CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Trams to Granton
(216 posts)-
Posted 19 hours ago #
-
Although I don't believe they will actually reduce the tram to single track running just to preserve cycle access, even in these diagrams the proposal for the Telford Rd bridge is to reduce NEPN path width to 2m - but it will be effectively a lot narrower as it's 2m between a wall and a railing.
IIRC the guidance is that a vertical upstand reduces the effective width by 50cm, creating something that feels like riding your cargo bike / kids' trailer / pushing your buggy through a doorway. That's more like it IMO
Posted 10 hours ago # -
The odd thing about the Telford design is that the path is so narrow because the plan is for double track here.
So there must be some detailed ‘tram operation’ calculations somewhere (perhaps in consultation docs?)
Are they really going to argue that single tracking this section here would make it ‘impossible’ to run a reliable/fast enough tram service?
Will they have traffic lights here for pedestrians and bike riders??
Posted 9 hours ago # -
Another idea for alternative route (don’t think it’s been mentioned here before)
“
The tram route should pass over a new bridge at Belford Rd. With the new bridge going over the top of Belford bridge and a tram stop at the Modern Art Gallery (could have tram tracks in the grass)
“
https://bsky.app/profile/blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk/post/3lqcx7hq2sc2w
Posted 9 hours ago # -
5) On-road running on Telford Road and Ferry Road.
6) On-road running as far as Granton Road, then a descent off Granton Road to the NEPN eastbound.
7) Sacrifice some of the NEPN, from Granton Road to Craighall Road.
8) Sacrifice the Victoria Path access to Victoria Park, running a loop up to join Craighall Road northbound.
9) On-road running on Craighall Road to Pier Place and Lindsay Road to join the existing route.There are a fair few issues with this approach though. Ferry Road is busy as hell at rush hour and a lot of it is traffic going to or coming from the west, so on-road running from Crewe Toll to Granton Road will be like molasses twice a day even after accounting for mode switching. That'd be compounded by the Granton Road/Ferry Road junction where Ferry Road narrows to two lanes with about a 15m property-to-property width available - there's no way you're getting that much east-west private traffic, two bus routes, *and* a functional tramline through there, and the number of modal filters and one way loops you'd have to put in to put a bus/tram/cycle gate at that point would require more political capital than ECC have even in my fantasy imagination where they're willing to expend it on AT and transit. A turn down onto the path at Granton Road would also require some pretty heavy engineering in tight confines.
I think if you were going to go to the trouble of doing all the things that would make a turn at Granton possible you'd be as well just carrying on down Ferry Road and linking in to the existing line via North Junction Street. Or possibly you could run over Crewe Toll and compulsory purchase the lawn at the back of the Baptist church, replacing the little bridge there that mostly seems to be used for parking with a link down to West Granton Access and follow the planned route from there.
EDIT Oh and the issue with the Belford option is what happens with Queensferry Road? At least unlike Ferry Road you'd have the option of putting in bus/tram priority without having to completely gate it, but unless you're willing to push all private east/west traffic down Orchard Brae and then back up Craigleith Road it would come at the cost of almost a kilometre of - hopefully one day upgraded - light segregation bike lanes that don't really have an alternative alignment due to all the elevation changes around it.
Posted 6 hours ago # -
“don't really have an alternative alignment due to all the elevation changes around it”
Which of course is a significant problem for RC users if it’s shut for x years!
Re ‘smaller cities have better tram networks’ they probably didn’t start with ‘we’ll have the poshest trams - with leather seats’
I don’t want to ‘lose’ the Roseburn Corridor for all sorts of reasons. I’m slightly happy to go along with the ‘for the greatest good’ argument.
But I really don’t go along with ideas like ‘needed to get more houses built in North Ed’, ‘only way to get people out of their cars’ etc.
Also seems unlikely that the reasons/projections of 20 years ago are still valid for determining transport priorities in the ‘greater Edinburgh’ area (or spending priorities generally).
Of course it’s ‘easier’ go along with an ‘old plan’ that keeps consultants and consultations going…
Making political arguments for local fund raising (eg congestion charging) is ‘too difficult’.
In some places arguments were made and accepted enough for local taxes to be raised specifically for new tram lines.
Don’t think UK/Scotland has the mechanisms to make that straightforward.
Posted 5 hours ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
