CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
The path network is honestly one of the best things about living in north Edinburgh. It is now a completely traffic-free connection from Leith and Newhaven to Haymarket and will soon connect to the canal. And as with any network - to lose even just a section of it is to diminish all of it.
I'm sorry, what? Did the Liberal Democrats on TEC really say that despite their relentless assault on the section of the network down to Silverknowes?
“Did the Liberal Democrats on TEC really say that despite … ?“
Well that’s an/the interesting question.
One of them certainly did.
Maybe party discipline has broken down (if LDs have such a thing).
Or maybe things are changing.
(I don’t know )
Cllr Dijkstra-Downie says that at 05:49:40 here: https://edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/848615/start_time/20933000?force_language_code=en_GB (link should take you to the start of her speech).
What Cllr Dijkstra-Downie said there was just paraphrasing the earlier deputation from Friends of Dalry Cemetery
I can't help but think the argument about the Roseburn Path Vs. on street running is the equivalent of two bald blokes arguing over a comb. There simply is no point - as there is no money for either option.
That's not to say that the usual cast of characters won't jump on various bandwagons, honking support or opposition to something they are confident will never actually happen.
Remember - just the cost of the tram extension business case would pay for a city-wide network of segregated, arterial cycle routes.
“
And director of place Paul Lawrence said: "There are some sensitive property-related issues which we are thinking about and discussing. It would not be the intention at this stage to need to use the fire station, but there are other sensitive property issues which we are looking at."
After the meeting, Lib Dem group leader Kevin Lang said: "If there was one lesson that came out from the tram inquiry it's the need for complete openness and transparency about what building tram and tram extensions means in reality. The map that was produced for the council report, when you zoom in, you can see that the preferred lne goes straight through Crewe Toll fire station.
"As we move forward, officers will hae to be open about what these 'sensitive property issues' are and what that really means. And if the tram is going to require the relocation of the fire station, where would that go when it is such a critically important emergency service for the west of Edinburgh?"
Cllr Lang said from the map, it looked as if it was only the Roseburn cycle path option that involved running a line through the fire station. And he noted the report to the committee was "totally silent" on the issue.
“
“
The start of construction works at the £72m ‘Western Villages’ project represents a significant milestone for the City of Edinburgh Council in the delivery of the £1.3bn Granton Waterfront regeneration project. Over the next ten years, 3,500 mixed-tenure homes and associated infrastructure will create a new, sustainable coastal community.
“
So that’s 3.5k houses for 1/2 the price of a tram line (allowing for inflation!), many built before there is much chance of a line from Granton to the city centre.
And a “sustainable coastal community”. Curiously there has little mention of 15 minute cities or 20-minute neighbourhoods in the talk around the tram ideas.
“
Folks, it may be worth considering real, organised action in the form of protests to really get our voices heard. This proposal is one of the most outrageous plans l've ever seen - we are in a climate and biodiversity crisis and 'our' decision makers want to destroy a huge wildlife-rich area whilst also removing means of active travel. We cannot simply sit by and let decision makers get away with this kind of thing, and I fear a petition may not be enough.
“
https://m.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/920725049718312/
Notwithstanding Morningsider's excellent point about there being basically no money for and no prospect of this type of project, what would Save the Roseburn Path have CEC do instead? I think they might refocus their pent up anger. CEC could rightly use the old management maxim, "don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions".
Edinburgh is lucky that the wayleave was preserved in a condition that would allow the return of trams or trains, and is bloody lucky to have allowed it to turn into an AT route through a city.
Manchester used existing disused railways for its Metrolink, plus some new build stuff in the city centre (in brick-clad concrete that looks ace), plus it requisitioned PLENTY of road space, some ex-dual carriageway stuff out by Ashton and a lot of on-street running along Ashton New Road.
“there being basically no money for and no prospect of this type of project“
That’s my view too.
With the addition that ‘even if there is a possibility of it (in 10 years and more), it’s not a priority’ - more below.
“I think they might refocus their pent up anger.”
Apparently there is to be a meeting soon to formalise things…
“CEC could rightly use the old management maxim, "don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions".”
Indeed
Question here is ‘who is/are “CEC” in this context - officers or politicians OR some officers and certain politicians??
(Or indeed a long list of well paid consultants.)
Essentially ‘the Roseburn Corridor’ is a distraction.
Following last week’s TEC, “consultation” about TWO new options (NEITHER has Parliamentary sanction) are due to go ahead soon.
This was largely as a result of LidDem and SNP Cllrs wanting to look at options rather than voting for the ‘recommended’ single option of the “hybrid” version that may or may not be SA’s pet idea. So Dean Bridge/Orchard Brae is still on the agenda.
The Dean Bridge option seemed to be getting officials excited last year. It’s still on the CEC online map along with the original Roseburn to Crewe Toll alignment- which could still return as ‘the only realistic option’.
No idea what changed (maybe JUST SA’s meddling).
I don’t think it should get a tram on any part of it. But I have also come to the conclusion that more trams (however desirable in abstract) are no longer a ‘priority’ or worth all the agro, angst and ‘bandwidth’.
Where things are at present -
‘It’s agreed to have more tram’ but this is merely the further normalisation of decades of aspirations after watering down/abandoning various grander schemes - remember the Metro? Part of this would have been underground!
Can’t remember if it ever got as far as ‘where’s the money coming from’. The ‘residents of Newington’ didn’t like idea of trains emerging from a tunnel…
SA is also fantasising about timescales and trolling with “on time on budget”.
Of course Mr. Interim might not be around for long (though I don’t actually see him winning the seat he has been selected for).
Edinburgh is GREAT at producing PLANS. Check these photos of the Eastern Link Road model.
It was rebranded as the Bridges Relief Road and, with the Western Approach Road, linked with the plan for an inner city ring road (yes in Edinburgh, if you’re new to all this).
Obviously this might have been expensive, but money was different then (or something!)
By the 70s the ‘public mood’ had changed and knocking down lots of houses for roads - and encouraging people to move around by car - seemed even less of a good idea.
Though whether ‘the people’ had been calling for it (rather than Planners, Road Builders and Motor Manufacturers) is a question that has probably been the subject of many PhD theses.
Over the years many officials, politicians and vested interests have planned big budget public spending projects (not just transport).
Now, for various reasons, there is apparently ‘no more money’. A lot of it seems to be in banks in various British ‘territories’.
Is it time for a major rethink either led by politicians with some vision and realism or by some significant campaigning?
Don’t know.
A significant victory over Roseburn might energise or exhaust campaigners.
If ‘a tram route to Granton is no longer viable’ that might change things.
My opinion is that the ‘drivers’ for continuing to plan for more tram routes in Edinburgh are various, out of date, dogmas.
‘PT good, Tram better’
Often said that ‘buses won’t get people out of cars, trams will’.
In Edinburgh this has never really been true. Bus users are from many (choose your cliché) demographics.
‘Granton spur need for development of Waterfront’
Highly debatable. Anyway, whatever happened to 15/20 Min neighbourhoods - a small attempt to reduce desire/need to travel.
‘Line to Midlothian needed because of new houses/need to provide alternative to car’
Not sure a tram every few minutes to the Park and Ride will be enough. Road Pricing? Congestion Charging??
If driving into Edinburgh is a problem for Edinburgh residents, should they have to pay for attempts at a solution?
‘We’ve learned from previous trams’
Ha ha ha.
Maybe, but ‘you’ - politicians/officials mostly - won’t be involved in 10-20 years.
Would you give £2bn of your money to find out what’s been learned/remembered?
CEC needs to admit it doesn’t have capacity OR ability to control the market/capitalism/SG policies and directives.
These change with changing politicians
Probably more people will be pleased if all tram plans are abandoned than will be upset (consultants, bigtoy fans etc).
Any notion that SG will give CEC a VERY large cheque is delusional.
There is a ‘belief’ that SG is willing to fund the “Business Case”
That would be bad politics.
“come to me with solutions"
CEC spends a lot of time on ‘transport’, partly because it probably has more direct effect on more people more often.
But there are other things - included Education, Social Work, Housing and even green spaces.
The rapid evacuation of the tenement at Anchorfield should make CEC want to take a serious look at the state of the City’s housing stock both public and private.
The recently declared housing emergency is an acknowledgment that there is an urgent problem that needs serious consideration AND money.
More trams for Edinburgh just can’t be a priority even if there could be any confidence they could be delivered in an efficient way without further downsides.
The Roseburn Corridor may be something of an accident of history (someone built a railway that eventually closed and was subsequently ignored and neglected).
It may be that conversation to walking and cycling was always conditional on it being available for re-use with rails (like the Bathgate to Airdrie Cycle Path was).
But it is what it is. It is FAR more important/useful as a walk/cycle/wildlife/health route/oasis.
Tough that it might delay/prevent some megaplan that could be delivered elsewhere with probably greater benefits than trashing the RC.
Better houses, less traffic, more green - there’s probably a majority for that.
People seem to forget that:
a) Trams are not trains
b) We cannot build our way out of the climate emergency
On a), trams do not require gentle gradients and large radii curves, they are literally designed for running on the road, going to actual destinations, flats, houses, shops, hospitals, etc. (just get rid of the cars that will hold them up), instead of being stuck in inaccessible cuttings or embankments.
On b), £2bn would be enough to provide modal filters across the whole of Scotland, eliminating most through traffic except on trunk roads, 20mph in all towns and villages and where absolutely necessary, segregated cycleways on all main roads
”come to me with solutions"
More thoughts
If it’s just transport ideas you want
More bus lanes.
Faster bus boarding times.
Limited stop on busy routes every 2 or 3 buses only stop at roughly 1/3 of stops.
Would also mean slightly more bus journeys with same number of drivers.
Along with less traffic, would mean faster journey times would get more people out of cars.
Proper bike hire scheme (‘primary consideration - free to Council’ is bad economics.)
Significant increase in car share. Higher charges for car use & street parking.
MUCH bigger penalties on companies digging up roads, for less than perfect re-in statement. Extend responsibility to 10 years.
Repaint road markings when they begin to fade. Not excusing poor drivers, but a clear idea of lanes, stop/give way etc. would help.
And?
Just get rid of the cars. Everything else will fall into place
Was working down Bangholm way today.
Went red bridge and five ways
I don’t see no trams going there ever.
New Trinity Academy gym hall though is a beauty
“
Email reply from Adam Nols-McVey. SNP
Dear Ruth,
Thanks for getting in touch about the proposed tram route extension and the Roseburn Path.
My SNP colleagues and I were concerned that the preferred candidate for the tram route extension consultation was to be via the Roseburn Path with cycling 'discouraged' on the stretch between Roseburn and Telford Road. We know that the Roseburn Path is a much loved path for walking and cycling, with lush woodland along its length, and it's a crucial part of the North Edinburgh offroad path network.
We're mindful that this is only taking the proposed tram extension plans to public consultation, and not a decision on a fixed route. We want to hear public views on both routes so we voted to change the Council position in favour of the Roseburn Path which means the consultation won't be stacked towards that option. We also agreed that officers look again at cycling, walking, etc. being retained on the Roseburn Path.
Both potential northern routes for the tram extension have issues which need to be fully scrutinised - the other option, via Orchard Brae, would mean that the tram route would go over the Dean Bridge, which could present tough technical challenges and we want to try and work through these issues to get the option that works best for Edinburgh.
This is precisely why we believe that residents need to be consulted on both potential options for the northern extension before any final decision is made. We're pleased we managed to stop the Roseburn option being the only one consulted on as that would have been very limiting for future decision making. Please do take part in the consultation when it goes live as we're keen to hear views, and suggestions, of how we can deliver the best for you and your area.
Thank you again for getting in touch and sharing your thoughts on this.
Kind regards
Adam
“
https://m.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/920314689759348/
‘Housing Emergency’
“
The steady stream of student flat developments stands in stark contrast to the relative stasis in the rest of the construction industry in the city.
Building lots of student flats would be okay, as long as we were building lots of homes too – but that simply isn’t happening.
Even in East Lothian – the fastest growing part of Scotland – some housebuilders have stopped work, as a double whammy of soaring construction costs and higher mortgage rates deterring buyers has persuaded developers to pause their plans.
For housing associations looking to build to rent, the outlook is even worse. Harbour Homes, the former Port of Leith Housing Association, announced last October that it was pulling out of new developments because they were financially unviable.
…
“It seems clear to us that the housing sector is broken and the policy assumptions of the past are not viable or relevant for today’s problems.”
“
Final paragraph could have “the housing sector“ replaced by ‘transport’…
“
Euan Baxter
2 h ·
SPOKES
After some back and forward with Spokes, they have confirmed the following:
“In case you are under a misapprehension on Spokes's position, we do not oppose the tram being routed down the Roseburn Path”
This is obviously incredibly disappointing given documentation prepared by council officers which notes that providing a cycling route next to the tram would be difficult in several places and that cycling would be “discouraged” on the route. While there was a commitment from councillors to “consider” the installation of a high quality cycling route alongside the tram, this is not guaranteed and the proponents of choosing the Roseburn Path as the preferred route do not see this as a core requirement of the project. It’s also not actually clear if space / cost limitations would permit this.
Given Spokes are here to promote off-road cycling infrastructure, it’s not entirely clear to me why they have gotten themselves into this position. Could it be because Councillor Scott Arthur (transport convener and member of spokes) has been doing some pretty active lobbying?
What we need from you: if you are a member of Spokes or use the path for cycling, please contact Spokes (via the web link attached) to make clear your views on their position.
My own view is that, at the very least, Spokes should commit to oppose the route due to the apparent threat to active travel and cycling.
Euan
“
https://www.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/922769436180540/?mibextid=K35XfP
Friend of mine, whose opinion on these things I trust, reckons that there would need to be huge amounts of concrete supports to the sides of the cutting in places, otherwise you would have houses falling into it.
Mr Baxter is being disingenuous and dishonest and I've said so on that FB thread. The Spokes position has been clearly stated numerous times as not opposing Roseburn as an option *in principle* providing cycling provision is not degraded. If Mr Baxter wants to preserve Roseburn as a linear park(which it's clear is the actual objective of himself and his group based on their comments), make that argument and let it stand on its own merits.
Those trees are a bit more than “railway saplings”
Nice vid
Friends of the cemetry raised the Russell road railway trees again recently I think? Unless I am confused, easily done. This was disingenuous as had all been sorted with pow wow with the tree huggers,
I think the point of re-raising the Russell Rd trees again was to demonstrate that the means of construction was to raze everything to the ground, leaving nothing alive. Same will happen at Roseburn.
And if the Roseburn path goes, you can be sure they’ll come back for the Ferry Rd (and other) paths next
The Water of Leith path up to Balerno would make a nice tram route too. We could raze that to the ground. Hell yeah, let’s destroy everything. Personally I’m going down with a blacked out Range Rover. Heard they’re easy to steal
@neddie that makes some sense but the saplings on the Russell road stretch were not mature trees and the initial objection the tree huggers made was not helpful. So in my own jaundiced opinion this was raking coals of a fire that had been previously doused.
I do accept the real risk that all developers will do is clear all trees instead of a more considered approach.
The WoL path custodians only take out dead trees and those the winds have toppled.
A sapling is a tree in its teenage years, one unable to produce fruit or flowers, with a flexible trunk and smooth bark.
Mature trees are ones that produce fruit, at around 15 to 40 years and older.
Most of the Russell Rd trees would’ve been over 50 years old.
On the HAGSA pages some of the trees look more mature and others look quite skinny and peely Wally.
@Neddie, that would be the upper limit I think. Dalry Road station closed in 1962, and the connection north-west to Dalry Middle Junction and Coltbridge Junction was closed in 1964 and the tracks lifted. By 1971 or even earlier, the entire route to Granton, Barnton and Leith North was lifted.
You can see in this photo, with Russell Road lower-right, that in 1972 the ballast was still down but the site was getting scrubby, too.
I seem to recall that the tree survey was that they were mostly low quality self-set varieties like silver birch and sycamore. A tree is still a tree, though, not just for habitat but noise amelioration and windbreak.
Midlothian Council's approach is to chainsaw and bulldoze everything, including 150-200 year old trees.
That is an astonishing photo @arellcat of the half of the viaduct that the WAR now uses. When it had trains they would have been very high above the streets.
what a striking angle. The church tower to the right looks like the distinctive tower of St Michael's on Slateford Rd, and the one to the centre left looks like Polwarth (or is it something grander and further away?).
Neither is where I would have expected them to be.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts