@chdot - very easy to miss the change. It was never formally announced and is so arcane that only a handful of folk know (or care) that it happened.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Trams to Granton
(268 posts)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
Thanks
Has it made any difference?
Hard to detect in political rhetoric (and action).
Posted 10 months ago # -
Surprisingly, yes!
This is quite convoluted, but here goes. Every planning authority (local authority and national park authority) has to produce a Local Development Plan (LDP) setting out both policies and proposed development sites. Each LDP had to include sites that provide an 'effective five year land supply' for new housing. In effect enough sites to build the number of homes required in the area over that five years as predicted through a process known as the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA - usually pronounced Honda).
It takes ages to draft an LDP and many fell out of date, or sites identified in the plan turned out to be undeliverable. When this happened house builders would propose development on sites not identified for housing in the LDP. They would argue that permission should be granted as these were 'sustainable developments' - expensive consultants only too happy to provide documents explaining why this was the case. Such developments were often refused by the planning authority and then granted on appeal by Scottish Ministers, citing this policy.
Removing this policy cut off this option for house builders, making it far harder to gain permission for developments not identified for housing in an LDP.
It's hard to notice the impact of the change, as it is in the number of speculative housing developments not built. Needless to say, the house builders hate this. They challenged the change in court [Miller Homes vs. Scottish Ministers, 2024] and lost.
This is just a super quick summary - there is quite a bit more to it. I doubt there are more than a handful of politicians in the country who understand this - so you won't hear about it from them.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Interesting
So is ‘recent’ house building a legacy of old rules/permissions - and numbers completed will slow down or will developers come to terms with new rules, or find ways round them?
Posted 10 months ago # -
It will probably slow house building down a bit, preventing some housing from being built in inappropriate locations. However, the Scottish Government is so desperate to boost house building numbers that I imagine we will see a whole host of developer friendly suggestions in manifestos for next year's Scottish Parliament elections.
Posted 10 months ago # -
“
By Councillor Lang for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 30 October
2025 The tram extension consultation states “it is estimated that approximately 30% of the trees currently in place would need to be removed” if the Roseburn path route was chosen.
“
Posted 10 months ago # -
If anyone believes that a heavy engineering project can be built in an extremely narrow, extremely access-constrained location while retaining 70% of the current trees, I have a bridge to sell them. It will be scorched earth, a la Roseburn to Canal.
Posted 10 months ago # -
“
After completing a robust internal process, it is our charity’s position that, from the two options presented within the consultation, expansion of the tram network along the Orchard Brae alignment would represent the best outcome for the National Cycle Network.
Our position on the proposed Roseburn alignment is that we neither support nor oppose this at this stage. As we have outlined within our response, Walk Wheel Cycle Trust considers that further improvements can be made to the proposed designs, and additional measures can be taken with respect to protecting biodiversity.
“
(Aka Sustrans)
Posted 9 months ago # -
“
Councillors are being urged to avoid potential major costs of strengthening Edinburgh's historic Dean Bridge for a new tramline by adopting single track operation over the A-listed structure.
…
Transport convener Stephen Jenkinson rejected the suggestion made in the letter.
“
Posted 9 months ago # -
“
Ministers confirm no funding for “standalone” extension of network“
Posted 8 months ago # -
“
Officials are still analysing the 11,000-plus responses to the public consultation on the plans and any decision on going ahead with the project is not expected until June at the earliest.
It is not yet clear exactly what stance all the parties on the council will take, though the Labour administration is keen to see the new line built.
Posted 8 months ago # -
“
The proposed £2bn tram extension has been a huge talking point in the city, garnering over 11,000 responses to the council’s public consultation. The debate so far has focussed on the city’s transport needs, and the proposed routes. But there is evidence that public transport improvements can impact far more than just how busy the roads are. The North South tram will pass through some of Edinburgh’s most deprived neighbourhoods; what impact could it have on their residents?
The tram is not appearing in a vacuum; in Granton, for example, the £1.3bn waterfront development is promising 3500 net zero homes, commercial and cultural spaces, and greenspace. The area already has a pioneering community support network, with four key organisations offering unprecedented support to the area through the North Edinburgh Support Service (NESSie). The scale of change in this coastal pocket of Edinburgh over the next decade will be monumental - could this help existing residents be less “left behind”?
“
https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/why-citys-2bn-tram-plan-is-about?
Posted 5 months ago # -
“
Edinburgh's SNP group has today said it would back a North-South tramline for the Capital, but did not believe either of the options for the northern section – Roseburn Path or Orchard Brae – offered the right solution.
…
As the largest group on the council, the SNP's stance will be crucial in deciding what happens about the planned new tramline, estimated to cost between £2bn and £2.9bn.
The group argues that the council's "travel hierarchy" prioritises walking and cycling over public transport, so taking a large section of a well-used active travel route for the trams would be a breach of that principle.
“
Posted 5 months ago # -
“
21:47
Save The Roseburn Path
Rachel Paige •
https://issuu.com/hinksbrandwise/docs/snp_manifesto_the_scottish_parliament_election_2
Page 66 of the SNP manifesto:
We support efforts in Edinburgh to retain the Roseburn Corridor as a route for pedestrians and cyclists and believe that any tram proposals brought forward and funded by the city council should use an alternative route.
SNP Manifesto - The Scottish Parliament
Election 2026“
https://www.facebook.com/groups/914482190342598/permalink/1488822949575183/
Posted 5 months ago # -
“
There was 68 per cent opposition and 32 per cent support among consultation responses for using the Roseburn Path, a former railway line previously earmarked for trams which has become a popular walking and cycling route.
“
Posted 3 months ago # -
“
Roseburn Corridor
Our consultation response [section 6] highlighted several issues, including two pinch points of 2m path width, reduced nature value, and, on the plus side, the positive opportunity of a bridge over the mainline railway.
Feedback on the Telford Road bridge 2-metre pinch point (length 24m) says this will be investigated further, but it would be difficult – so it sounds like the chances are no change here. Spokes has suggested one possible solution, albeit costly.
The 2m pinch point and ambiguity south of Roseburn bridge (over the A8) now looks hopeful, with the feedback stating that it is not expected to be difficult to have a 3m path here. Spokes had suggested several ways in which this could be achieved.
Feedback is also given on the ecological aspects, giving examples of the type of measures which would be considered in detailed design. It is impossible to judge these at this stage. The feedback, as before, “acknowledges that there will inevitably be ecological impacts” although the council “remains committed to safeguarding and enhancing the ecological value.”
We urged that the tram project should incorporate the Mobility Plan’s proposal for a bridge over the mainline railway, to avoid the long descent/ascent to and from Russell Road. This is addressed very positively in the council response, saying it would be a “vital link” with “substantial long-term benefits” for walking, wheeling and cycling albeit a “comprehensive feasibility study would be necessary to assess technical challenges, environmental impacts, and cost implications.”
“
https://www.spokes.org.uk/2026/06/tram-consultation-next-steps/Posted 2 months ago # -
I think it's just typical Edinburgh that it could have a huge length of former railway line scything right round half the city, but not return it to use for mass transit. Railway corridors are still wildlife corridors; roads are wildlife extermination corridors.
CEC would be better building decent on-road segregated infra on the main roads for cycling; it would take up no more room than a decent tram line.
Other cities have managed it, why not Edinburgh?
Posted 2 months ago # -
“CEC would be better building decent on-road segregated infra on the main roads for cycling; it would take up no more room than a decent tram line.“
It’s not an either:or
Except it is an either/or
If CEC said ‘we are going to start building a significant amount of on-uroad cycle infrastructure while we plan a realistic tram network and get road pricing in place, then I’d be less concerned about losing the Roseburn Corridor for walking and cycling
If no path next to tram lines, less ‘wildlife loss’
But that’s neither ’Edinburgh’ nor politicians generally
Until there’s some signs of understanding/acknowledging/acting on the ‘transport hierarchy’ - notably the place of cars in it - I’ll remain highly sceptical about it all
Posted 2 months ago # -
“
The northern section of Edinburgh's proposed new North-South tramline looks likely to be shelved due to disagreements over the route.
Councillors are due to vote next month on whether to take forward the Capital's latest tram project, costed at between £2 billion and £2.9 billion for the full line from Granton to the Royal Infirmary and the BioQuarter.
“
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
“
With over 1000 members, we received 233 valid responses, many of which included comments. Our big thanks to Resources Group member David Monaghan for organising the survey and the analysis, including checks that responses were from Spokes members only. And thank you if you are a Spokes member and took part.
Northern Tramline Extension
On the northern tramline extension, there is very strong agreement (over 80%) on an extension. However marginally over a quarter of members (27%) say this must be via Orchard Brae, whilst marginally under a quarter (23%) say it must be via Roseburn; whilst 30% find both options acceptable. Thus, in total, 57% find the Orchard Brae route acceptable, and 53% the Roseburn route, a difference well within 95% confidence levels, as in the graph below from the above full report.Importantly, comments suggest that support for either route is conditional on the preservation of safe, segregated active travel corridors on both.
“
https://www.spokes.org.uk/2026/09/spokes-members-views-on-tramline-city-centre-controversies/
Posted 1 week ago # -
“
The curious case of Dominic Cummings and the Edinburgh trams campaign
“
https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/the-curious-case-of-dominic-cummings?
Posted 1 week ago # -
"conditional on the preservation of safe, segregated active travel corridors on both"
I find it very concerning that the most physically conceivable component of anything to do with the northern tram extension is the installation of decent/usable cycling paths along an alternative route to replace what will be lost/degraded/compromised/out of action for anything up to ten years (delete according to personal pessimism settings) if work were to proceed on the Roseburn.
There are a couple of stretches of the CCWEL which almost get it right - imagine the Melville Street section (or even the West Coates section (but much wider and without the wiggles at side roads and with fewer deliberate pedestrian/cyclist conflict points)) transplanted to the very wide/straight Queensferry Road. The design principles, space, physical infrastructure materials and so on all exist, and the intended users would be well within the load-bearing capabilities of the surfaces involved.
Unfortunately, the next step is "but how would it inveitably end up being done wrong?", starting with making it bi-directional but too narrow, or wiggly, or removing all the trees and hedges at the roadside during the process so that heavy machinery doesn't have to be used as carefully. Next, move the cycleway ten metres up each side-road it crosses, then remove any hints of a raised crossing or pedestrian/cycle priority, then add some crossing-activation buttons in stupid places, then have it switch which the side of the road it's on a couple of times (with concomitant crossing-waiting times and some more narrow right-angled turn bits), then add enough kerbs to make it difficult to escape the lane to turn right or join it half-way along, then finally remove it entirely along some sections and add a narrow right-angled Leith Street-style exit channel to funnel cycles back into motor traffic...
Posted 1 week ago # -
If they would just ban through-traffic for cars across the city centre, all of these compromise points would melt away.
IMHO:
Princes St: Fully pedestrianised and tram only
George St: Widened pavements, segregated uni-directional cycle lanes on each side and ~50% of the buses only. No cars.
Queen St: The other 50% of buses, and crucially no-through route East-West for cars
Lothian Rd / Mound / North Br: all bus-gated, no through-route for cars.All neatly dividing the city into quarters. With additional filters in the northern New Town to prevent rat-running.
All of this could be done in a minimalistic way, none of it needs to be gold-plated. The fancy "quality paving" can be filled in later.
Posted 1 week ago # -
Too sensible
Carnorm UK
And
ThisIsEdinburgh
Posted 1 week ago # -
Princes St: Fully pedestrianised and tram only
I meant to say with "slow cycling" allowed (much as on Rose St)
Posted 1 week ago # -
Councillors and officers will forever tie themselves up in knots, as long as they try to maintain car through-routes in the city. Deal with that first!
Posted 1 week ago # -
“
Cllr Jenkinson said: “I have decided, based on the Strategic Business Case, the consultation results and the market research that the most appropriate route to the north is through the Roseburn Path.”
Asked if the council recommends that the tram extension to the north of the city proceeds, Cllr Jenkinson replied that the council officers recommend prioritising the southern leg of the route. He continued: “There are some challenges around the northern leg – more political than technical. We need to recognise that without political consensus delivering on any project is quite a challenge.”
Funding for the tram extension will not in the Convener’s view come from the council coffers. He said: “I have been clear that the taxpayers of Edinburgh won’t solely be on the hook for the future tram extension.I think these sums of money that we are talking about are actually unrealistic for Edinburgh to fund in isolation. I mentioned Clyde Metro – and Glasgow City Council are not being asked to fund that. I think we need to ensure that we do secure funding and that is likely to be from multiple sources – whether it is The Scottish Government, The UK Government or a combination. But I think that for a project of such local, regional and national importance I think we need support to be able to deliver it.”
“
Posted 5 days ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
