The Council has published the results of its 2025 consultation on a north-south tramline between Granton and South Edinburgh. A proposed business case (presumably with the next iteration of plans) is to be published this autumn, for councillor decisions at the 10 September Transport and Environment Committee (TEC).
However, rather to our surprise, the Council has provided feedback on main issues raised in the consultation. So, although we must wait till September for definite proposals, these responses do give slightly more clarity on what officers are currently thinking. Feedback on the 3 top issues raised in the Spokes consultation response is included in this article. In summary…
- Bridges corridor – although our concerns are recognised, and ameliorations being investigated, it looks like tramline crashes and injuries will remain a strong likelihood
- Roseburn corridor – there is positive news on the Roseburn pinch point and a possible bridge over the mainline railway
- Orchard Brae corridor – significant bike facilities to reduce dangers on the tramlined roads seem unlikely
Important documents
The documents are all contained in papers to the June 18 TEC, here [section 8.1].
- Paper 8.1 the main report
- Appendix 1 overall analysis and comparison between outcomes of the public consultation and the market research
- Annexes 1-20, each detailing different aspects of the consultation. See appendix to this article for the names of each annex. All annexes are accessible in section 8.1 of the TEC papers
- Annex 4 – a particularly important Annex, which gives the Council’s feedback on ‘key themes’ raised in the consultation and in the market research, and from which the quotes below are taken
- Annex 19 – full market research report
- Note: Some organisations (including Spokes) supplied written responses to the consultation, others only responded to the online survey, others to both. All responses are in one or both of the following bullet points.
- Annex 1 – full written responses from organisations
- Consultation website – full online survey responses from organisations – spreadsheet
- See also the Spokes response to the 2025 tramline consultation – website summary article / full Spokes response
Overall outcomes
As is now Council practice for potentially controversial major consultations, market research representative of the city population as a whole was undertaken in addition to the public consultation. The consultation is not there as a referendum, but gives the public the chance to raise concerns and opportunities which they want taken into account.
The market research (a 954 representative sample of the city) gave fairly consistent results to most of the main questions, with around 40%-50% supporting the tram overall, and in each tramline section, and around 20% opposed. The consultation outcome was much more mixed (with a high response from the population around the northern section), 68%-23% opposition/support for the Roseburn route, 44%-32% for Orchard Brae, but support for the southern sections to Bioquarter, Midlothian and East Lothian.
The Edinburgh Reporter described the overall outcome as “fairly inconclusive” whilst the Edinburgh Inquirer said it showed Edinburgh “warming” to the idea of the tram expansion.
In this brief article, we look only at the three main specific location issues (as above) from the Spokes submission. For more on any other aspects, see the documents linked above. Annex 4 is particularly valuable, containing the Council feedback on a whole range of issues raised.
However one general point is that we do not believe that the Council feedback gives anything like sufficient consideration to tramline crashes and injuries. Our submission [section 4] went into this in considerable detail – the experience of the first tramline, and the type of measures which could prevent, or at least minimise, tramline crashes and injuries. There is further discussion of this in our recent article on Princes Street, here [see the section called ‘Spokes Input‘].
Bridges Corridor
Our consultation response [section 8] stated..
“The section through North and South Bridges is of extreme concern to Spokes, with no cycle provision, new tramlines and continued through traffic on a road where width is at a premium. This is making cycling provision far worse than in the current bus lane.” We raised a range of specific issues and put forward a range of possible alternatives and ameliorations, which could either avoid, or reduce, the dangers of tramline crashes.
In summary, the Council feedback makes clear that the current intention remains to use this route, with dual tram tracks, wider footways, and no space for cycle lanes. Traffic lanes will be reduced from 4 to 3, and to 2 where there are bus stops or loading. There is no talk of significant traffic restriction, e.g. bus gates, one of our suggestions.
It thus seems inevitable that people will in places be cycling fairly close to tramlines, and particularly so when passing stopped buses or vehicles loading. There are then clear risks of being forced onto tramlines by traffic, or by pedestrians suddenly stepping off the footway. Additionally a significant proportion of people will cycle between the tramlines for a clearer ride, especially at times busy with traffic and/or pedestrians – but this means crossing and re-crossing a tramline at an angle which risks skidding or trapping. There are examples from tramline 1 of all three of the above types of crash, some with serious injury, some life-changing.
One extreme risk which Spokes had identified was the use of kerbside tram platforms, which would force all cyclists to cross the tramlines at a bad angle. The feedback does recognise this issue and says that platforms will be “appropriately positioned” to reduce this risk.
The feedback also promises that other traffic measures/calming will be investigated, also using European experience, and it believes that this will make safe cycling possible.
The exact wording of the main council feedback on these issues is as follows…
The Council’s approved Future Streets Framework which supports the approved Edinburgh City Centre Transformation Plan, classifies North and South Bridge as a primary bus corridor, a tram corridor, a primary walk corridor, a secondary cycle corridor, and a local traffic corridor. The proposed tram candidate design for this corridor therefore complies with adopted Council policy for this corridor and moreover prioritises widening of footways where possible over provision of segregated cycleways due to high pedestrian volumes on this route, particularly during Edinburgh’s festival periods. The design will continue to focus on ensuring it is safe to cycle along this corridor, and this can be achieved without segregated cycling provision.
While the current design prioritises widening footways and does not include segregated cycleways, there are a range of measures that can be implemented to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. These include enhanced surface markings, dedicated signal phases for cyclists, traffic calming features such as reduced speed limits, as well as careful design of tram tracks and stop locations.
European cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Freiburg employ measures such as raised crossings, advanced stop lines, and traffic calming to promote safer interactions without requiring segregated cycle lanes on every route. Innovative track solutions can be explored along with designing tram stops with appropriately positioned platforms to reduce the risk of wheels getting stuck and improve overall safety.
At this early stage, we are considering these options as part of a broader approach. A full range of infrastructure solutions would be examined during the next phase of the business case and design, ensuring the most suitable measures are identified.
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.”
The exact wording of the main council feedback on these issues is as follows…
The consultation was transparent that the nature of the Roseburn Path would change with a tram route, whilst retaining a 3m wide walking, wheeling and cycling path alongside the tram which is comparable to the effective width of the existing shared use path. This shared use path provision is therefore retained in the Roseburn Path proposal, not lost. Some raised concerns in the consultation that conflicts between users would increase but there is no reason to think this would be the case with the same effective width as currently – although the candidate proposal was transparent on two pinch points.
As part of any future detailed design work, the project would look at the possibility of increasing the width of both pinch points to a minimum of 3 metres. Initial thoughts are that this would not be difficult south of the Roseburn Bridge (to note, the Roseburn Bridge is being extended to allow for 3 metres walking, wheeling and cycling across the bridge). The structure of the Telford Road Bridge makes a solution for this 24m stretch harder to accommodate. Further exploration would be made if approval is given for Outline Business Case and detailed design. The proposal also commits to improving active travel provision on other parallel routes, thereby increasing the route options for those wishing to travel actively.
The project would provide the opportunity for improved surfacing, and there would also be clear arrangements for crossing tram tracks along the route. There are other parts of the city where people walking, wheeling and cycling interact with travelling alongside and crossing tram tracks and tram operations. It is possible a tram operation on the Roseburn Path would help the path to feel safer and more secure, with more regular activity along it, a point raised by some in the consultation.
The sustainable travel hierarchy set out in the National Transport Strategy from the Scottish Government is a general principle for decision-making. As the Council’s approved Future Streets Framework demonstrates, it does not apply everywhere. The principle of providing effective modal networks means that on some routes /corridors, certain modes of travel will take precedence over others. The Roseburn Path is identified for tram within the Future Streets Framework, and as a secondary cycling network. The candidate proposal put forward incorporates both of these elements.
There is scope to enhance connectivity between Russell Road and the Union Canal, which could include widening existing pathways, installing dedicated cycling infrastructure, and improving signage and crossings to facilitate safer and more direct active travel routes. Additionally, exploring the feasibility of constructing a new bridge to connect Roseburn Path directly to the Union Canal could significantly improve accessibility and route options for those walking, wheeling and cycling. Such a bridge would provide a vital link, encourage increased
use of sustainable transport modes and supporting wider regeneration and active travel objectives. However, a comprehensive feasibility study would be necessary to assess technical challenges, environmental impacts, and cost implications, but this intervention could deliver substantial long-term benefits for connectivity.
The candidate design put forward as part of the 2025 consultation represents an attempt to balance the operational needs of the tram proposal with the ecological integrity of the Roseburn Path. The design acknowledges that there will inevitably be ecological impacts, however, it incorporates specific measures aimed at minimising these effects. Notably, the proposal includes a single-track section between Roseburn Bridge and Craigleith, which reduces the extent of infrastructure required and limits disturbance to the surrounding environment.
Further ecological interventions could be incorporated into the project to promote biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and environmental resilience. These measures might include restoring and enhancing existing habitats along the route, such as planting native woodland and vegetation to support local wildlife. Creating green buffers and ecological corridors can help mitigate the impacts of infrastructure development, while also providing benefits like stormwater management and air quality improvement. Additional interventions could involve installing bird and insect habitats, such as nesting boxes and pollinator-friendly planting schemes, to support urban biodiversity.
The ongoing process will include a comprehensive assessment and will be informed by ecological surveys, expert input, and stakeholder engagement, ensuring that all potential impacts are carefully considered and that credible, effective mitigation measures are embedded into the project’s planning and delivery.
The Council remains committed to safeguarding and enhancing the ecological value of the Roseburn Path and surrounding areas, ensuring that the proposed tram aligns with Edinburgh’s wider sustainability and environmental objectives.
Single tracking of a section on the Roseburn Path corridor route option has been introduced into the candidate design as a compromise to minimise the impact of a tram line on both active travel provision and on ecology along the corridor. It is not ideal to single track and should only be done where necessary, as it has impacts on journey times and capacity of the route. It is viewed to be an acceptable operational compromise on the Roseburn Path. In response to concerns about the safety of non-motorised users crossing single-track trams
lines with the potential for trams from either direction, and risks of head-on collisions – single track running exists in many schemes across the UK including in Nottingham and Manchester, with appropriate control and mitigation measures in place. The Council will continue to explore ways to ensure any single-track running element of the Roseburn Path is safe and has agreed to work in close collaboration with Edinburgh Trams via working groups on this issue should the design progress to the next stage. Mitigation options may include exploration of reinstating a stop at Ravelston Dykes and building in passing places, whilst mitigating for any further loss of vegetation space (active travel space is not thought to be affected by these options).
Orchard Brae corridor
Our consultation response [section 7] highlighted the dangers of onroad tramlines here, alongside the probable removal of existing segregated cycling provision on Queensferry Road and Crewe Road South, and various other more local/specific issues. We mentioned possible ameliorations such as single-tracking. We also mentioned the importance of improved cycle facilities here in advance of tramline construction should the Roseburn option be chosen.
The onroad tramline issues are in many respects similar to the Bridges corridor above [so we will not repeat that feedback here] although footways are much less busy here and thus less prone to walkers spilling into the street (which can force cyclists to move sideways instinctively). The Council feedback says that alternative cycle provision on “nearby routes” could be considered.
The exact wording of the main council feedback on these issues is as follows…
The consultation proposal for Orchard Brae acknowledged the potential impact on other road users from this route option, though clearly a key benefit of this route option is that it retains the Roseburn Path as a corridor for active travel usage only. The consultation was clear it would be challenging to provide segregated cycleways along this route option on-road due to lack of space, though how this could be mitigated on nearby routes could continue to be explored in future stages of the work.
The Orchard Brae route proposal on the whole does not include segregated cycleways due to lack of space, and the need to prioritise space on this corridor to general traffic and buses, alongside any tram operation. The Orchard Brae route option already has longer journey times forecast than the Roseburn Path route option, and single tracking would lead to longer journey times, further undermining the case for tram on this route (journey times impact on patronage forecasts and therefore revenue estimates).
What you can do
- As mentioned earlier, the above council feedback shows the way that officers are thinking, but the next definitive iteration of the proposals will not be published until September. If any issues from the above particularly concern you, the best bet is to email your councillors asking them to ensure your concerns are fully considered
- Please repost our bluesky of this article.
Appendix – list of documents
- Spokes response to the 2025 tramline consultation – website summary article / full Spokes response
- TEC paper 8.1 – the main outline report on the consultation, for councillors at the 18 June TEC
- Appendix 1 overall analysis and comparison between outcomes of the public consultation and the market research
- Annexes 1-20, each detailing different aspects of the consultation. See appendix to this article for the names of each annex. Links to all annexes are in section 8.1 of the TEC papers
- 1 List of Stakeholder Organisations who took part
- 2 Further analysis of who took part
- 3 Communications Overview
- 4 Key themes from consultation, market research and stakeholders
- 5 City Plan 2040 school breakdown
- 6 Support / Opposition for a north / south tram – further analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses including selected quotes
- 7 Response to Orchard Brae proposals on walking, wheeling and cycling – further analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses including selected quotes
- 8 Response to Orchard Brae proposals on ecology – further analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses including selected quotes
- 9 Responses to Roseburn Path proposals on walking, wheeling – further analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses including selected quotes
- 10 Responses to Roseburn Path proposals on protecting / enchancing ecology – further analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses including selected quotes
- 11 Responses to Granton – City Centre direct route option – further analysis
- 12 Responses to Orchard Brae route option – further analysis
- 13 Responses to Roseburn Path route option – further analysis
- 14 Responses to Granton – Newhaven route option – further analysis
- 15 Responses to route options in the north-west of Edinburgh – further analysis of comments and suggestions
- 16 Response to City Centre – Edinburgh BioQuarter / Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh route option – further analysis
- 17 Response to Edinburgh BioQuarter / Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh route option – City Region – further analysis
- 18 Final Quantitative Questions Download (Consultation)
- 19 Final Market Research Report
- 20 Easy Read Version