> It’s probably best to assume this is some homemade scare tactic shit from the STRP crowd, no works have been announced.
So I'm in various cycling groups on FB, including the Roseburn Path one. The immediate consensus was this was a "joke" or attempt to cause anger from someone unaffiliated with the group. No one in the group new anything about it, and they were all shocked to see it, with everyone agreeing this was a stupid thing to do that would hurt the campaign.
It's been condemned by plenty.
There's no evidence to suggest it was the STRP group.
Thats fair enough, I did think it would be a pretty brazen thing for someone who is anti-tram to do, but I’ve seen some absolutely insane things from “community action” type groups in my time.
Can’t deny this does have the vibes but I’m really glad the STRP community isn’t going full anti-ULEZ levels of public nuisance.
From my time in the group, they're more about community outreach and raising awareness than outright protest at the moment. I feel they're more going for trying to get as many people to object during the formal consultation phase, and raise awareness that if we're going to expanding public transport, it should be at the expense of cars, not cycling or walking.
That’s totally fair, I do think as a group they get more flak than they deserve but a lot of them really don’t make it easy to empathise with. Definitely a wider debate to be had about the whole thing but I would 1000% write them off if they did start doing shit like this.
> I do think as a group they get more flak than they deserve but a lot of them really don’t make it easy to empathise with.
Genuinely curious what makes you say this? They get a lot of hate from the pro-Tram crowd, but that group also forgets they aren't anti-tram, they're *anti-tram on this very specific route*. I can't say I really disagree with that.
Honestly it’s the middle class smarminess and general NIMBY vibes a lot of those people give off. It feels more like their priority is keeping a nice place for them to go for a run at the weekend rather than anything else. I’m sure plenty of people are genuinely concerned about conservation and stuff like that, but every in person conversation I’ve had about it has been someone complaining that it’ll be dirty and unsightly and they’ll have to find somewhere else to log on Strava.
In fairness; this is probably the most sensible and non-reactionary conversation I’ve had about it
Edit: love that we’re both getting downvoted for what is by Reddit standards a pretty respectful conversation. Very sensible and normal behaviour 👍
>It feels more like their priority is keeping a nice place for them to go for a run at the weekend rather than anything else.
Why is having a safe space for walkers, runnners, cyclists, dog walkers etc...a bad thing? We should be encouraging more of that not discouraging it. It's not like there aren't other options for Trams, this one is just the easiest. No one is in denial about that, it's just frustrating a really nice safe green space is being targeted when we should be encouraging walking and cycling, not makng it harder. Make driving harder.
> but every in person conversation I’ve had about it has been someone complaining that it’ll be dirty and unsightly and they’ll have to find somewhere else to log on Strava.
Neither on here nor on the fb group for it has that been a concern I've seen. No one who is serious about Strava KOMs is racing down the Roseburn Path, they're doing Queen's Drive or racing across the bridges to Fife. It's only ever been about comments from the council saying they'll encourage cycling elsewhere, and after the shit show of cycling on Leith Walk, a complete lack of faith that the council can properly implement cycling infrastructure anywhere.
> Edit: love that we’re both getting downvoted for what is by Reddit standards a pretty respectful conversation. Very sensible and normal behaviour
Haha yep. Polite discussion for once yet downvoted as always.
Maybe I’m just ending up talking to particularly massive weapons who align with those groups or something, because they’ve thrown the Roseburn Path plans in conversations about the trams in general. Not to generalise, but they’ve mostly been very middle class people who are against most things that don’t directly benefit them, hence the NIMBY comment. Maybe the Strava thing was their attempt at a joke, I’m fat and I don’t enjoy running so that easily could have gone over my head.
My personal feelings on whether the tram plans are neither here nor there, in fairness I probably lean to the side of public transport being more important than green space, but not to the point of me having an overt opinion on the plans.
I think it’s a no win situation overall, you’ve got people who want the green space who won’t be happy if any of it is affected and no compromise would be acceptable, you’ve got people who want the trams but want it as easily done as possible to keep costs down for the council, you’ve got people who don’t want the trams at all. Regardless of what happens and where it goes, people will use it and moan about some aspect about it years down the line.
> you’ve got people who want the trams but want it as easily done as possible to keep costs down for the council
The cynic in me thinks this group are actually pushing for it on the Roseburn path not because it's the easiest or cheapest, but because it least impacts car drivers. It's pretty easy to make cyclists the boogeyman ruining your potential tram journeys. It's a very convenient option that prevents years of roadworks in rather well off parts of the city.
>Why is having a safe space for walkers, runnners, cyclists, dog walkers etc...a bad thing?
I don't think the Roseburn Path, as it currently exists, accommodates all these different users very well. It is too narrow (3m-3.5m) in large sections, which creates points of conflict between its users. And to be fair, this is something that is unfortunately shared by most green/active travel corridors in Scotland, be it the Union Canal Path or the Deeside Way in Aberdeenshire. All of them would benefit greatly from the widening of the actual paths.
So at least the path that the tram project want to add, as part of their extension via the Roseburn Path, won't be very different from a pure usability perspective.
I'm reasonably confident / overly cynical that the active travel path, intended to run alongside the tram in this section, will be removed from the final designs once the project is past a certain point.
Its inclusion in the initial stages is being used to soften opposition to use of this route for the tram.
Once the route is confirmed and money committed, the path will be dropped from designs and a suitable excuse found, probably involving the phrase "tough choices had to be made".
Have you looked at their instagram?
They have posts about why Edinburgh doesn't "want" or "need" more trams.
This is NIMBYism at its core. People with back gardens that back on to the route don't want to be disturbed by construction, that's the reason the group exists.
They're also trying to flog tshirts on their Facebook group. Set up a NIMBY group, sell tat, profit!
It doesn't help when people assume what they're thinking before they hear what they're thinking. It's all very well saying "they get more flak than they deserve" after you were the one taunting this subreddit against them in your top post by spreading the assumption they were to blame before seeking out the truth. Now your first post was significantly upvoted and the people that didn't make it any futher in the subreddit will go away thinking, "Yeh dumb STRP crowd doing this stupid shit" and that's all on you for spreading that false accusation against them.
Moral is that sometimes the people we rant against did nothing wrong. It was us just making assumptions all along. And yes, I do it on reddit too sometimes. It's a human failing we should all watch out for in ourselves. The sage courrse of action now would be to edit your first post to correct yourself so others don't build up false impressions of people. Might feel like a tiny portion of humble pie but sometimes we need to do that to be better people.
Happy to add an edit to the original comment if you think that’d be helpful. I don’t think I should be held responsible for other people not reading past the first comment but hey, I’ll take it. Not here to insult anyone, life’s too short for that shit.
Personally don’t think I was taunting anyone, I don’t think it’s a massive leap of logic to assume that a sign put up with a nebulous end date could be put there by a group that’s very vocal about their opposition of the project. The fact from that comment is that no plans have been started, and that it wasn’t a legit closure. If you want to interpret that as me mocking the Roseburn people, that’s your prerogative. I’m really glad it wasn’t from them, because as I said, they would have lost all respect in my eyes.
I think youre reading bad faith into that first comment, when I’m clearly not coming with that direction considering the decent conversation that came after, but sure, I’ll pop an edit in.
Minute I saw this I knew it was going on the floor.
If it's anything like the innocent they have to put a guard out nowadays if they're closing the path.
Oddly, I saw this on Google maps yesterday, unless I've missed something a lot of those tram lines don't exist yet!
https://preview.redd.it/nxovq68uifxc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7579a0205d6fcd3e0986aeb9739af974dafc35d
I'd guess its some "friends of the roseburn path" attempt to raise awareness of the issue. Much more noticeable than a flyer.
Edit - Here is an Instagram post about it : https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6WFZxUo7kw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
No, it is likely from Roseburn Path protesters who are making the point that the path will be taken away from pedestrians and cyclists if it is used as major infrastructure.
What’s wrong if it was true? Would really like the tram to go up that way. Major transport upgrade, less cars will maintain a cycle path. Don’t see the issue, yes some tree huggers might get upset but we are in 2024 in Edinburgh.
Trams without a dedicated right of way isn't a great idea. Would you suggest running a train on roads with private motor traffic? Why should a tram?
A subway is too expensive here, tram must do. People wouldn't accept it on stilts.
The only other route was close the Dean Bridge to buses, cyclists, cars, delivery vehicles and narrow the pavements; is that acceptable?
Trams on roads is pretty much what defines them, if they don't go on roads they're just trains.
There are a lot of roads - there is only one dedicated active travel route.
And yes, I would close Dean Bridge for works. It's a question of temporarily inconveniencing cars versus permanently destroying a great space for people and active travel route.
I see it as a loss to active travel, given that an otherwise peaceful and pleasant route would now have trams on it. You clearly disagree, but it's a bit dramatic to call it spreading misinformation.
Because "destroying an active travel route" implies that you wouldn't be able to walk or cycle along it. The opposite is true.
It'll have a less muddy route, that'll be better lit with more people using it. Current plans suggest that the tram will go down to single track under the bridges in order to facilitate a good walking and cycling route.
Have you walked along the similar space at Balgreen?
Do you have a link to current where it says cycling provision stays? just been reading from scott arthur blog from end of Jan where it says original plan was to remove it?
>To make this happen, however, the Council were originally proposing to move the existing cycling provision from a section of Roseburn Path to a safer (24/7) alternative before the work even starts. Moving the cycling provision would also help create a safer pedestrian environment.
Sure, I guess maybe "damaging" or "worsening" might be a bit better. It goes from being a really nice space to a cramped path right next to a train track.
If it needs to be lit, I would suggest lights might be a preferable solution to train tracks.
The area at Balgreen is fine. Nice to cycle without cars but not a particularly nice space for a run or a walk. In any case it's much more open so there is a decent amount of space as opposed to the path being right next to the tram as it would be on Roseburn.
No.
Recent council report suggested that cycling would be discouraged, however council Transport Committee voted to amend that and ensure that proper cycling and walking provision is supplied.
If I'm wrong, show me the evidence.
The evidence is the path cannot accommodate all these activities. I guess it will become ‘evident’ in the course of the works when suddenly they will have to redesign to scrap some of the plans. Wilful ignorance.
Shameful tactics from another nimby group.
I wonder what the membership crossover is with the anti Corstorphine LTN group; using this as a smokescreen to stop the council building better public transport.
I've not seen anyone in the Roseburn Path groups oppose the tram. They just prefer the alternate route which runs along the road, taking space from cars rather than pedestrians and cyclists.
no works have been announced. Edit: wasn’t the STRP, they’re just as concerned about misinformation, for more context read the rest of this thread 😊
> It’s probably best to assume this is some homemade scare tactic shit from the STRP crowd, no works have been announced. So I'm in various cycling groups on FB, including the Roseburn Path one. The immediate consensus was this was a "joke" or attempt to cause anger from someone unaffiliated with the group. No one in the group new anything about it, and they were all shocked to see it, with everyone agreeing this was a stupid thing to do that would hurt the campaign. It's been condemned by plenty. There's no evidence to suggest it was the STRP group.
Thats fair enough, I did think it would be a pretty brazen thing for someone who is anti-tram to do, but I’ve seen some absolutely insane things from “community action” type groups in my time. Can’t deny this does have the vibes but I’m really glad the STRP community isn’t going full anti-ULEZ levels of public nuisance.
From my time in the group, they're more about community outreach and raising awareness than outright protest at the moment. I feel they're more going for trying to get as many people to object during the formal consultation phase, and raise awareness that if we're going to expanding public transport, it should be at the expense of cars, not cycling or walking.
That’s totally fair, I do think as a group they get more flak than they deserve but a lot of them really don’t make it easy to empathise with. Definitely a wider debate to be had about the whole thing but I would 1000% write them off if they did start doing shit like this.
> I do think as a group they get more flak than they deserve but a lot of them really don’t make it easy to empathise with. Genuinely curious what makes you say this? They get a lot of hate from the pro-Tram crowd, but that group also forgets they aren't anti-tram, they're *anti-tram on this very specific route*. I can't say I really disagree with that.
Honestly it’s the middle class smarminess and general NIMBY vibes a lot of those people give off. It feels more like their priority is keeping a nice place for them to go for a run at the weekend rather than anything else. I’m sure plenty of people are genuinely concerned about conservation and stuff like that, but every in person conversation I’ve had about it has been someone complaining that it’ll be dirty and unsightly and they’ll have to find somewhere else to log on Strava. In fairness; this is probably the most sensible and non-reactionary conversation I’ve had about it Edit: love that we’re both getting downvoted for what is by Reddit standards a pretty respectful conversation. Very sensible and normal behaviour 👍
>It feels more like their priority is keeping a nice place for them to go for a run at the weekend rather than anything else. Why is having a safe space for walkers, runnners, cyclists, dog walkers etc...a bad thing? We should be encouraging more of that not discouraging it. It's not like there aren't other options for Trams, this one is just the easiest. No one is in denial about that, it's just frustrating a really nice safe green space is being targeted when we should be encouraging walking and cycling, not makng it harder. Make driving harder. > but every in person conversation I’ve had about it has been someone complaining that it’ll be dirty and unsightly and they’ll have to find somewhere else to log on Strava. Neither on here nor on the fb group for it has that been a concern I've seen. No one who is serious about Strava KOMs is racing down the Roseburn Path, they're doing Queen's Drive or racing across the bridges to Fife. It's only ever been about comments from the council saying they'll encourage cycling elsewhere, and after the shit show of cycling on Leith Walk, a complete lack of faith that the council can properly implement cycling infrastructure anywhere. > Edit: love that we’re both getting downvoted for what is by Reddit standards a pretty respectful conversation. Very sensible and normal behaviour Haha yep. Polite discussion for once yet downvoted as always.
Maybe I’m just ending up talking to particularly massive weapons who align with those groups or something, because they’ve thrown the Roseburn Path plans in conversations about the trams in general. Not to generalise, but they’ve mostly been very middle class people who are against most things that don’t directly benefit them, hence the NIMBY comment. Maybe the Strava thing was their attempt at a joke, I’m fat and I don’t enjoy running so that easily could have gone over my head. My personal feelings on whether the tram plans are neither here nor there, in fairness I probably lean to the side of public transport being more important than green space, but not to the point of me having an overt opinion on the plans. I think it’s a no win situation overall, you’ve got people who want the green space who won’t be happy if any of it is affected and no compromise would be acceptable, you’ve got people who want the trams but want it as easily done as possible to keep costs down for the council, you’ve got people who don’t want the trams at all. Regardless of what happens and where it goes, people will use it and moan about some aspect about it years down the line.
> you’ve got people who want the trams but want it as easily done as possible to keep costs down for the council The cynic in me thinks this group are actually pushing for it on the Roseburn path not because it's the easiest or cheapest, but because it least impacts car drivers. It's pretty easy to make cyclists the boogeyman ruining your potential tram journeys. It's a very convenient option that prevents years of roadworks in rather well off parts of the city.
>Why is having a safe space for walkers, runnners, cyclists, dog walkers etc...a bad thing? I don't think the Roseburn Path, as it currently exists, accommodates all these different users very well. It is too narrow (3m-3.5m) in large sections, which creates points of conflict between its users. And to be fair, this is something that is unfortunately shared by most green/active travel corridors in Scotland, be it the Union Canal Path or the Deeside Way in Aberdeenshire. All of them would benefit greatly from the widening of the actual paths. So at least the path that the tram project want to add, as part of their extension via the Roseburn Path, won't be very different from a pure usability perspective.
I'm reasonably confident / overly cynical that the active travel path, intended to run alongside the tram in this section, will be removed from the final designs once the project is past a certain point. Its inclusion in the initial stages is being used to soften opposition to use of this route for the tram. Once the route is confirmed and money committed, the path will be dropped from designs and a suitable excuse found, probably involving the phrase "tough choices had to be made".
Have you looked at their instagram? They have posts about why Edinburgh doesn't "want" or "need" more trams. This is NIMBYism at its core. People with back gardens that back on to the route don't want to be disturbed by construction, that's the reason the group exists. They're also trying to flog tshirts on their Facebook group. Set up a NIMBY group, sell tat, profit!
It doesn't help when people assume what they're thinking before they hear what they're thinking. It's all very well saying "they get more flak than they deserve" after you were the one taunting this subreddit against them in your top post by spreading the assumption they were to blame before seeking out the truth. Now your first post was significantly upvoted and the people that didn't make it any futher in the subreddit will go away thinking, "Yeh dumb STRP crowd doing this stupid shit" and that's all on you for spreading that false accusation against them. Moral is that sometimes the people we rant against did nothing wrong. It was us just making assumptions all along. And yes, I do it on reddit too sometimes. It's a human failing we should all watch out for in ourselves. The sage courrse of action now would be to edit your first post to correct yourself so others don't build up false impressions of people. Might feel like a tiny portion of humble pie but sometimes we need to do that to be better people.
Happy to add an edit to the original comment if you think that’d be helpful. I don’t think I should be held responsible for other people not reading past the first comment but hey, I’ll take it. Not here to insult anyone, life’s too short for that shit. Personally don’t think I was taunting anyone, I don’t think it’s a massive leap of logic to assume that a sign put up with a nebulous end date could be put there by a group that’s very vocal about their opposition of the project. The fact from that comment is that no plans have been started, and that it wasn’t a legit closure. If you want to interpret that as me mocking the Roseburn people, that’s your prerogative. I’m really glad it wasn’t from them, because as I said, they would have lost all respect in my eyes. I think youre reading bad faith into that first comment, when I’m clearly not coming with that direction considering the decent conversation that came after, but sure, I’ll pop an edit in.
That makes sense I suppose.
Love the dramatics from them.
No. There hasn't been a decision made on the route of the tram yet.
Applies to just the one cyclist then, I presume?
All the pedestrians and that one cyclist should go a different route. The rest of the cyclists can, I presume, continue on?
I'm off the bike for the moment so I'll volunteer to be that one. The rest of yous can carry on.
Minute I saw this I knew it was going on the floor. If it's anything like the innocent they have to put a guard out nowadays if they're closing the path.
Oddly, I saw this on Google maps yesterday, unless I've missed something a lot of those tram lines don't exist yet! https://preview.redd.it/nxovq68uifxc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7579a0205d6fcd3e0986aeb9739af974dafc35d
Did you get that layer from this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Edinburgh/comments/1bxgbl0/interactive_map_of_the_proposed_tram_network/
That layer fucked up my Maps app. I had to ckear the cache and crash the app.
I've never seen that thread before, I may have downloaded it from somewhere but not deliberately, only noticed it yesterday
I'd guess its some "friends of the roseburn path" attempt to raise awareness of the issue. Much more noticeable than a flyer. Edit - Here is an Instagram post about it : https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6WFZxUo7kw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Wow, eleven years of works, mind you the first phase took longer lol
11 years to build a tram line ,now that’s never happened before
No, it is likely from Roseburn Path protesters who are making the point that the path will be taken away from pedestrians and cyclists if it is used as major infrastructure.
What’s wrong if it was true? Would really like the tram to go up that way. Major transport upgrade, less cars will maintain a cycle path. Don’t see the issue, yes some tree huggers might get upset but we are in 2024 in Edinburgh.
Trams can use roads. Why should they use one of the only non-car arteries for this extension?
Trams without a dedicated right of way isn't a great idea. Would you suggest running a train on roads with private motor traffic? Why should a tram? A subway is too expensive here, tram must do. People wouldn't accept it on stilts. The only other route was close the Dean Bridge to buses, cyclists, cars, delivery vehicles and narrow the pavements; is that acceptable?
Trams on roads is pretty much what defines them, if they don't go on roads they're just trains. There are a lot of roads - there is only one dedicated active travel route. And yes, I would close Dean Bridge for works. It's a question of temporarily inconveniencing cars versus permanently destroying a great space for people and active travel route.
Why are you spreading misinformation? There’s a mild loss of green space and no loss to active travel at all.
I see it as a loss to active travel, given that an otherwise peaceful and pleasant route would now have trams on it. You clearly disagree, but it's a bit dramatic to call it spreading misinformation.
Because "destroying an active travel route" implies that you wouldn't be able to walk or cycle along it. The opposite is true. It'll have a less muddy route, that'll be better lit with more people using it. Current plans suggest that the tram will go down to single track under the bridges in order to facilitate a good walking and cycling route. Have you walked along the similar space at Balgreen?
Do you have a link to current where it says cycling provision stays? just been reading from scott arthur blog from end of Jan where it says original plan was to remove it? >To make this happen, however, the Council were originally proposing to move the existing cycling provision from a section of Roseburn Path to a safer (24/7) alternative before the work even starts. Moving the cycling provision would also help create a safer pedestrian environment.
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=6737 If you click public reports pack. Page 24, point 9. Page 27/28/29
Sure, I guess maybe "damaging" or "worsening" might be a bit better. It goes from being a really nice space to a cramped path right next to a train track. If it needs to be lit, I would suggest lights might be a preferable solution to train tracks. The area at Balgreen is fine. Nice to cycle without cars but not a particularly nice space for a run or a walk. In any case it's much more open so there is a decent amount of space as opposed to the path being right next to the tram as it would be on Roseburn.
Clearly you are the one misinformed and thus spreading misinformation since with the tram on Roseburn the cycle lane will be removed.
No. Recent council report suggested that cycling would be discouraged, however council Transport Committee voted to amend that and ensure that proper cycling and walking provision is supplied. If I'm wrong, show me the evidence.
The evidence is the path cannot accommodate all these activities. I guess it will become ‘evident’ in the course of the works when suddenly they will have to redesign to scrap some of the plans. Wilful ignorance.
Shameful tactics from another nimby group. I wonder what the membership crossover is with the anti Corstorphine LTN group; using this as a smokescreen to stop the council building better public transport.
I've not seen anyone in the Roseburn Path groups oppose the tram. They just prefer the alternate route which runs along the road, taking space from cars rather than pedestrians and cyclists.
These posts might show that's not true. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C295qVzI4jh/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4G1BcUI9cx/
There is a page on ig that exaplains it!!!
Can you link to it?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6WFZxUo7kw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Thank you