost as much as the entire 100km Manchester tram network put together.
That's not what happened really though is it. It's way more complicated than that and includes a folded company and missing paperwork. I think the final delivery wasn't particularly disastrous once it was sorted and the last bit was a pretty smooth undertaking if I recall, on time and possibly in budget?
I have some experience of trying to thread stuff through the built environment and a bridge is a big deal, it's expensive, like really expensive and it always going to make more sense for hard infrastructure to avoid it. And with the best will in the world prioritising bikes over mass transport in cold windy and often wet Scottish city is just not going to make sense.
And with the best will in the world prioritising bikes over mass transport in cold windy and often wet Scottish city is just not going to make sense.
Cyclists make up a much larger % of journeys in Edinburgh than most UK cities and Edinburgh is one of the driest places in the UK but apart from that...........................
Nothing you said there is against what I said. Driest is not the same as dry I know you know that so pipe down.
On a good day I would be amazed if there was a day in the year that the number of cyclists and hour on that route would match the same as one tram an hour.
Mass transport is a good thing, you can thread a cycle route way easier than a tram. Which isn't the same as saying I think it's fantastic but in an urban environment you have to choose the least worst option.
On a good day I would be amazed if there was a day in the year that the number of cyclists and hour on that route would match the same as one tram an hour.
There will be stats on that as there are counters on it. Do you use it? Its very heavily used by cyclists. Edinburgh is not "often wet". Again go look at the stats
On a good day I would be amazed if there was a day in the year that the number of cyclists and hour on that route would match the same as one tram an hour.
"I don't see any cyclists using the cycle lane from my car. Let's get rid of all cycle infrastructure."
Edinburgh is not “often wet”. Again go look at the stats
Do you know what. If you can't read the entire thing that I wrote instead of focussing on one minor detail I cannot be bothered in engaging. An this isn't the first time you have tried the "do you even use it" yes I have it's lovely it would be a shame. But that is irrelevant if it's more beneficial on the whole to stick the tram there.
I noticed your clever and so wise nit picking has no objection to windy and cold and I'll add pretty dark for a quarter of the years commutes.
As for you Matt, how is that in anyway parallel to what I said? I'm not suggesting get rid of anything., infact I'm not even saying the tram should definitely be built there or anywhere I merely pointed out it MIGHT be the best option. And no matter what way you cut it these things ARE a numbers game.
Josh - your statement as to why cyclists should get lower priority is simply wrong in two ways.
When you start from a false premise then the conclusions are not valid
I commuted on that route for decades and very rarely got wet.
Personally I am agnostic on this issue given that this has been the plan for 30 years and its an old railway line!
And no matter what way you cut it these things ARE a numbers game.
Yep. As I've already suggested in this thread, I reckon the tram would see more passenger journeys than cyclists on this section. It's also going to be a lot cheaper to build, avoiding under-road services and reducing upheaval/congestion during the build phase. The pity is that it'll be impossible to come up with an equivalent cycle route.
The Transport Committee met yesterday morning but I can't see if it was approved or not.
I cycled along the path to work this morning and it was a pleasure. Only saw 7 other bikes, but it was after 9am.
This being Edinburgh council I expect there is an element of buying votes on the council for this given the labour / tory shenanigans to control the council ( someone will have said - back my pet project or lose my vote) and also a large element of corruption with the companies who would benefit. I also loved the bit in the BBC article about a 2 billion cost ( it will be more) and that the council hope to get funding from Holyrood. If Holyrood funds this rather than transport improvements outside of the central belt whichever flavour of government is in holyrood will be in trouble at the nest election in the highlands and borders
Given the next holyrood election with either end in stalemate of a labour / tory coalition anything is possible I guess but my bet willbe this gets quietly shelved or booting into the long grass
If yo want to object to this look at who from the council is promoting this and search for their links to the companies that will benefit. Edinburgh council have had a far too cosy relationship with various building companies for a long time. I personally have seen attempts to solicit bribes for contracts.
If Holyrood funds this rather than transport improvements outside of the central belt whichgev er flavour of government is in holyrood will be in trouble at the nest election in the highlands and borders
I was also thinking along similar lines - especially given what happened with the first phase of Edinburgh trams and A9 funding, but you can afford to piss off a lot of Highlanders if you can retain your Central Belt votes.
About corruption on Edinburgh council - interesting the tories have the cleanest hands being out of power until labour joined up with them. so a tory Councillor would be best to go to with complaints! A good few years ago I met with one of the senior bods from the tories - and ex cop and certainly appeared not to be bent
Cameron rose would be the chap to go to ( edit - if he is still around)
Josh – your statement as to why cyclists should get lower priority is simply wrong in two ways.
Didn't say that. Try reading it again.
Yep. As I’ve already suggested in this thread, I reckon the tram would see more passenger journeys than cyclists on this section. It’s also going to be a lot cheaper to build, avoiding under-road services and reducing upheaval/congestion during the build phase. The pity is that it’ll be impossible to come up with an equivalent cycle route
Exactly.
There is a cost benefit analysis to br done here. Yes it will be cheaper (although all the bridges will need to be rebuilt apart from the Roseburn viaduct) but you still have to take into account what it is replacing. The path also acts as a linear park, with a lot of wildlife and is a recreational space. The point is they have rejected the alternative on the basis of cost without giving due weight to what they are destroying.
As for you Matt, how is that in anyway parallel to what I said? I’m not suggesting get rid of anything., infact I’m not even saying the tram should definitely be built there or anywhere I merely pointed out it MIGHT be the best option. And no matter what way you cut it these things ARE a numbers game.
I hear you, and this is right.
But I do feel there is both a 'thin end of the wedge' around ONLY numbers. If this was the case, then cars would have priority over trams, cyclists, parking on pavements etc. Surely it is more nuanced. How do we balance hundreds of healthier cycle and walking commuters, increased greenspace and trees with (Arguably) less healthy thousands of tram riders, but with loss of greenspace and fewer cyclist, and really unhealthy car drivers, who create noise and air pollution more?
Secondly, we need to plan for a different future. The current 'norms' and numbers do not *have* to be the case. Perhaps looking again at retaining the cycling, walking, nature filled 'greenway', examining if the current plan B of 'tram and cars together' does really slow the tram in future if we reduce car numbers etc really is an issue. I bet that there are other forces at work here - house values, car dominance, vested interests etc.
I agree that in principle trams are good, and I agree that numbers of users are an issue. But I fully recognise it is not an easy decision.
And in these situations those who campaign and pressurise longest and loudest win - not necessarily the 'best'* scenario...
.
.
.*ask a hundred people, get a hundred different replies...
The path also acts as a linear park, with a lot of wildlife and is a recreational space. The point is they have rejected the alternative on the basis of cost without giving due weight to what they are destroying.
This.
You know the tram will rip out all greenery because. The drop in amenity and health value will be huge. But that is hard to calculate - and the tram decision is probably based on purely passenger numbers and financial cost. Which is a narrow judgement.
There's been a whole load of analysis of the options done, not just about cost benefits. It's in one of the PDFs that was presented at the TEC meeting yesterday. It is, as you can imagine, a complicated task. [pdfs hopefully linked below]
I use the roseburn path [and now the new route along past haymarket to the west end] every day to get to work and absolutely love it. It adds 5-10 minutes to what would otherwise be a 15 minute ish journey but I use that route anyway because it's so much better than the most direct alternative [Queensferry Road]. I have concerns like many about the loss of the Roseburn path as a cycle route, as a linear park and amenity space, as a green corridor, as a wildlife habitat.
I'm slowly coming round to the idea of the tram running on the old railway [and am a huge supporter of mass transit in general], but am genuinely concerned about what the cycle route alternative will be, and how well a replacement will function.
Yes, the current network of old railways often feels unsafe, isn't well lit, and has other problems, but selfishly, I really do not want to lose the 4km or so of high quality, quiet, off road infrastructure that my young family and I enjoy using to get to the centre of Edinburgh.
P.S. This link might work..
and the citywide plan
Train and tram lines do make excellent wildlife corridors too though.
Personally, I'd rather see car journeys reduced through better public transport, allowing cyclists to use more of the current road infrastructure rather than being confined to a narrow - and at some places fairly inaccessable - corridor.
Of course the tram will only really work if it passes enough folks front doors 😀
I've used the Trams twice and both times it would have been quicker and cheaper using the bus.
Also, the fact that you can't buy a day ticket which covers both Trams and Buses is simply ridiculous and further evidence of the incompetence levels involved.
I'd much rather see them spend this money on improving other public transport/cycle networks rather than wasting more money on Trams
I use the tram from Leith to the centre. Its the quickest way to do that and is very well used
Handy if you live in Leith. Also, I wonder what the journey time would have been if they had spent the Tram money on the bus infrastructure though - fewer cars, more frequent buses etc
It would still be quicker. No shortage of buses here. The 22 was the one I used the most - it was slower than a bike, the tram is faster and that is with good bus infrastructure with bus lanes
However a bazzillion pounds to save 5 mins is not much of a deal and its slow to the airport for sure. Particularly stupid when there is already a railway line that goes right past the airport