CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Wow, they didnt even know it was there and indeed it has sprung up since the land became disused. Please say the Travel People have anticipated?
The trees over people people are happy for bad trees to go - diseased ash but the good trees must be cycled round.
So no concern for the local kids who will benefit from the new play park, or people too scared to use the current path due to trees preventing natural surveillance of the route. The green space won't disappear, it will become a more welcoming place for locals to use. This isn't some pristine highland glen, it's former rail land.
The landscape architects have a full planting strategy set out in the Design and Access Statement that accompanies the planning application, including a section on trees drafted by an arboriculturalist.
The date for lodging formal objections to this planning application has passed. Even if such objections are considered, this isn't a TRO - objections are simply one consideration. If the proposal accords with the development plan (which it does) then it should be granted planning permission.
It's a little known fact that trees contribute to air pollution in summer by releasing volatile organic compounds (that's VOCs in Sciencish) such as terpenes from their leaves.
Removing these trees for a cycle path could be a double whammy. [Admin insert jpg of Cole Hamilton with a chainsaw and a gas mask please.]
@morningsider, these tree people must know this, they are a nuisance.
I have to say I'd never noticed this wood until hearing of the Roseburn-Canal link. Russell Road is not somewhere for picturesque nature walks. Then I did discover it and went for the odd walk through the trees. The access though is now blocked.
There is a desire line from Sauchiebank to the missing bridge and I wouldn't have thought they needed to fell very much, especially as a lot of the trees are on the steep slope above Russell Road.
Bit of a moral hazard for planners here. Like the tram trees in Leith (which might now actually have been 'saved') the only reason the trees are there is because the area has been safeguarded for the purposes for which it's now going to be used. It would probably be Fountainbridge-style flats now otherwise. They are "temporary trees."
If your project is subject to an unexpected 10yr+ delay or your safeguarding lasts for many years (which is kind of the point of safeguarding) these temporary trees become quite big and folk get fond of them and object to them being cut down. But they were intended to be cut down from before they were planted!
The obviously worse but easier solution (which many property developers seem to already subscribe to) is to then coat all your safeguarded areas in glyosulphate every year and turn it into a toxic eyesore so objectionable that even the most obstinate residents are begging you to put your cycle route/playpark/student flats on it ASAP.
I admit that the article tugs at my heartstrings a bit, and it would be great if they can minimise felling, but we need to be mature about "temporary trees" in cities else they won't even get to be temporary.
Of course, this is really just another example of 'fighting over the scraps'. The WAR would make a fantastic habitat corridor with mixed native planting, sensitively placed paved direct walking/cycling routes throughout and little winding woodland walks. I'd go so far as to say it could become a world-class attraction, like the New York High Line. No expensive active travel bridges would need to be built and you could keep every single one of the trees on that map.
I'd be very happy to get on board with this campaign if that's the alternative.
“The WAR would make a fantastic nature corridor with mixed native planting”
Indeed.
i found the attempt to tug at heartstrings really quite appalling. I am about as big a tree hugger as you will find, but this is just annoying for all the reasons mentioned above.
So we can't connect up the tiniest link in the cycle network, off-road, because of trees and we can't connect it on-road because of cars.
What hope do we have for the future of our children, if the slightest intervention is blocked at every stage and every level?
Climate scientists are literally screaming at us to "do something" and yet we are completely paralysed:
https://twitter.com/pootlers/status/1334075512373829632?s=20
So depressing.
What really annoys me is that this well-meaning nonsense gives ammunition to Councillors who object to any spending on cycling. It provides a "green" fig-leaf behind which they can hide their anti-cycling views.
I have sometimes marveled at how parts of the NEPN had to be directed around trees that must've been fairly young at the time, given the area would've been wiped clean for trains.
The places I'm thinking of create conflict between users, I hope the same doesn't happen here.
@SRD - if someone says "Tree, cut down" in my hearing I react like a Dryad.
@Morningsider - Indeed.
Fake plastic trees as Radiohead sang
Oh well, only one thing for it...
Those particular tree people have struck me as pretty sensible before - I'm not sure we can blame them for the inevitable cooption by cycle route hating councillors. Maybe a bit of outreach & discussion is in order rather than the scrap-scrabbling mentioned above? (The impression I got from their Facebook post was: pro trees not anti cycle route - and not here to mount a "pro a different, entirely hypothetical, cycle route some other place, some other time" defence like some democratically elected local individuals we could mention.)
@unhurt, shame if the tree people are too naive to spot their manipulation?
I'm not sure people unfamiliar with cycle route opposition will necessarily have even thought of it. Another good reason to talk with them?
@unhurt, you seem ideally placed. One of them cycled to the saplings that have seeded the waste ground on her bike
Any delay to the project should require to be migrated by installing cycle protection along Russell Road/Murieston/Dalry Road to link the start and end points.
Any councillors truly concerned about both trees and safe cycling couldn’t possibly object...could they?
@Stickman I was looking at that route earlier. It looks like an easy Murieston/McLeod LTN and some segregation along Dalry road would save a heck of a lot of engineering.
This project looked great because it didn't take away from cars, but maybe the council can see beyond that now?
“Another good reason to talk with them?”
I hope that will/has happen/ed.
@Stickman Russell Road, yes, but Muireston? It's very narrow. Yes, if the car parking spaces were removed - but can you see that happening?
I'm a big fan of opening up this route not just for the cycling but for people in Dalry and Gorgie to get some more green space.
I do wonder how the tree people gained access. You used to be able to climb over at Sauchiehall Bank but there's a sturdy fence there now, presumably installed to stop people camping.
@Rosie: I agree and I don’t expect such a proposal to even make it beyond this thread.
“presumably installed to stop people camping“
Probably.
In such places, if used regularly - dog walking etc - gaps tend appear in fences!
I was in the ‘wood’ at various times (before the fence), and on the Dalry side -
“I'm a big fan of opening up this route not just for the cycling but for people in Dalry and Gorgie to get some more green space.”
Yes.
Dalry side had more open space.
This cycle route is important, but it’s not a motorway - both in the sense that it shouldn’t need a wide, clear, path bulldozed through and also that the surroundings are part of the reason people will want to be there.
So, although this is all a bit late, worth engaging with the people raising this - both to see if ‘better’ can be achieved, (some chance that removing fewer trees will save money), and to reduce the possibility of objectionable party politicking.
The original designs are here - https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/roseburntounioncanal/supporting_documents/3.%20The%20Sauchiebank%20Ramp%20rfs.pdf
A bridge to the NEPN + embankment might require less trees be removed. The ramp + bridge in Leith Links, for example, has a fairly low footprint.
It might also mean another 5+ years.
“A bridge to the NEPN“
You mean across the rail tracks at Haymarket? (Like there used to be. )
Aye, presumably. Though I wasn't here to see that! That'd be the super expensive, keep everyone happy, probably never get built option.
Thinking about this a bit more, there are two more fundamental reasons why I disagree with this campaign to "save the trees".
1. There is a reason that proposed path is wide and takes a fairly circuitous route - inclusive design. It is of a width and gradient to allow use by wheelchair users, those who are less mobile and people with buggies. Yes, it could wend round existing trees and up steeper slopes - but only at the expense of people who are already excluded from accessing many areas.
2. Removing some trees also improves sight lines and allows natural surveillance of the route. While personal safety on off-road routes is a concern for everyone - it is a particular barrier to the use of such routes by women. Keeping the trees may reduce the use of this route to the core Scottish cycling demographic of middle aged, middle class white guys (i.e. me).
I would argue that if you support inclusive design and efforts to get more women cycling then you should consider supporting the route as designed.
“I would argue that if you support inclusive design and efforts to get more women cycling then you should consider supporting the route as designed.”
Good enough reasons.
@morningsider I hope you don’t mind if I ‘borrow’ some of that for a reply to a FB post on our parents group.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts