The February 1st Transport Committee has several massive reports on the future of transport and getting about in Edinburgh, much of which we strongly endorse. However they are accompanied by a wholly unexpected proposal to remove cycling from a 2km Roseburn section of the North Edinburgh Network when the tram is extended to Granton – although a walking/wheeling path the same 3m width as the existing will remain.
We very briefly pick out high points from the documents at the end of this article but, first, we discuss the discouragement, or possible removal, of cycling from Roseburn corridor. The exact nature of the consultation on this is to be decided by Councillors imminently and it has therefore demanded much of the immediate attention of our Planning Group volunteers.
1. Spokes has always supported the tram in principle, assuming holistic design in which cycling, walking and indeed bus are fully catered for. We see cycling as part of an overall sustainable transport and access strategy, not as single-issue.
For the avoidance of doubt, whilst Spokes would be very happy with a holistically-designed onroad tram route, and that would be much preferable for wildlife, we have never opposed the option of tram on the Roseburn route if that is very clearly shown to be the best public transport route, provided good cycling and walking conditions remain. Like it or not, it now looks very likely that the tram will use the Roseburn corridor. The Council report is here.
2. A cycle/wheel/walk route beside the tram has always been considered feasible and desirable, from the original tram proposals in the early 2000s, right up to the present. The existing path is 3m wide, and so is the proposed new path, albeit presumably with some significant pinch points.
3. The 2021 ESSTS Phase 2 report (table 5.5) proposed two path options beside the tram – they rightly rejected a ‘do minimum’ (B1a) on the grounds that it contradicted council active travel policy. Remarkably, the new council proposal is even less cycling-inclusive than that rejected ‘do-minimum’ option!
ESSTS also proposed a ‘do maximum’ (B1b), which admittedly looked costly. A ‘do medium’ solution should be feasible, dealing with pinch points by means such as possibly replacing just a few of the more problematic structures, possibly some single-track, and accepting a number of remaining pinch points. This should be maneagable in a £2bn project, particularly if the mitigations are fairly limited.
4. The onroad cycling ‘alternative’ proposed in the report is of course valuable in itself, but is not a valid alternative, with different connections and destinations (e.g. missing Craigleith Retail Park) and certainly not of equivalent safety or attractiveness (e.g. Dean Bridge, Orchard Brae steep climb, junctions). Indeed, table 4.2 in Appendix 2 says of this onroad alternative, “provision would be worse towards Haymarket” – i.e. it would in parts not be the sort of route to attract a wide section of the population.
5. The North Edinburgh Network is well used for utility purposes, not just recreation. It is a complete misnomer to describe it solely or even largely as a ‘recreational route.’
6. Utility use will increase further once the Roseburn-Canal project is complete (a major aim of that £12.5m project) and in the future once a regular tram improves security on the route during hours of darkness.
7. A concern of the present route is ‘stranger danger’ for walkers and cyclists (largely during hours of darkness). Whilst a tram will somewhat allay these fears, removal of those cyclists who are content to use the path in the evenings will have the opposite effect, significantly reducing public surveillance for walkers and wheelers, particularly given the ability of cyclists to arrive quickly if they hear calls for help.
8. The TEC report says the impact of removing cycling would be ‘slight negative’ (table 4.2 in Appendix 2). This is ridiculous, as we can see from the immediate reaction on social media – it would be a major negative.
9. The TEC report is itself ambiguous. Table 4.2 in appendix 2 says “Cycle provision cannot be provided” beside the tram whereas 3.2.1 says “Cycling will be discouraged”
10. Cycling on footpaths is legal in Scotland, under Section 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, with only a few exceptions which do not appear to apply here. So how would the Council either ban or ‘discourage’ cycling? – and would either be legal? Of course, under the Act, this right of cycle access must be “exercised responsibly.”
11. Finally, the Future Streets Circulation Plan (TEC report 7.2) rightly includes this route as part of the ‘Secondary Cycle Network’ (see map below) i.e. it is important for both utility and recreational purposes, and linking from the Primary Onroad Network. Councillors passing both reports unamended would be contradicting themselves and giving absurd instructions to officers – to discourage or even ban cycling on a route they have defined as part of the city’s cycle network!
On a separate but vital issue, if the tram uses the Roseburn route there will be a closure period of years for construction. Alternative cycling provision, as good as possible, must be made before contruction begins (the Leith extension example is not encouraging!) Again, this should cover all destinations connected by the Roseburn path (e.g. Craigleith Retail Park) not just an end to end connection. Cycling is about local access, as much or more than about long distance trips.
The Transport Committee papers for Feb 1st are here, the main ones being…
For a very brief overview of salient points from these documents, see this Edi.Bike newsletter. Just to pick out a few items of particular interest…
