Edinburgh trams: Roseburn Path campaign plea for alternative Bus Rapid Transit option is rejected

The Save Roseburn Path group told the council's transport and environment committee that BRT - which involves special buses with dedicated lanes - would be cheaper, greener, quicker to build and less disruptive, while also preserving the Roseburn active travel path.

But the committee voted down a bid to include BRT as an alternative to trams in the consultation and the business case for the North-South route from Granton to the BioQuarter.

The Save Roseburn Path campaign argued for a Bus Rapid Transit alternative to the tram | TSPL

Committee convener Stephen Jenkinson has said that in meeting Edinburgh's need to move large numbers of people around efficiently nothing "can land a glove on trams" - though he accepted BRT could have a role in linking the Capital to places such as Livingston, Cockenzie, Blindwells, Penicuik and South Queensferry.

Edinburgh had a short section of dedicated busway between Stenhouse and Broomhouse from 2004 until 2009, which involved buses with guide-wheels running on segregated concrete tracks but able to run on normal roads as well. But it was abandoned and became part of the tram route.

Making a deputation to the committee, Philip Wade of the Save Roseburn Path campaign, urged the committee to include BRT as "an equal option" for the Granton corridor.

He said BRT compared favourably with trams on affordability, timeliness, environmental impact and disruption.

"The vehicles run on standard tarmac, so no tracks and the version I'm talking about has no guidance kerbs. Vehicles run on steerable rubber wheels and it provides a tram equivalent service - regular, reliable, short journey times, pre-paid off-board ticketing, multi-door level access vehicles and compatible platforms, prioritised routes, green-powered."

Edinburgh's guided busway was a 1.5km two-lane stretch of road from Stenhouse to Broomhouse solely for use of buses. Picture: Neil Hanna. | TSPL

He said BRT was "less challenged" by steep hills, tight corners and weight-sensitive bridges, offered more route options and was safer for cyclists.

It would be more affordable, requiring capital investment of £90m rather than the £500m needed for the trams, and would take two years to build rather than four. "It's a viable, good value-for-money alternative."

Asked by councillors about the lower capacity of BRT - around 140 per vehicle, compared to 250 on the tram - Mr Wade said the latest BRT vehicles could take 200 or even 250.

Lib Dem councillor Sanne Dijkstra-Downie argued BRT should be an option. She said: “It’s not perhaps a perfect alternative, but an alternative nevertheless and one we know has been quite successful in some places and one where technology is still developing rapidly.

“It may compromise on capacity but can be delivered quicker, for less money, with much less disruption and varying degrees of segregation depending on road conditions.”

And she voiced concerns about the financing of the tram plans. “This committee has never been resented with a realistic prospect of the £2 billion government funding for the route, or even government funding for part of the route.

“The minister herself wrote to the council last year with a letter which could best be desrcribed as expectation management. So we feel there is a real risk that despite significant work on consultation and the business case on trams, we end up with nothing.”

Tory group leader Iain Whyte argued a BRT system could be introduced in the short term until money was available to swap it for trams. He asked officials about the cost of BRT and was told the “Belfast Gilder” BRT scheme involved a cost of around £100m, or around £4.1m per kilometre at 2018 prices.

Cllr Whyte said: “This is about finding the best public transport system we can for this city and I would encourage officers to continue to do that but I would ask them to think of the art of the possible when they do that - and if it's £4m per kilometre as opposed to £87m per km I think I know what’s more likely to be possible.”

But SNP transport spokesman Danny Aston said, given Edinburgh’s fast-expanding population, the city needed the higher capacities offered by trams rather than BRT.

“We need to be looking at transit solutions that can move really large numbers of people around the city and on this route the population densities we’re talking about are already there, moving through the South Side down towards the Royal Infirmary, and they are on their way in the north of the city with the Granton masterplan.

“BRT has a role, but it’s going to be serving places that are more peripheral, not so close to the city centre, with lower population densities. It’s clear it’s not really the solution for this North-South route.”

A business case for the North-South tram route, from Granton to the BioQuarter and beyond, is expected around the turn of the year. A key decision to be made is whether the route should use the former railway line, now the Roseburn Path, as originally planned and approved by the Scottish Parliament, or go for an on-road alternative using Orchard Brae, which would mean having to cross the Dean Bridge.