CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Trams to Granton

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Trams to Granton http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Trams to Granton en Fri, 01 May 2026 20:27:41 +0000 chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-383886 Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:23:58 +0000 chdot 383886@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ 21:47 Save The Roseburn Path Rachel Paige • <a href="https://issuu.com/hinksbrandwise/docs/snp_manifesto_the_scottish_parliament_election_2" rel="nofollow">https://issuu.com/hinksbrandwise/docs/snp_manifesto_the_scottish_parliament_election_2</a> Page 66 of the SNP manifesto: We support efforts in Edinburgh to retain the Roseburn Corridor as a route for pedestrians and cyclists and believe that any tram proposals brought forward and funded by the city council should use an alternative route. SNP Manifesto - The Scottish Parliament Election 2026 “ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/1488822949575183/" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/1488822949575183/</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-383827 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 13:20:39 +0000 chdot 383827@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ Edinburgh's SNP group has today said it would back a North-South tramline for the Capital, but did not believe either of the options for the northern section – Roseburn Path or Orchard Brae – offered the right solution. … As the largest group on the council, the SNP's stance will be crucial in deciding what happens about the planned new tramline, estimated to cost between £2bn and £2.9bn. The group argues that the council's "travel hierarchy" prioritises walking and cycling over public transport, so taking a large section of a well-used active travel route for the trams would be a breach of that principle. “ <a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-north-south-tramline-snp-says-build-line-to-infirmary-first-and-find-a-new-route-to-granton-6565804" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-north-south-tramline-snp-says-build-line-to-infirmary-first-and-find-a-new-route-to-granton-6565804</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-383704 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 09:12:04 +0000 chdot 383704@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ The proposed £2bn tram extension has been a huge talking point in the city, garnering over 11,000 responses to the council’s public consultation. The debate so far has focussed on the city’s transport needs, and the proposed routes. But there is evidence that public transport improvements can impact far more than just how busy the roads are. The North South tram will pass through some of Edinburgh’s most deprived neighbourhoods; what impact could it have on their residents? The tram is not appearing in a vacuum; in Granton, for example, the £1.3bn waterfront development is promising 3500 net zero homes, commercial and cultural spaces, and greenspace. The area already has a pioneering community support network, with four key organisations offering unprecedented support to the area through the North Edinburgh Support Service (NESSie). The scale of change in this coastal pocket of Edinburgh over the next decade will be monumental - could this help existing residents be less “left behind”? “ <a href="https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/why-citys-2bn-tram-plan-is-about?" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/why-citys-2bn-tram-plan-is-about?</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-382564 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 09:25:27 +0000 chdot 382564@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ Officials are still analysing the 11,000-plus responses to the public consultation on the plans and any decision on going ahead with the project is not expected until June at the earliest. It is not yet clear exactly what stance all the parties on the council will take, though the Labour administration is keen to see the new line built. “ <a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-north-south-tramline-council-leaders-seek-talks-soon-with-other-parties-to-secure-support-for-new-line-5446993" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-north-south-tramline-council-leaders-seek-talks-soon-with-other-parties-to-secure-support-for-new-line-5446993</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-382529 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 08:49:28 +0000 chdot 382529@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ Ministers confirm no funding for “standalone” extension of network “ <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/new-ps29-billion-edinburgh-tram-line-rubbished-as-vanity-project-as-council-told-to-fix-potholes-instead-5448234?ref=edinburghminute.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/new-ps29-billion-edinburgh-tram-line-rubbished-as-vanity-project-as-council-told-to-fix-potholes-instead-5448234?ref=edinburghminute.com</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-382477 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 08:17:13 +0000 chdot 382477@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ Councillors are being urged to avoid potential major costs of strengthening Edinburgh's historic Dean Bridge for a new tramline by adopting single track operation over the A-listed structure. … Transport convener Stephen Jenkinson rejected the suggestion made in the letter. “ <a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-north-south-tramline-single-track-running-over-dean-bridge-would-remove-need-for-strengthening-5443726?ref=edinburghminute.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-north-south-tramline-single-track-running-over-dean-bridge-would-remove-need-for-strengthening-5443726?ref=edinburghminute.com</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-382328 Sun, 07 Dec 2025 10:33:21 +0000 chdot 382328@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ After completing a robust internal process, it is our charity’s position that, from the two options presented within the consultation, expansion of the tram network along the Orchard Brae alignment would represent the best outcome for the National Cycle Network. Our position on the proposed Roseburn alignment is that we neither support nor oppose this at this stage. As we have outlined within our response, Walk Wheel Cycle Trust considers that further improvements can be made to the proposed designs, and additional measures can be taken with respect to protecting biodiversity. “ <a href="https://www.walkwheelcycletrust.org.uk/our-blog/policy-consultation-submissions/our-response-to-the-city-of-edinburgh-council-s-tram-consultation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.walkwheelcycletrust.org.uk/our-blog/policy-consultation-submissions/our-response-to-the-city-of-edinburgh-council-s-tram-consultation/</a> (Aka Sustrans) Murun Buchstansangur on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381747 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:47:06 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 381747@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ If anyone believes that a heavy engineering project can be built in an extremely narrow, extremely access-constrained location while retaining 70% of the current trees, I have a bridge to sell them. It will be scorched earth, a la Roseburn to Canal. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381743 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:02:45 +0000 chdot 381743@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 30 October 2025 The tram extension consultation states “it is estimated that approximately 30% of the trees currently in place would need to be removed” if the Roseburn path route was chosen. “ <a href="https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s89607/Item%2010.7%20-%20By%20Councillor%20Lang%20-%20Tram%20Extension%20Consultation.pdf?" rel="nofollow">https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s89607/Item%2010.7%20-%20By%20Councillor%20Lang%20-%20Tram%20Extension%20Consultation.pdf?</a> Morningsider on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381718 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 22:06:27 +0000 Morningsider 381718@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ It will probably slow house building down a bit, preventing some housing from being built in inappropriate locations. However, the Scottish Government is so desperate to boost house building numbers that I imagine we will see a whole host of developer friendly suggestions in manifestos for next year's Scottish Parliament elections. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381715 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 16:09:56 +0000 chdot 381715@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Interesting So is ‘recent’ house building a legacy of old rules/permissions - and numbers completed will slow down or will developers come to terms with new rules, or find ways round them? Morningsider on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381714 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 13:27:14 +0000 Morningsider 381714@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Surprisingly, yes! This is quite convoluted, but here goes. Every planning authority (local authority and national park authority) has to produce a Local Development Plan (LDP) setting out both policies and proposed development sites. Each LDP had to include sites that provide an 'effective five year land supply' for new housing. In effect enough sites to build the number of homes required in the area over that five years as predicted through a process known as the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA - usually pronounced Honda). It takes ages to draft an LDP and many fell out of date, or sites identified in the plan turned out to be undeliverable. When this happened house builders would propose development on sites not identified for housing in the LDP. They would argue that permission should be granted as these were 'sustainable developments' - expensive consultants only too happy to provide documents explaining why this was the case. Such developments were often refused by the planning authority and then granted on appeal by Scottish Ministers, citing this policy. Removing this policy cut off this option for house builders, making it far harder to gain permission for developments not identified for housing in an LDP. It's hard to notice the impact of the change, as it is in the number of speculative housing developments not built. Needless to say, the house builders hate this. They challenged the change in court [Miller Homes vs. Scottish Ministers, 2024] and lost. This is just a super quick summary - there is quite a bit more to it. I doubt there are more than a handful of politicians in the country who understand this - so you won't hear about it from them. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381713 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 13:10:39 +0000 chdot 381713@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Thanks Has it made any difference? Hard to detect in political rhetoric (and action). Morningsider on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=9#post-381712 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 12:35:24 +0000 Morningsider 381712@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @chdot - very easy to miss the change. It was never formally announced and is so arcane that only a handful of folk know (or care) that it happened. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381711 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 12:21:53 +0000 chdot 381711@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Ah Morningsider on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381710 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 12:20:08 +0000 Morningsider 381710@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @chdot - the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" was removed on adoption of the fourth National Planning Framework in February 2023. Actually quite a big deal as it stymies a lot of potentially inappropriate speculative housing development that would previously have received planning permission. (Yes, a policy to promote "sustainable development" was routinely used to force through unsustainable housing development). chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381708 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 11:22:13 +0000 chdot 381708@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ And don’t forget the whole - “ The Presumption In Favour Of Development That Contributes To Sustainable Development “ <a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy-finalised-amendments-december-2020/pages/2/" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy-finalised-amendments-december-2020/pages/2/</a> Developers tend to have little interest in the penultimate word… And Govs assume they will have - no need for explicit wording and monitoring/enforcement. Whether (individual) LAs have much interest in those last two words is questionable. It’s certainly the case that they don’t enough relevant staff. gembo on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381707 Sun, 26 Oct 2025 10:52:02 +0000 gembo 381707@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ There is an FOI if. You google Why was Winchburgh Station not built which is wafflebut hints that the planning permission given by WLC. Did not include a station as for some reason it was not put into the planning permission. . AI suggests this is perhaps linked to the developer having a shortfall in funds. In other words the developer wriggled. Out of a commitment to build the station whilst they tripled the size of a town Builiding three schools etc. By simply not asking WLC for planning permission. No one at WLC queried why something in a wider Regional Plan wasnt in planning permission? Developers are notoriously crafty and councils are only really getting wise to this after the fact. Same in CEC when developers over promise and under deliver and the Local authority cannot hold them to account. Even the new boroughmuir which was years late and which did have a tighter legal eye on it - the developers said We will just go bust if you hold us to our original deal. acsimpson on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381706 Sat, 25 Oct 2025 22:26:37 +0000 acsimpson 381706@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ My understanding was that WLC wanted the station as a planning condition but someone(s) at national level blocked it. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381612 Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:32:16 +0000 chdot 381612@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Thanks for update re Winchburgh. Was aware ‘something’ was happening, still slow then… Don’t know anything about TS objections. No doubt part of the ‘roads culture’. Also i don’t think ScotRail was too keen about timetabling an extra station on that line. “ "Experience from Shawfair should cause pause." Could you elaborate? I ask out of ignorance. “ Not so much ignorance, more (understandable) lack of knowledge of ‘deep history’! Shawfair was to be a new settlement in Midlothian. There was Masterplan which included a Town Centre. It was all part of the ambitious South East Wedge Joint Development Plan. There was even a company involving CEC, Midlothian Council, large housebuilders and others. The company was dissolved a long time ago. Shawfair Station was built. Houses have been built in Midlothian and around Craigmillar. All seems a bit piecemeal and plans for walk/cycleways, as proposed on a 1998 map - Indicative Path Network, are unlikely to happen in a ‘joined up’ way. From 2014 - “ Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland: Finalised Masterplan “ <a href="https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20Committee/20140515/Agenda/item_no_71_-_edinburgh_bioquarter_and_south_east_wedge_parkland_finalised_masterplan.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20Committee/20140515/Agenda/item_no_71_-_edinburgh_bioquarter_and_south_east_wedge_parkland_finalised_masterplan.pdf</a> ejstubbs on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381609 Fri, 17 Oct 2025 11:04:24 +0000 ejstubbs 381609@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @chdot: "There may be other rural/suburban/new settlement plans that would genuinely benefit from ‘rail connection’ - perhaps Winchburgh…" It seems that the provision of a station at Winchburgh is progressing, albeit slowly. According to the <a href="https://www.winchburghdevelopments.com/community-updates/community-update-26th-november-24/">Winchburgh Community Update web page</a>, Network Rail's plan for the station has been submitted to West Lothian Council for approval, and the funding application has been approved by City Region Deal*. The delay at the moment appears to be due to WLC dragging their heels on the planning permission. Apparently the provision of a station was not a condition of the planning consent for the development, although it was "a key element of the masterplan". Apparently also, Transport Scotland was initially "categorically opposed" to a new station when it was first proposed (reasons unclear). "Experience from Shawfair should cause pause." Could you elaborate? I ask out of ignorance. * The <a href="https://coins.westlothian.gov.uk/viewSelectedDocument.asp?c=e%97%9Dc%8Fqy%89">document I've seen</a> states that "The design and construction of the platforms, shelters, track crossings, access road and car park will be fully funded by the developer", which does rather make me wonder what the City Region Deal money is required for. Maybe to cover Network Rail's capital costs over and above that being funded by the developer? chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381605 Fri, 17 Oct 2025 09:18:39 +0000 chdot 381605@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ Most of this expenditure - £1,086,000 - was on external consultants .” <a href="https://archive.ph/2025.10.17-062446/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25546339.council-spend-edinburghs-new-tram-plan-exceeds-1m/" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/2025.10.17-062446/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25546339.council-spend-edinburghs-new-tram-plan-exceeds-1m/</a> chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381565 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 11:03:17 +0000 chdot 381565@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “former railway route between Roslin and Loanhead“ I’m sure that’s on some people’s ‘fantasy tram/light rail’ projections. There may be other rural/suburban/new settlement plans that would genuinely benefit from ‘rail connection’ - perhaps Winchburgh… Experience from Shawfair should cause pause. Would Granton benefit from rails? Maybe, it’s not far from the Newhaven terminus. (Can’t remember if that spur has got Parliamentary Approval). Or, Ferry Road, Inverleith Row, Dundas Street?? Well it’s all fantasy. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381564 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:49:48 +0000 chdot 381564@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “Use portions of the former railway route for expediency - I can't remember where I read it but it was to the effect that Lothian Regional Council allowed the route to be converted for walking and cycling specifically to preserve the wayleave for future rail use” Don’t suppose LRC originated the idea. It’s always been the basis that Sudtrans was allowed to buy rail routes - and why trains were reintroduced between Bathgate and Airdrie without much ‘fuss’. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381563 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:41:35 +0000 chdot 381563@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “Are tram and railway cuttings not traditionally wildlife corridors?“ Interesting Q No/yes/no ‘Originally’ (pre railways) it was all just ‘landscape’. Then various earthworks and interventions that would have removed/disrupted ‘wildlife’. Then ‘nature’ would takeover again and make use of ‘corridors’. Plants would spread and, in some areas, new routes/havens for mammals were ‘provided’. Of course, particularly in steam days, vegetation would disappear - either by fires or deliberate management. Same with trees, perhaps, with less care/legal protection for birds in the past. The Roseburn Corridor is more complicated. For 60 years there was been minimal attention to the vegetation - particularly trees. There was a time when Sustrans proposed a significant reduction in number/size of trees to reduce the ‘leaves on path’ ‘problem’. IF a tramline is built, tree removal will be significantly greater than anything Sustrans envisaged. The future stability of the denuded embankments is, currently, unknown. Solid (concrete) ‘protection’ may appear as a ‘solution’. The works will remove/displace vast amounts of ‘wildlife’ plus soil, microbes etc, etc. The badger tunnels are greenwashing. What would return? Who knows? How soon? The process would start straight away - naturally and with ‘landscaping’. Significant trees/shrubs - 10 years? Tall trees - 60? The plan isn’t returning a railway to where it ‘always was’. It’s a tram. Primary benefits are lots of people in relative comfort. Speed less important (see Princes St/Leith Walk). Everything involves comprise/balance. If ‘losing’ the current version of Roseburn Corridor means mass transit AND massive reduction in car use (say 50%), I’ll compromise. Arellcat on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381561 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 09:58:11 +0000 Arellcat 381561@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Are tram and railway cuttings not traditionally wildlife corridors? They're not exactly roadkill central like the A697. Use portions of the former railway route for expediency - I can't remember where I read it but it was to the effect that Lothian Regional Council allowed the route to be converted for walking and cycling specifically to preserve the wayleave for future rail use. But as neddie rightly points out, putting trams down it would probably not reduce car journeys; it would probably result in mode shift from cycling to tram, or bus to tram, and cycle route shift from path to road. The comparator is the former railway route between Roslin and Loanhead, and onwards to Shawfair. I and hundreds of others use that route all the time, and I would be hugely conflicted if it became a tram route because much as I like trams, I have already paid for a bicycle. Moreover, unlike the Roseburn path and points beyond, the original formation of the Edinburgh, Loanhead and Roslin Branch was single track, with passing loops only at the stations, and without very substantial work there would be next to no option to incorporate walking and cycling safely alongside a rail route. chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381559 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 09:26:24 +0000 chdot 381559@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “ Round-the-world record-breaking Edinburgh cyclist Mark Beaumont has backed the ‘Save Roseburn Path’ campaign. The path is one of two widely-criticised options in the council’s controversial tramline extension consultation. ⮑ Beaumont said: “It’s something I care deeply about in my neighbourhood. We are so so lucky to have parts of our city which are traffic-free. Listen to the wildlife, it’s this amazing green corridor. The City of Edinburgh Council has a consultation about whether they should put a tram down here or route it down a nearby road. This is a space we should protect, that the community loves and we should think long and hard before we send a tram down here when there’s perfectly good options nearby. I’d like to save the Roseburn path for the greenspace and wildlife and biodiversity. “ <a href="https://edinburghminute.substack.com/p/edinburgh-minute-13-october-2025" rel="nofollow">https://edinburghminute.substack.com/p/edinburgh-minute-13-october-2025</a> neddie on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381534 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 11:17:52 +0000 neddie 381534@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ The issues with going down the Roseburn path, as I see it are: 1. We will never solve the biodiversity- and climate crises if we keep building on top of nature. I put this intentionally at 1 because these are most pressing issues of our time and it’s imperative that we protect liveability for our children’s future. 2. It’s an old freight line that doesn’t go past places people want to go - it passes a handful of low-density bungalows and a car-based retail park and that’s about it. Trams are not trains - trams are road vehicles that are for medium to short distance journeys, not long distance ones where you just want to “get past places as quickly as possible”. Why not have an on-road tram route that goes to the Modern Art Gallery, through the heart of Craigleith retail (with place-making), through the centre of the Western General, then on to the medium density housing of Granton? (Otherwise, it’ll just be an express route to the airport for affluent climate-harming fliers) 3. There's no guarantee it’ll be single-tracked after approval of the route, and even if it is, active travel will be badly compromised with pinch points and “dropping down to road crossings” once the bridge widenings have been removed for cost reduction. Even if they do single track, there will always be the threat of double tracking, for ever more. And if it gets double tracked, you can throw cyclists and their families under the literal and proverbial bus. The council already have an abysmal record for cycling integration with tram. 4. There’s no guarantee going down the Roseburn will be cheaper, once they discover all the unstable bankings and buried toxic waste 5. It won’t remove any cars from the roads, it’ll create new tram journeys through induced demand. Car traffic is like a gas that expands to fill the available volume - the space on the roads freed up by drivers switching to tram, will be quickly filled by new driving journeys. The only way to reduce driving is through congestion charging, workplace parking charges, and removing on-street parking. By taking an on-road route, at least the tram will reduce some of the space available to cars chdot on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381529 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 10:07:06 +0000 chdot 381529@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ “I've still yet to see any convincing argument why the council *shouldn't* be "set against" the on-road option.“ You imply that you don’t think there is/could be one. You may be right. Though I would add that any way of finding ‘solutions’ would need to take on, and overcome, decades of political and transport ‘mindsets’. The problems are more than technical and financial. There seems to be an inability by (most) politicians/officials to actually assess what the objectives are meant to be as well as the mechanisms to achieve them. Trams are better than streams of cars. More ‘attractive’ than buses. Buses might be more attractive if not stuck in ‘traffic’. ‘Edinburgh’ seems incapable of taking firm/effective measures to discourage car use (apart from in the most basic/piecemeal ways). The idea of “road pricing” seems ‘impossible’ (though it would help if SG gave a strong lead rather than leaving LAs to fight the battles). Road pricing might reduce traffic enough to improve bus services and lead to calls for ‘better public transport’ (including a much better selection of tram routes than is currently ’planned’.) RP would also raise money for some of these things! Meanwhile Is getting a tram to Granton more of a priority than the ERI or Midlothian? Is using permission from 20 years ago really more important than reassessing current/future travel expectations? Is using a previous transport route the best thing just because it’s there, ‘easy’, cheap(?) I make no apology for saying that the priority should be complete reassessment of ‘value for money’ - beyond the conventional measures - particularly revaluing health benefits and impacts on individuals and the NHS. In addition take ‘active travel’ seriously - start with pavements and road crossings and continuous cycle paths/lanes/routes/networks. Also resurface most of the NEPN, widening where possible (without significant reengineering) would (probably) be cheaper/quicker than a new round of consultants’ reports. Yodhrin on "Trams to Granton" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21346&page=8#post-381527 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 00:39:52 +0000 Yodhrin 381527@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @Murun Buchstansang Nicolson St has multiple immediately-parallel routes none of which requires dipping down into and back up out of a river valley with scant few crossings. At the end of the day there's a solution to any problem. The question is whether it's worth finding all these (expensive)solutions to all these problems rather than just running the thing that goes on rails along the route literally designed and built for that purpose. I've still yet to see any convincing argument why the council *shouldn't* be "set against" the on-road option.