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.
There is a contemporaneous view looking north across Dalry Road towards Coltbridge Junction. The cleared route to the right is the Duff Street spur that everyone was up in arms about once it grew trees that we were planning to chop down.
(current view per the above old photo)
Any of the Ferodo bridge over Leith Walk that went right past my pal Alan’s first floor flat at 117 Leith Walk? They could sit in the living room and watch it being dismantled
Trains were higher level things in the olden days.
Maybe this one: https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/36/42/
With added bonus of a car that escapes the crusher The Hillman Imp being only 9 ft long and 4 ft wide. Thanks also two People on a foot Bridge in the middle of the railway bridge
“but the saplings on the Russell road stretch were not mature trees and the initial objection the tree huggers made was not helpful“
I was under the impression that the ‘intervention’ had resulted in fewer trees being cleared, so I was really surprised at the extent to which the area was cleared.
“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”
Obviously ”self-set” can be used as a synonym for ‘weed’ or ‘of no value’.
I went to the Russell Road ‘woodland’ a few times and the Dalry side once or twice.
Nothing ‘special’ apart from its existence and the way ‘nature’ deals with a ‘vacuum’.
I’m sure it was special for the birds etc - as are many odd bits of land - formerly used by railways or not.
When the railways were built in Edinburgh and elsewhere, there were many more bits of woodland, hedges, fields, wildlife etc.
So places like the Roseburn Corridor are even even MORE special than 20 years ago when the trams were first ‘planned’ (as a scaled back development of the rapid transit/Metro fashion - a reaction to ‘roads are not the answer’).
So it’s about big ideas, big toys, money for big consultants and construction companies.
Anyone against trams on the RC (the idea that fitting in bikes somehow makes it ok is delusional) really needs to think about its value and sadly has to come up with a monetary value for those who only deal in numbers.
The loss to current users, future users, the wildlife - and Edinburgh generally - is £immense.
‘But what about all the houses in Granton and Midlothian we need’.
What about them? Will they all get convenient high quality transport as compensation for people ‘living in places no one wants to live’…
Also if it’s about the rational provision of houses, why are so many “executive”, with room for lots of cars?
I’m not against trams. I am against them on the RC (and NEPN generally, though that doesn’t seem to be planned - any more) and I’m also against politicians justifying things ‘just because’ when it’s clear that with limited money (and little chance of any change any time soon) there really are better things to spend it on. (And I don’t mean ‘other transport projects’.)
I don't think it's "delusional" if your objective is cycling provision, so Spokes can hardly be blamed for taking that view. They're not a wildlife org, or a parks and rec org, they're a cycling org who want to maximise best-quality provision for cycling so it's entirely rational and reasonable for the position of the organisation to be what it is.
This is part of the reason I end up frustrated with causes even when I agree with them. Nobody can just construct a cogent argument in favour of what they want and deliver it straightforwardly and with sincerity, there always has to be attempts to mischaracterise other points of view or outright denigrate people for holding them. Even if that's how a given person truly feels, it's rubbish strategy because it eliminates any possibility of persuading opponents and alienates people that have my mentality of "fight fair or eff off".
The fact of the matter is fans of nature for its own sake are probably similar numerically to the people who'd dismiss such things as "tree hugging", so sadly you are going to need at least some of the "delusional" people to support you if you want to win.
Perhaps I assume an organisation like Spokes takes a wider view than just “cycling provision”.
If not “you are going to need at least some of the "delusional" people to support you” isn’t relevant!
However I don’t believe Spokes as an entity or collection of individuals is only interested in cycling.
I understand it has far too much to do (which it shouldn’t have to) to get CEC to try to do basic stuff AND to get it to avoid disasters like Picardy Place and Leith Walk.
It’s perfectly reasonable to not expect Spokes to take a particular interest in other modes of transport or wider ‘environmental issues’ when there are other organisations for that.
I just find it hard to understand why anyone would trust CEC on more trams!
If I remember correctly, Imp owners spent a lot of time on the hard shoulder. Running a Hillman Imp was only possible if you knew someone working at the factory and could get you a ready supply of parts from the production line. This was required to fix the frequently broken/overheated engine.
Hillman Hunter, now that was a car! Just don’t take it over 55
@neddie, looking forlornly into the boot where the engine was?
Apparently a rally car?
But Rootes went bust over the unreliability and taken over by Chrysler
141 in long so Chrusher needed. But a bit off the front wouldn’t harm it,
Minutes of Save Roseburn Path group
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1SKEMz33kd0EPcTPM5-jdzkoHAU_iw7F2/edit?filetype=msword
https://m.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/924553186002165/
I just find it hard to understand why anyone would trust CEC on more trams!
I personally think the tram extension has been a humongous success, even taking into account the notably sub-optimal cycle lanes. Though, I have to admit not having the stamina to wade through the inquiry findings.
The tram down to Foot of the Walk has been a success correct. Especially around Ancient Robot Games and the sourdough bakeries and artisanal whatnots.
I am not against it being extended again but not at the expense of the cycling.
It doesn't matter whether the Granton tram extension is ever built, the cash, political capital, and campaigner time and effort that will be invested in business case development, arguments over routes, and general point scoring over the next few years will all be to the detriment of cycling, walking and bus travel.
I'm just putting this out there, but it is a stupid route whichever alignment is chosen. The main beneficiaries would be the volume housebuilders that end up developing the brownfield land in Granton. How about a spur serving Broomhouse, Sighthill and Wester Hailes instead - existing deprived communities, major roads clogged with out-of-town commuters and slow public transport connectivity with the city centre. Not much in it for the developer and consultant classes mind...
Succinct
AND a good analysis that covers most things.
The crucial next step depends on whether CEC gets money for a business case.
That’s politics and a lot of money.
I just got a puncture on NEPN at Wardie so I measured some of the bridges on my trudge back (reminder to self: pack a spare tube)
What are the height and width requirements for the tram?
Are they going to have to go to single track/passing places at a lot of points at/between bridges over the Craigleith to Roseburn stretch?
I would have thought the DKE for the Edinburgh trams was substantially similar to the loading gauge on UK railways (which have longer rolling stock but also wider curves). The NEPN in its railway days was a minimum of double track between the E&G line at Dalry and the terminus at Leith.
What none of the Edinburgh railways had was OLE. They can jolly well lower the trackbed if necessary.
Are they going to have to go to single track/passing places at a lot of points at/between bridges over the Craigleith to Roseburn stretch?
My understanding is that they won't have to, but might choose to.
A 2007 planning application shows it might look if they keep it dualled at the bridges - you might be able to get the relevant dimensions from the documents there too.
Thanks both.
From the St Georges School bridge drawing, it looks like they can lower the left-hand overhead line side of the bridge while the middle one is normal height. And the 1.4m high "cycleway/pedestrian parapet" (wishful thinking) would be 1.4m wide.
They won’t be getting any mechanical gritters along the Roseburn path. Hey ho. I guess pedestrians can take a hike too
Putting this in this thread as it highlights the gap between the cost of ‘basic’ things and estimates for another phase of trams -
“
On transport and sustainable travel, we include £1.85m to expedite delivery of the City Mobility Plan, including significant investment in active travel initiatives. Our budget commits to implementing the major junctions review to prioritise safety for walking, wheeling, and cycling and we also allocate £450,000 for a dropped kerb programme to make our roads and pavements safer for all. We are the only budget to prioritise £500,000 to continue provision of free tram travel for under 22-year-olds, and £1m for an additional phase of bike hangar roll out across the city to go some way to meet this unmet demand.
“
Looking at those pseudo-elevation drawings, you can just tell they’re being over-optimistic with the clearances and squeezing the trams to one side just ain’t gonna work. You can bet when it’s built, they’ll only be 2ft of path left going under and over the bridges.
60cm to get a wheelchair through? Nae chance. “Equalities Act go take a hike and [rule 2] anyone mobility impaired”
Apparently
‘lovely Home made banner at Murrayfield viaduct: Save the Roseburn Path’
Anyone got a pic?
My bold
“
In response to my FOl:
Q2. I am particularly interested in surveys of protected and scheduled species (including but not limited to bats, badgers and endangered plants).
A2. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you with the information requested as it is not held by the Council. The Council is therefore relying on the exception under regulation 10(4)(a) of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004.
This is not information collected at the Strategic Business Case stage, but we will look into this when the project progresses to the Outline Business Case.
“
https://m.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/932671925190291/
Not Roseburn of course -
“
In December councillors voted in favour of making ‘preservation orders’ for some trees in the area, which means any future proposals to cut them down will need to be carefully considered by the council.
“
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts