I seen a lot of chat on Reddit about people wanting to drive to Murrayfield. I pretty much told them they were going to waste their evening and drop at the park and ride. I wonder how many listened.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Tram latest
(2182 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I can see the NEPN getting lost to the trams, its an easy win doesn't upset the horses (drivers) and a fudged business case will show that 100x as many people use the trams as cycle.
The buses hub and wheel mentality can't work with the trams so cross town is potentially going to be needed. The worst of it is due to the geography, even if a full segregated cycle path was put in its stead it would still be a real sad loss the hills are pretty bad off the paths.
Posted 1 year ago # -
“it would still be a real sad loss“
INDEED!
“
“However we would say ‘do the do the easy bit first.’ From our perspective, that’s the Granton spur, for which we have permissions and would be less expensive than going to the south-east. “It goes down what was an urban railway, the alignment is relatively straightforward and the majority is off-road.
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
On road segregated lanes are better than off road for urban mobility. Ideal world we'd get both, but it is would still be an improvement over the status quo if tram took current NEPN and segregated cycle lanes got put in between Haymarket and Granton/Cramond.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes it's true that on-road segregated lanes are better than off-road for urban mobility, on a like-for-like basis.
But if you have an existing off-road path and then destroy it to later create new on-road lanes, that's far far worse than keeping the off-road path you already have and adding some new on-road capacity
It's horses for courses:-
the off-road path is great because it already exists, it's tranquil and full of nature and it allows people to travel at slow speeds but still complete the journey quickly because there is no stopping at stupid motoring infra aka traffic lights. It's not so great because some may feel unsafe and it's shared with other users
the on-road paths will be great once implemented (in several decades) allowing people to go places they want directly, "above ground" and safely. They're not so great because of all the stopping you typically get in a city with multiple junctions every 100metres
So destroying the linear park which is the NEPN and replacing it with on-road lanes would not be an improvement over the status quo at all. And the whole reason we're having this argument is because they won't get rid of the cars
Posted 1 year ago # -
On road segregated lanes are better than off road for urban mobility. Ideal world we'd get both,
I was thinking that but getting over from Roseburn to Ferry road is a pretty steep hill that even with a segregated lane would still be a bit of bear. Plus losing that nice green corridor would be an incalculable loss for folk who otherwise spend their time in built up environments.
I just can't see an alternative route for a tram if there is a requirement for that route.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There was fluff when this was resurrected that the tram route would possibly be Crewe Toll-Orchard Brae-Dean Bridge.
On another note, kind of pointless doing Canal-Roseburn if what passes for CEC's thought is to rip out the western half of NEPN?
Posted 1 year ago # -
“I just can't see an alternative route for a tram“
There is - Dean Bridge, Orchard Brae, Western General Hospital.
Both routes are on CEC maps and being ‘assessed’ currently.
Apparently Cllrs ‘will be given a briefing by “Place” before too long’.
It’s important that ‘cyclists’ don’t narrowly look at this in ‘personal convenience’ terms - particularly in a commuting sense.
This is not an option (practically or legally) - or one I would argue for - but I’d rather see a bike ban than the tram there.
The idea that they could/would put the tram there and have a decent path - they are even talking about hanging it off the Coltbridge Viaduct - AND keep the trees and general tranquility is fanciful.
Worst case scenario is to say that’s what they’ll do and then decide they can’t fit/afford a path.
Second worse is they’ll plan a separate cycle route and then not deliver before shutting that bit of the NEPN for tram construction and/or deliver something less than wonderful. (Ignoring any realities about suitable route(s) and gradients.)
Basic facts are that the Granton spur is a plan from 20 years ago which may or may not be a good idea AND it’s been approved by the (Scottish) Parliamentary process.
Can’t remember why the idea of an extension from Newhaven to Granton was abandoned. Plan was for circle line.
Yes building a line along the former railway line is easier, but the suggestion that it would be convenient for the WGH is disingenuous.
Yes journey times would be lower than an on-road route, but…
It will be interesting to see passenger projections on both options to Granton and how much they depend on ‘unlocking development potential’ at Granton/Waterfront.
Will certainly be interesting to see what assumptions and objectives are behind the “business case”.
And that’s all without thinking about cost/who pays/value for money.
Tram Line 3 to the ERI and beyond might be a better option.
As would Congestion and Workplace Parking charges - reduce current car use AND provide money for active travel and PT.
But, #ThisIsEdinburgh.
Posted 1 year ago # -
“On another note, kind of pointless doing Canal-Roseburn if what passes for CEC's thought is to rip out the western half of NEPN?”
VERY true.
At least that link is actually being built!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Worst case scenario is to say that’s what they’ll do and then decide they can’t fit/afford a path.
I can't see any feasible way to fit a dual tramline and a sufficiently wide path in a rail cutting. If "they" decide thats the way to go we've lost that section.
Although having the tram down in the cuttings and away from the road, houses, employers and shops will likely impact its attractiveness for the same reasons toomanybikes and neddie mention for vehicular cycling. I mean thats part of the reason we switched to busses in the first place!
Posted 1 year ago # -
“I mean thats part of the reason we switched to busses in the first place!“
You mean because buses are more ‘flexible’ than trams?
Hard to know if UK trams became ‘unfashionable’ or too expensive to maintain/upgrade or just succumbed to Govs’ policies making ‘the car’ become ‘the future’.
It’s amazing the number of LB routes that are much the same as tram ones - same Nos too!
Now trams seem to be about ‘municipal status’ and designed/run for the convenience of the operators and dazzled politicians.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I was thinking more the urban railway lines. They're mostly not in the best locations for people, they are where they are for geography. The stations are inconveniently far from houses. A stop at Ravelston, for example, would be down 20m below street level.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ah yes
Was overthinking it!
Same arguments used for parts of the South Sub.
Meanwhile new ScotRail stations cost serious money, partly because they add monumental lift shafts for improving some aspects of accessibility.
Not many step-free trains though…
Some reasons for trams include -
“
Enable active travel through traffic reduction;
“
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/tramstonewhaven/faqs/city-mobility-plan/1
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
If they did go down the cycle path it would be interesting to see how much additional cost would be required to make the stations accessible.
As a left field question. Given the suggestion that the current tram is heavier than would usually be considered for a tram and the difficulty of maintaining the road around the line partly because of this weight what would be the payback period (capital not political) of starting again and building new lines with a lighter weight rolling stock, thus speeding up the installation by allowing less intrusive track installations?
Posted 1 year ago # -
First question to be asked is ‘do they, currently, have enough rolling stock for a good service to Newhaven AND Granton’?
Can’t remember if the originally purchased trams were meant to cover all that.
Have a feeling that current frequency is higher than originally planned.
No idea how maintenance and spares supply are going or what (with experience to date) longevity is expected to be.
Also no idea if they initially bought enough track and overhead equipment to cover Granton.
After that -
Making different decisions about the best way to develop Edinburgh’s transport options might be sensible…
Posted 1 year ago # -
https://twitter.com/Robert_Drysdale/status/1664243664426598402
"This tram has been stuck behind this overhanging van for 20 minutes now. What's the action plan? Need to have a plan, as this is likely to happen regularly and bring the system to a halt"
They're going to need a few tow-trucks constantly on stand-by until people get the message. Even if that van was parked closer to the kerb it still would be outside the parking bay though...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
“
Others are already planning a pub crawl with the help of the new route and noted that Dreadnaught is the first stop on the line.
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
“
24 HOURS TO GO
Passenger service on our new #tramstonewhaven line will be launched with the help of the community along the route on Wednesday, 7 June 2023
Tomorrow, the public can board Edinburgh Trams service at Picardy Place to Newhaven from 12 pm
“
https://twitter.com/tramstonewhaven/status/1666044020106178560?s=61&t=5y9D-n1ChCwxV3u6Lej5Uw
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
“
It is the tram fares which will pay for any more parts of the tramline so Council Leader Cammy Day has this message for everyone living in Edinburgh - get on board so that more parts of the line can be built.
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
“
As someone who lives in the West End, I’m excited that the tram’s opening up the brilliant bars, cafés and shops in Leith to us. I know we could have always got the bus, but it was a faff. It’s now effortless. I think Leith’ll get a big surge of tourist visiting over the summer!
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
“
Potential Extension of Tram to Newbridge
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
I actually find the Newbridge Extension more interesting than either of the other (vaguely)planned additions, specifically because of its potential to make active travel more viable in the west of the city region - the area between the A8 and the A71 looks like it'll be seeing a lot of development over the next decade or so, but despite their worthy words on the subject there doesn't seem to be much planning of substance for exurban and rural routes for cycling out that way, and no movement on providing safe convenient crossings of the bypass.
Being able to have a quick ride from new development around Ratho/Bonnington/Kirkliston etc to Newbridge and hop on the tram right into Edinburgh with your bike for a couple of quid, while not quite as good as actual bike-focused infra, would at least make living out that way and commuting without a car feasible.
Posted 1 year ago # -
“
A consultation is expected to be launched later this year on details of that plan, including whether the route from Granton should use the Roseburn cycle path, as previously proposed, or Orchard Brae.
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not sure why a consultation should affect Granton tram route in any great measure. Utility of Orchard Brae route clearly higher, just a question of if the cost is proportionately far far higher.
Posted 1 year ago # -
By rights, Edinburgh should never have disposed of its other railway wayleaves, and would have continued to provide inner and peripheral services which, in the march of legislation, would have been substantially upgraded for modern accessibility. Blackford, Newington, Newhaven, Murrayfield, Trinity...they would all be improved facilities with regular services like Glasgow has, not to say that Glasgow kept everything either, and conversion to trams, or tram-trains, would be feasible.
And so without a nascent Spokes and NEPN expansion, Edinburgh might have suffered the doldrums of the 1980s when cycling wasn't a thing except for the road-hardened, but it may have started to be transformed now in a more comprehensive way as Glasgow has been doing. And that would've required it be on-road segregation projects, and we would never have known to lament the loss of the NEPN. The question then is, does Glasgow have a higher modal share than Edinburgh now, thanks to Next Bike et al, or is Edinburgh still ahead thanks to the loss of its railways?
Admittedly, the trams-to-Newhaven and trams-to-Granton and trams-to-Murrayfield would be the quick win for networking, but in my view trams should be on the road, because that is where people tend to be next to, and cars (etc.) should be removed from those routes because the two cannot co-exist satisfactorily in the confined landscape of a city. You put trams on former railway routes when you want to provide a fast inter-district service with fewer stops, which lets you use the 50mph capability of a modern tram. It's intercity train travel but on a smaller scale: it's skyscraper express elevators that stop only at every tenth floor and local elevators that service every ten floors.
So the tram goes down Orchard Brae and services the WGH at its eastern flank. What then? Bringing circle running is clearly the desire, and requires connecting with Newhaven and Leith. It means the route north must pick its way through (or over/under) the roundabout at Crewe Toll. The pinch point is Ferry Road-Telford Road traffic. West Granton Access is the former railway route and connects with the newer routes through the Waterfront, while Crewe Road North would require on-road running on West Granton Road - and removing sufficient vehicles for service reliability might be a tall order, at least at first. I suspect the plan realistically is to create a more northerly "NETN" that would leave the NEPN intact.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Will be interesting to see how ‘consultations’ are run.
There’s supposed to be a report on the Granton options later this year.
Costs/revenue PROJECTIONS will also be v interesting.
In simple terms, the Roseburn Corridor is easier (permissions in place) and probably cheaper to build and may well be quicker. Though ALL of those depend on the degree to which ‘promises’ to keep a parallel path are kept.
In terms of passengers usage and revenue (which are not directly linked if the whole route is single ticket price - apart from the airport), they depend on how the Granton/Waterfront area develops - which remains a big unknown.
Arguably it should be done before a myriad of other developments in and around Edinburgh are even given planning permission.
But, apparently, “planning” can’t work like that…
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
