Record-breaking around-the-world cyclist Mark Beaumont has lent his support to a campaign urging Edinburgh City Council to protect the popular Roseburn Path active travel route, which is currently under threat thanks to the local authority’s plans to install a new tram route, with Beaumont declaring that “now more than ever we need to stand up for urban green spaces”.
A consultation is currently underway concerning the proposed new tramline in Edinburgh, with the council asking locals their thoughts on whether it should be built on the city’s roads or, in part, alongside and potentially impacting Roseburn Path’s off-road cycling and walking route, used by over 340,000 people a year.
We first reported last year on Edinburgh City Council’s plans to introduce a new £2bn north-south tram line through the centre of the Scottish capital from Granton to the BioQuarter, which would extend the existing network between Newhaven and Edinburgh Airport and finally incorporate a line first planned around two decades ago during the city’s initial tram project.
Since then, however, the Roseburn Path, a former railway line, has established itself as a popular off-road active travel corridor in the city for cyclists, walkers, and wheelers, with the council beginning work on a £12.5 million scheme to improve connections for cyclists between the path, which forms part of National Cycle Route 1, and the Union Canal in 2023.
The recommended proposal for the new tram route involves incorporating two kilometres from the Roseburn Path into the network, a design that has sparked a backlash from cycling and active travel campaigners in the city and prompted a long-running debate in the city.
An alternative route along the nearby Orchard Brae road has also been proposed, with the council stating that this on-road alternative would not have the same “key factor” of “avoiding congestion and road works” that using the Roseburn Corridor would.
Following months of speculation about the project, Edinburgh City Council has opened a public consultation on the proposals, which will run until 17 November, asking residents to choose between the Roseburn Path and Orchard Brae options for the tramline.
According to the council’s finalised proposals, a “dedicated walking, wheeling, and cycling corridor” would be incorporated into the tram design for Roseburn Path, with a segregated tram route running alongside.
The local authority says that 90 per cent of the route would retain a similar width – around three metres – to the current path, while fencing with a buffer zone would separate the tram from those cycling, wheeling, and walking.
As part of the project, a link to the City Centre West-East cycle route at Roseburn would be created, while formalised crossing points for people crossing the tram tracks would be required.
Meanwhile, if the on-road Orchard Brae option is selected, the existing cycle lanes on Crewe Road South, Queensferry Road. and Queensferry Street would need to be removed due to a lack of space, the council says.
However, despite the council’s aim to incorporate active travel as part of the Roseburn Path option for the tram, local campaigners have remained vocal in their opposition to the proposed scheme.
Over the past two years, a campaign group called ‘Save the Roseburn Path’ has opposed the off-road proposal, arguing that “trams should replace cars, rather than people walking, cycling, and wheeling” and that the path has “immense value” as a “fantastic green space and active travel corridor for walking, cycling, and running”.
And now, the group is urging residents to oppose the council’s plans to turn the “beautiful, quiet, green, traffic-free, wooded path” into a tramline.
“The Roseburn path is one of the best things about our city – a thriving woodland, a haven for biodiversity, and an unbelievably successful walking and cycling link,” Euan Baxter from Save the Roseburn Path told road.cc this week.
“We know that spending time in nature is one of the most effective ways we have to improve health and wellbeing so, now more than ever, we simply cannot afford to lose this path.
“It is also forms one of the finest sections of National Cycle Route 1 and a key part of EuroVelo 12. That’s why I’m asking everyone to support our campaign: fill in the council’s consultation before it closes on 17 November and oppose the use of the path for the tram line.”
The Liberal Democrats have also described the plans as a “travesty”, Critical Mass also held a special ride in support of the campaign, and this week Scottish cyclist Mark Beaumont joined the calls for the path to be saved.
“We’re so lucky to have parts of our city that are traffic-free,” Beaumont posted on social media, in a video taken on the path.
“Right now the City of Edinburgh Council is asking for your views on whether a new tram line should be routed down this path, or whether it should be routed on a nearby road instead.
“I believe strongly that now more than ever we need to stand up for urban green spaces. Not just because they nourish our physical and mental health, but because of the critical role they play for biodiversity.
“So that’s why I am asking everyone: fill in the consultation, and let’s see if together we can protect this wonderful green path for future generations. The consultation closes on the 17th of November so don’t put it off.”
As noted above, the debate surrounding Roseburn Path has ignited a long-running controversy in the Scottish capital, which even spilled over earlier this year into the area’s schools.
In May, the ‘Save the Roseburn Path’ group unveiled three signs designed and produced by P7 children at nearby Blackhall Primary School.
The signs, which were created during school lunchtimes, called for the council to “save the path”, while also juxtaposing the corridor’s current green space with what the schoolchildren view as the potential for a grey, litter-filled landscape caused by the tramline.
However, just days after they were first unveiled along the path, Edinburgh City Council called for the signs to be removed “immediately”, arguing that the debate around the future of the Roseburn Path is a “sensitive” one.
The local authority, however, has also claimed that the signs were vandalised before they could be removed, and were painted black to cover the offending graffiti (shortly after they were painted over, graffiti claiming “Covid was all a big lie” was spotted on the vandalised sign), before being returned to the school.
“I am aware that a group of children from a local primary school have created artwork which was displayed along the Roseburn Path,” James Dalgleish, the council’s education, children, and families convener told road.cc.
“Although I welcome pupils taking an interest in issues happening in their community, there are clearly sensitivities around this specific topic and how the opinions of pupils are expressed. The artwork was created outwith the class curriculum and during lunchtimes.”
Dalgleish continued: “Before council officers were able to securely remove the signage, the artwork was sadly vandalised. The signs have now been taken down and returned to the school.
“We understand that the damage to the artwork, which children spent time and effort to create, may cause upset and I am disappointed that this has happened.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
22 thoughts on ““We cannot afford to lose this path”: Around-the-world cyclist urges locals to “stand up for urban green spaces” as controversial tram route plans pose “imminent threat to unbelievably successful walking and cycling link””
It’s quite simple, you
It’s quite simple, you replace cars with tramlines. Leave the Greenway as it is. Why ruin a path of natural beauty
I mostly agree, we need green
I mostly agree, we need green space, it’s in my personal interest…
The problem is that retrofitting stuff like trams is hard. Edinburgh has some tricky terrain (gorges and steep hills) and the usual “but historic streets”.
Then everyone along the routes has a reason why they can’t just stop driving (or possibly even taking the bus) for a couple of years while the lines are built. (And it being Edinburgh council, that could extend longer if they muff it up like the first tram line…)
Then – when lines are in the council needs to enact some serious traffic reduction – or the tram becomes basically a really expensive and less flexible bus. Even ignoring private cars trams will already be interacting with buses, taxis and delivery vehicles.
I’m all in favour of that part, but I think that’s … a hard sell at best for most people!
We have to change *something* – even more so because the council have determined we “need” thousands more houses and indeed have already built a lot (in my area, the north west) in the last few years.
It would be great if everyone just cycled, but that’s not realistic. *I* may cycle from the edge to the centre (about 30-40 minutes) but most will not do that regularly. Especially at night on these routes which are lovely but can feel extremely unsafe then (and have in fact seen rape and violent assault, have the usual “yoof on ICE and now electric motorbikes” etc).
Anyone in Edinburgh who has
Anyone in Edinburgh who has not yet done so, please take the time to express your views in the consultation.
https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/tram-north-south/
The council has a lot of information on this, but for other perspectives see the website of Spokes (local cycling campaign group) and the “Save the Roseburn Path” campaign.
I use the route almost daily,
I use the route almost daily, and it’s great, but it’s also complicated:
– It lacks social safety, especially at night
– We definitely need alternatives to driving, especially in the North West (building lots of new homes)
– The buses are either “great” or “crap” depending who you ask.
– … *because they have to deal with other traffic*.
– As will the tram if it uses the alternative (Crewe Road) route. Especially turning across and onto Queensferry Road
– Council haven’t sorted “trams versus traffic” out even on the existing section at Leith Walk.
– The Roseburn path section would effectively be using a tram as an “urban rail” route eg. apart from the shopping centre at Craigleith the stops on that section serve few “destinations” or dwellings.
I think the northern section really needs urban rail lines (as well as trams around the more populated areas) for fast direct trips into the centre / across the city. Of course train lines is exactly what these lovely “green routes” were…
Hovever putting “heavy rail” back would definitely eliminate any possibility for walking and cycling. And would be an order of magnitude more expensive most likely.
Finally – if the green space is used for some kind of rail, would the council also “fix the streets” so convenient, safe and socially safe cycling would be provided for? Despite some notable efforts (CCWEL west of Haymarket) they’ve a spotty record on this…
The affordability of the
The affordability of the project isn’t just £s. Removing existing greenways is a very high cost.
The success of the project should hang on car journeys transferred to the tram.
Rather than lose the existing Roseburn path, I would prefer the project did not proceed.
It certainly suits *me* to
It certainly suits *me* to keep it.
We need an alternative to driving though and what is that? Particularly since the council have stuffed hundreds of houses at one end of this route with more to come. (Albeit most of the developments are not adjacent to the tram route).
I think there are ways … but they all involve some difficulties or compromises. Extending the existing line along the coast is one (but that would be slower than *cycling* in to town, and the nice and popular Granton foreshore walking and cycling route would be affected).
On balance I think the north section of this project (it’s also slated to extend to the south, on- road there) should not take the Roseburn path. I would find it harder to argue against if they’d decided to restore the paths as *railways* – that would be hugely useful to people as a driving alternative. But would diminish my own quality of life…
Ultimately we *also* need socially safe “boring” routes for cycling along the main existing “desire lines” – the roads…
I use this route
I use this route intermittently depending on work location. Always impressed although I agree with the safety concerns.
One fear I have tho is if they run the tram along this corridor how long before we see a proposal to take a tram down the section parallel to Ferry road to Leith (which I also use). It makes sense from a tram perspective as this is adjacent to more concentrated housing. Then we loose more green space and cycle infrastructure.
Is this the slippery slope?
It’s clear that (some at) the
It’s clear that (some at) the council see these (eg. Telford / Ferry Road path you mention) as simply a store of space for potential “more valuble use”. Certainly many are looking at how we get more public transport (perhaps not some in the bluer parties…). And after the tram debacle they’d be glad of any “route of less resistance” / where they know they’re not eg. going to find tons of unmapped utilities etc.
I went to one of the consultation meetings and I am not aware that one is on the cards currently though. Thought has been given to Newhaven to Granton along the shore.
Of course as usual what’s telling is that while there is mention of “alternative provision” if Roseburn goes ahead, details are entirely vague. And while it’s being built I suspect the idea is that walkers and cyclists would just “go around” it *somehow*.
We are light years behind NL when it comes to “works” – certainly the idea of fixing eg. alternatives for cycling and walking *first* would be scarcely conceivable here!
(Example of that kind of thing being done here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0F_hTGYa0Y )
What bothers me is that there
What bothers me is that there still seems to be a lack of “strategic” thought – or at least active travel *networks* seem to be very low down the agenda. *
Example what was to be a network extension / joining up (Roseburn to canal) which has nearly been completed would essentially be downgraded if not ditched by the preferred tram route. (TBF that’s not how they state it in the plan, but it would be at best adding an inconvenient detour).
In fact, even the “tactics” are poor – so developments are going in without apparent thought to “how are these linked so people are less tempted to drive”. And (at the lowest level) developers have clearly been encouraged to add “cycle facilities” but these are full of the usual jankiness so will do little to genuinely encourage use.
See eg. Cammo – the more expensive development is clearly good old “commuter homes for driving from”. The bigger West Craigs site has reasonably wide paths – but they are that eg. “shared use”, and stop at every side road and turning. Meanwhile the roads through (and they are, not streets) are wiiide…
* (I hope I’m not misrepresenting – I still haven’t yet been through the council’s “next n years” master plan).
⦁ Roseburn path has least
⦁ Baked-in active traveller accidents for the Roseburn path option
Would require huge reduction in space available for walkers and cyclists, at pinch points likely falling foul of the design guidelines.
⦁ Active travel and tram networks should not conflict
It is dangerous to mix cyclists and trams, these two networks and their major intersections must be kept apart.
⦁ Desirability of Edinburgh’s flat/off-road active travel network, particularly Roseburn
In a very hilly capital city, the existing flat, safe, off-road, and scenic/green cycling network is of huge value for the city’s active travel ambitions.
⦁ Roseburn path has least business & population catchment
Trams are to service people & businesses, neither of which are found in ex-railway cuttings.
⦁ Least tram passenger revenue from Roseburn path option
Cutting is through one of the least densely populated parts of Edinburgh.
⦁ Roseburn path doesn’t enable city expansion
Significant new housing opportunities along the alternative routing; at the Victoria Hospital site, Fettes police site, Orchard Brae and Granton, places that need new public transport.
⦁ Roseburn path heads away from the commercial hub of the city centre
Doh! Trams heading in the wrong direction.
⦁ Destruction of a cherished city linear park
Urban vandalism.
⦁ No reason to get on/off on the Roseburn path
No shops, visitor attractions, or any other reason. Other than (ironically) for its current role as a cherished linear city park.
⦁ Minimal-stop trams can’t serve people and businesses
Trams would be run at 40mph through such an arid area for tram business along the Rosburn path. Beware all active travellers, and users of the linear park.
⦁ All route options provide equivalent connectivity to network rail
So the tram network should not take from the active travel network.
⦁Trams and buses are on-road, for visibility & accessibility
It is for this same reason no Edinburgh council has ever implemented, or even suggested, a bus route along the cutting, let alone a vastly more expensive tram.
Signed up the last time this
Signed up the last time this topic came up because I knew the “Save The Roseburn Path” crusties would be spewing their usual disinformation and shockerooni here they are. What comes next does come with one caveat – I think running a line out to the hospital and, more importantly, to Midlothian where they are presently building ludicrous amounts of car-dependent housing that is going to swamp the city in a way that makes the current influx from the west at peak times look trivial by comparison is a much bigger priority.
That said, the path option is the only option. To oppose it is, functionally, to oppose the tramline period. If that was what STRP had the guts to admit was their stance – that if the choice is between Roseburn Path as-is or a tramline they say sod the tram – that would be one thing, but they keep pretending this is a having cake and eating it situation and I find their disingenuousness repulsive. The fact they lied to a bunch of primary school kids to get them to make heartstring-tugging artwork on their lunch breaks is particularly disgusting. Since we’re being fancy and doing bullet points:
In short, it’s the path or it’s nothing at all, and most of the reasons STRP trot out why it shouldn’t be the path are either exaggerations, distortions, or outright lies, being peddled by an organisation who refuse to admit that they’re treehuggers so fundamentalist that even the city’s Green Party can’t bring themselves to fully agree with their position. An organisation that are too cowardly to make their actual argument – that temporary disruption of a park is too large a price to pay for the expansion of the city’s tram network – and instead make up scaremongering nonsense about the park being destroyed forever or bikes not being able to use the path to try and recruit cyclists and low-info locals as footsoldiers.
While the Roseburn path
While the Roseburn path certainly avoids a ton of strife (and utilities, as you note) it essentially is just “bring folks in from the Granton Works development into the city with nothing else served except Craigleith shopping centre”.
We absolutely need driving alternatives *.
BUT I am not convinced that throwing in a tram line here “because we can” will see much modal shift. Particularly since the council still seem to lack any overarching understanding of “active travel networks” (and their value in expanding “catchment areas for public transport – though they do have that in their info). Or perhaps know just how much opposition there is to any “taking from the drivers” or “troubling Lothian buses”.)
I would love to see some genuine active travel provision worth the name which would facilitate more than the quick and the brave getting about and even getting in from the north west (where i stay). Currently the paths (of which the Roseburn path is a crucial link eg. for both areas served by the Trlford path and the extension on to Davidson’s Mains) are *by far the safest and most convenient option* … but alas not “socially safe” at night.
(You mention some of the provision on eg. Crew Road / Queensferry Road – which is nothing that will tempt people who don’t cycle into cycling, and frankly I doubt many of the very few who cycle there would much mourn the passing of. Albeit I have spoken to one person who said this made a difference for them.)
* Particularly as the council have decided to add a ton of people both on the East as you note – (although train eg. from Blindwells) but significant numbers have been added at Pennywell already, more are planned at Granton and then West Craigs is still growing…
I guess you’re not a
I guess you’re not a signatory of their petitions then?
It certainly isn’t “the path or nothing at all” – even the council’s project engineer at one of their information sessions was clear on that (and some of what he said doesn’t accord with some of your points).
Not in the current consultation but they’re still looking at the idea of a northern connection from Granton to Newhaven. That doesn’t get you to eg. Haymarket quickly, but of course not everyone is heading for the centre.
The Southern half of the project runs almost entirely on-road and indeed would go over “a historic bridge” (North Bridge – albeit that is considerably wider). Despite this section coming with all the issues you rehearse apparently council are quite content with that and (again going on comments at one of the council’s info sessions) envisage general support *.
It is complicated – certainly the plan B north route cuts across 2 arms of a major junction (Crew Toll) and the Queensferry Road turn and section is problematic. On the other hand it would then directly serve the Western General. And the point of trams (over trains) – aside from being considerably cheaper – is that they *can* run along streets and that’s really where they should be going!
(If the council can’t sort out tram-motor traffic interactions – and that’s still not great eg. at points down Leith Walk and at Constitution Street crossing Baltic Street – they shouldn’t add *more* trams until they’ve figured out they have to bite the priority bullet or they’ve made the world’s most expensive crap bus).
* As much as they’re likely to get for any tram project following the first debacle, or indeed any large project which (even just during construction, if all goes as well as it could) will definitely cause massive disruption.
A few people have brought up
A few people have brought up the idea of these running *trains* again, not trams. The idea seems to have more merit to me, if we want to claim we’re actually providing something that will be realistic alternative to driving in to the centre.
Of course a) not on the cards now b) probably 10 times the cost at least c) apparently Waverley tracks and platforms are basically at capacity so that would need addressed and d) would the council replace the paths with anything half as safe and convenient for non-motorists? (Think I can guess the answer…)
So … we’re left with either an imperfect tram route (but which is *miles* more attractive to the council, and allows them to tick a rather nominal “we sold land for building but we provided an alternative to driving” box for the Northwest), OR keeping an also imperfect active travel network but “the best we’ve got” in Edinburgh by miles.
In my dreams they would have started in earnest on an active travel network replacement / expansion first *. *That* might have more support from people interested in better transport for Edinburgh (though obviously not the “trees and bats” folks). For me they could sit on the northern section for now, and perhaps do the Southern part first, and maybe Granton-Newhaven?
And even the flawed route B might not be as irrational as you suggest – drawing on what their engineer said, and in fact the council dialled back some of their initial “but Orchard Brae is too steep” stuff.
* By which I mean a lot more convenient than the Covid-era stuff, sometimes it’s a bus stop, oh there’s a car legally parked in it because we allowed that, oh, gave up at a side road, oh, it’s only on one side now – with all the traffic lights that motorists enjoy, but amazingly even worse road surface… Something at least as good as the few hundred meters from Wester Coates until the Haymarket section.
I have nothing to do with
I have nothing to do with STRP, or any other organisation. But I have considered the proposals from first principles, and I’m happy to repeat the facts:
⦁ Roseburn path has least business & population catchment
⦁ Least tram passenger revenue from Roseburn path option
⦁ Roseburn path doesn’t enable city expansion
⦁ Roseburn path heads away from the commercial hub of the city centre
⦁ Minimal-stop trams can’t serve people and businesses
⦁ All route options provide equivalent connectivity to network rail
⦁ Baked-in active traveller accidents for the Roseburn path option
⦁ Active travel and tram networks should not conflict
⦁ Desirability of Edinburgh’s flat/off-road active travel network, particularly Roseburn
⦁ Destruction of a cherished city linear park
⦁ No reason to get on/off on the Roseburn path
⦁Trams and buses are on-road, for visibility & accessibility
To say there is no option other than to put a section of the proposed tram network extension off-road is arrant nonsense, given the rest of the tram network is already on-road, the vast majority of the north-south route proposal is also on-road, and the alternative routing to the Roseburn path is on-road.
I don’t know who yodhrin is, or who he represents, but his extremely hot-headed and rambling reply does nothing for his argument.
Repeating falsehoods doesn’t
Repeating falsehoods doesn’t make them any more true. Where are the “baked in accidents”? How do the tram and active travel paths “conflict” merely by running alongside each other with physical segregation between – as it does in places on the existing route? Where’s this “minimal stops” guff coming from, given the distance between stops is comparable to the existing tram once it gets out of the city core? The path option absolutely enables expansion as I already pointed out in the post you didn’t reply directly to; the Granton development *already* has more homes built than the two sites you brought up put together and it’s barely a third of the way to achieving the original master plan nevermind the additional developments that have been proposed. Trams should run on-road when dedicated lanes are available, trying to cram them along a mostly two-lane street that already has 7 bus routes on it at points plus being a major route for through traffic is a folly so big you could stick it on top of Calton Hill and make it a tourist attraction.
I represent nobody but me, myself, and I. Whether that also applies to others who uncritically spout STRP talking points – including provable falsehoods that the linear park will be “destroyed” – people can decide for themselves.
To say it’s the path or nothing at all is to state reality, all alternatives save the Orchard Brae route were dismissed at the earliest planning stages during the original round of development of the tram system and the council would happily have dismissed that one two – with justification – if not for the child-exploiting agitators who’ve now made it an issue of optics for them to be seen to “listen to strong feeling”. The manifold issues with the on-road alternative make it a non-starter in practice, if you want to run a tram between Haymarket and Granton it’s the path or nowt. Anyone with the ability to open Google Maps can look at the proposed route and the route of the current tram and note that any attempt to equate the two is nonsense on toast; trying to compare a route that largely occupies wide multi-lane boulevards and mostly only has to share space with buses with one where the entire middle section would run along a two lane carriageway that would necessarily have to remain open to private traffic in both directions for large stretches is comedy so bold you should be submitting it to the BBC as a spec script.
“child-exploiting agitators”
“child-exploiting agitators” – cop onto yourself there chap. Children are allowed, and indeed should be encouraged, to have opinions (after all they’re going to have to live with the consequences of adult decisions far longer than we are) and helping them to express them is not exploiting them.
Repeatedly being bombastic
Repeatedly being bombastic isn’t much more persuasive than repeatedly incorrect.
The last time I looked at the plan was a few weeks back (and they may have tweaked things since! EDIT I did check their site) but as a matter of fact they appear to have the entire southern half of the scheme very definitely on road and in lanes shared with other motor traffic.
There are parallel routes for part of that- but there’s also one for Crewe Road South (East Fettes Avenue) and Orchard Brae (Comely Bank Avenue)…
So I don’t see how you think it’s “path or nothing” in the North, while fine and dandy elsewhere? Not ideal – but then the lack of locations served along the EDIT Roseburn route isn’t either (plus duplicating / perhaps running into other tram traffic from west end to Haymarket – why, they could serve Stockbridge and the north side of the centre by taking Raeburn Place…).
It is certainly *better* to have trams not share much with private motor traffic – but that doesn’t disallow them (in practice on the continent OR indeed on existing sections in the line!) Again, if the tram isn’t running along streets, it’s more like a train (see Roseburn path section).
The key things to address are the chokepoints and most of those appear junctions. Which again the council don’t entirely seem to have sorted out.
Certainly if there is sufficient other traffic on a route that can interfere with tram progress – which is another issue for the council to show leadership on by taking hard “reduce motor traffic capacity” decisions.
I suppose we all cling to the hope that if only we make a few nice alternatives all the existing and future motorists will just take the hint, without much of a battle. As opposed to the more usually observed cases of contentious transitions. Albeit in the case of success followed a few years later by “what drama”?
[sidebar]
[sidebar]
Scotland gives the best names to places.
The Meaning Of Leith! (With
The Meaning Of Leith! (With apologies to Douglas Adams / John Lloyd). *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Liff
But yes, the romanticism of Sir Walter Scott seems to have snuck in – Cannonmills, Hermitage of Braid, Hunter’s Tryst and of course the Royal Dick vet…
* Can’t find it now but I’ve a pic somewhere of graffiti (dipinti now as in the past?) on Leith Walk “what is Leith? Begbie, don’t hurt me…”
You’re not the only one who
You’re not the only one who liked it (unless you’re svdd76 on Instagram?):
Not I, not on Instagram – but
Not I, not on Instagram – but well found! (I just had to find it physically).