CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Trams to Granton

(185 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    This has been discussed on various threads through many years.

    Previous proposals dissipated due to lack of money - which also halted the extension to Newhaven for quite a while.

    Now it’s all back again as a proposal and the issues remain whether or not to go down the Roseburn Corridor or to go via the Western General Hospital.

    Obviously neither is still a strong possibility as CEC has no money and whatever money SG has, it may choose to keep spending on roads or on non-transport things.

    Today ScArthur (as he seems to be calling himself) is on site.

    https://twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1692453055390765279

    (Video)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    Joining Newhaven and Granton (if new line built)? -

    No, the made ground there means the business case doesn't start up.

    https://twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1692495266811707568

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    Tram over Red Bridge?

    The tram won't use the bridge, so that's actually the least concerning part of the route.

    https://twitter.com/cllrscottarthur/status/1692500487549890600

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. Dave
    Member

    Funding aside, it's pretty clear to me that
    - they will put the tram down the cycle path, because that will not upset drivers and there is the excuse of inertia ("as originally proposed" etc)
    - the removal of convenient active travel will be seen as a plus behind the scenes, forcing some people onto the tram if they don't want to buy cars
    - initially promising the extra works required to provide a token active travel corridor alongside, but which will subsequently be "value engineered" out of the contracts, leaving something similar to the canal aqueduct.

    I'm leaving this here to refer back to in 2035 or so...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Scott Arthur has been flapping his gums again. None of it makes much sense without running trams up Craigleith Hill Avenue or something, but then Brave Sir Arthur is hardly known for clear, consistent thinking. And as for the utter pisstake of justifying removing one of the only decent active travel routes (and no doubt chopping all the trees) on grounds of 'less carbon impact'...:

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-trams-north-south-line-granton-to-dalkeith-could-go-via-western-general-hospital-and-orchard-brae-4286593

    Cllr Arthur said he had recently walked the routes with council officers and believed there had to be good connections to the retail park at Craigleith and, most importantly, the Western General Hospital. “At the moment [the proposed route] goes up the Roseburn path all the way to Granton – it doesn’t get close enough to the hospital to really meet the needs of what we're want to do.”

    He said the hybrid route would then go from Orchard Brae along Queensferry Road and connect at the end of Princes Street. But that would mean the challenge of taking trams across the historic Dean Bridge. Cllr Arthur said: "I think it would have to go down to single running to get it across. The two lines would have to coalesce there. And obviously it's a listed structure and I would hate to see the overhead pylons going across it, personally."

    He said the Roseburn path was an attractive option because there was already a rail bed there and less concrete would be needed, meaning less carbon impact. But he said there would have to be an alternative pedestrian and cycle path if the trams took over the current one. "We'd have to make sure there was a like-for-like replacement for any active travel capacity lost there."

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    "We'd have to make sure there was a like-for-like replacement for any active travel capacity lost there."

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    If he really means that then the Roseburn Corridor is ‘safe’ as there is no practical alternative OR a way to put a 3 metre path parallel to tram.

    BUT…

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. edinburgh87
    Member

    I could more than live with pylons on the Dean Br if it kept the Roseburn path intact!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. neddie
    Member

    Don’t forget trashing the Roseburn path is also trashing a linear park.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. Arellcat
    Moderator

  10. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Regarding pylons on Dean Bridge

    Sad day if the additional rolling stock required couldn’t be specified with sufficient battery power to supply motive power over 100 or so relatively flat metres

    https://www.modernrailways.com/article/edinburgh-trams-opens-newhaven

    “However, additional trams would need to be procured for the proposed new north-south line, and consideration will be given to having trams with batteries on board to enable catenary-free operation , particularly on the stretch through the Old Town.”

    Just BSA talking out of both sides of his mouth as usual

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

  12. chdot
    Admin

    #Edinwebcast

    #Tram extension #Granton-#Bioquarter
    ->democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s610…

    Public to be consulted on route options

    @CllrScottArthur says important criteria will be
    1 Cost
    2 #CarbonCost
    3 Integrating walk/cycle/etc #activetravel [he says a central issue]
    4 #WesternGeneralHospital access

    https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1702256943350354371?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    DRYLAW/TELFORD COMMUNITY COUNCIL next meeting is Thursday 26th October 7pm (tomorrow)

    Scott Arthur due to turn up to talk Tram

    Venue Drylaw Neighbourhood Centre

    https://drylawnc.org.uk

    https://www.drylawtelfordcc.org.uk/

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. LaidBack
    Member

    Just a reminder that no trams will be running in evening beyond Haymarket for over two weeks. Track wear and tear.

    Essential works are required to replace tracks and points at York Place and Shandwick Place, while at the same time maintenance checks to the overhead line equipment will take place on the recently extended network to Newhaven.

    The works commence at 7pm on Friday, October 27, and run until 7am on Sunday November 12 and will be carried out during a 12-hour window each night, from 7pm to 7am.

    During these times, for the duration of the works, trams can only run between Edinburgh Airport and Haymarket stop. This means that there will be no services to all stops between West End and Newhaven.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    ‘Track wear and tear’

    Not necessarily

    to replace tracks and points at York Place and Shandwick Place

    Shouldn’t really have worn out already!

    maintenance checks to the overhead line equipment

    Similarly, whatever needs checking can hardly be due to w&t(?)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    Provisional reports from tonight’s Community Council meeting suggest that Cllr Arthur is (as predicted previously) in favour of obliterating the Roseburn Corridor.

    To be ‘fair’ he probably doesn’t realise the extent to which the wildlife corridor would have to be removed.

    As is well known, there are ‘concerns’ about the Dean Bridge because of the overhead wires - don’t know if this is a technical issue or listed building/amenity one. Additionally the tramline would probably have to be single track at this point.

    This is unlikely to cause operational problems, but might mean ‘difficult’ decisions about traffic…

    However one thing that apparently isn’t a real problem is Orchard Brae.

    BUT

    SAVING THE WORST FOR LAST

    It seems that it is believed at CEC that a double tracked tram line from Roseburn to the Red Bridge would mean NO ROOM FOR BIKES.

    This is what some objectors said last time there was a proposal to put a tram there (CEC said there was room).

    With Access Legislation it’s unclear if it’s possible to have an off-road path for pedestrians but not cyclists.

    Any experts on here?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. Yodhrin
    Member

    Wouldn't the council fall foul of their own rules against getting rid of mature trees if they clear the Roseburn path?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. gembo
    Member

    Even as a non-expert this project looks to be logistically tricky. The high path from rose burn to Redbridge or At craigleith it goes all the way to D mains was Railway of course so it is possible.

    But how would it join the other line? Sorry I can’t bring myself to look at the plan or attend any meetings without losing my shizzle.

    Is it intended that the passengers would alight somewhere and catch another one to the airport?

    Astonishing to us really that the actual long standing cycle network should be removed for trams but the Councillor seems to have such a vision.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. neddie
    Member

    His "vision" is to spent Gazillions of ScotGov money, that doesn't exist, on infinite big-ticket mega-public-transport-projects. All while never tackling the root-cause of congestion.

    A vision destined to fail, waste precious time and bankrupt everyone in the process.

    Typical behaviour of a narcissist of that demographic.

    There's so many simple, effective and cheap things that could be done instead

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. Dave
    Member

    It must be obvious to everyone that the reality is the trams will destroy the north Edinburgh cycle route.

    It's sometimes claimed that they will widen the cutting, demolish and rebuild all the bridges just to provide a substandard width path (comparable to the towpath or Jawbone Walk?) but if you look at the extra spending required VS simply replacing the path with trams only I cannot believe they will stump up the cash.

    The path will effectively terminate at red bridge with people left to fend for themselves on the roads.

    This makes the canal connection a bit of an odd project, doesn't it? It will barely be finished when most of the traffic will be snuffed out by the tram extension.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    @gembo

    “But how would it join the other line?

    Is it intended that the passengers would alight somewhere and catch another one to the airport?”

    Plan was (and presumably still is) to turn by the zig-zag path.

    Anyone going from Granton to the Airport would change at Haymarket.

    No idea what passenger projections - numbers/destinations - were/are.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

    @neddie

    Apocalyptic but probably accurate!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. acsimpson
    Member

    Given the rate that Edinburgh currently builds safe cycling infrastructure removing the NEPN will set the city back 50 years. Even if we were able to magically provide on street segregation roughly parallel to this route it wouldn't provide nearly such a fast, low stress (not for all I realise) connection across the city.

    Even if it were technically possible to build an equivalent path parallel to the trams the path would still be shut for years during construction.

    All that is before you even start to consider the impact on the wildlife and plants along the corridor.

    This really is something which needs to be fought against, especially when there is a viable alternative.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    @Dave

    “It must be obvious to everyone”

    Yes but no.

    Obviously ‘most people’ won’t be aware of the intended reality (esp re trees). It remains to be seen how much CEC will try to hide behind ‘we’ll only take out the most dangerous trees’. If it was still a live railway it’s certain that many trees would have gone years ago.

    There are trees there now that have got too big for their roots in the cutting with the steepest sides.

    Increasing significant rain events are likely to lead to even more trees falling over.

    Whether (current) inadequate tree/vegetation maintenance is ‘due to lack of resources’ or ‘fear of objectors’ is unclear.

    Anyone who cares about wildlife/corridor/current usage should perhaps take a greater interest in what c/should be done.

    Anyone concerned about future usage should definitely join in with any (new) campaign - if one emerges.

    The whole NEPN has become even more important than when it was first proposed to run the tram down the Roseburn Corridor.

    Now there is a better proposal to take the route via the Western General. Yes more difficult for legal reasons, but…

    (Whether there will ever be money for more tram routes in Edinburgh is another issue!)

    Last time a tram was proposed for the RC, Spokes DIDN’T object. This MUST change.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    @acsimpson

    “Even if it were technically possible to build an equivalent path parallel to the trams the path would still be shut for years during construction.“

    Yes “shut for years” is a real issue/concern. Now it seems CEC is planning a walking only path next to the rails.

    This is unlikely to be legal, so ‘easy’ for CEC to abandon that too!

    As for any idea of a permanent usable cycle route AWAY from the RC, dream on CEC…

    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    This is now coming under scrutiny -

    He confirmed that the off-road route will not be used for the tram at the expense of active travel – the broad term used to cover walking, wheeling of all kinds with scooters, prams or wheelchairs and cycling – as there would now have to a “like for like replacement”, something not quite as important when the line was given legislative approval.

    https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2023/09/trams-in-edinburgh-where-next/

    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. neddie
    Member

    I took the Dean Bridge route home the other day and was appalled at the amount of traffic on Queensferry St / Randolph Crescent / Drumsheugh. And the same at Haymarket / Palmerston Place.

    It's all been designed as multi-lane junctions with traffic designed to go "through" not "to". It really feels we missed a massive opportuninty after lockdown.

    The toucan crossing at Palmerston Place is massively prioritised in favour of cars.

    A new tram line isn't going to magically fix all that.

    If CEC actually dealt with all the through-traffic first, putting a tram across Dean Bridge would be a piece of cake.

    And I don't believe it if they say it would need to be single track - if two buses can pass, shurley two trams can too?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. gembo
    Member

    Council has paid out £1.2m for injury Compo. Prof Chris Oliver says according to BBC News he is Not Unsurprised the injuries continue.

    Not
    Un
    Surprised

    Is like

    Not
    Not
    Surprised

    Equals Surprised?

    Posted 12 months ago #
  29. Frenchy
    Member

    Quote is from September 2022, in case anyone else was wondering how the BBC was interviewing Prof Oliver recently.

    Posted 12 months ago #
  30. acsimpson
    Member

    Perhaps "surprised" that the council hasn't actually done anything to stop people crashing on the tram lines. They appear to have decided that paying compensation for injuries is preferable to angering the motoring lobby and their precious flow.

    Posted 12 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin