Thoughts on the "Route for the third Edinburgh tram line"
30 January 2026 10:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerThere's been a bit of a fuss today about the unveiling of a third Edinburgh tram line route. And my thoughts about it aren't simple enough to stick into a link title, so I thought I'd ramble a little.
Firstly, it seems to me that this is not a council announcement of anything. The map is plastered with the repeated word "concept". It contains both Picardy Place and York Place (Picardy Place was created when York Place was removed, when the tram extension was carried out in 2023). I've seen discussions that it's based on an old version of the existing routes taken from Wikipedia.
The source is a Scotsman article, rather than a council publication. And even then the coverage is mostly taken from a speech given at the Rail in Scotland conference - where the council's transport convener said he "was excited at taking a closer look" - but it's not the main priority. Certainly there's nothing on the council's news page mentioning it.
So I'm not convinced that this is more than a "Here's an interesting possibility"
Secondly, I'm not convinced it's viable financially. Which isn't to say that trams, in general, can't be worthwhile. If Edinburgh hadn't badly botched the construction of the first tram line then it would be well in profit now. But that tram line runs from one of the most densely populated parts of the city (Leith Walk) to one of the business hubs (Gyle and Gogar), through some of the most touristy stretches (Princes Street).
Much though I love the idea of a tram that literally stops in my road and goes to both the airport and Portobello, nearly the whole route is low-density. The bus route that is closest to it is the 38, which is so low-use outside of rush hour that it's a single-decker that has to be subsidised.
Admittedly, it's cheaper to build than a new tram line, as it's mostly a question of re-using the old train line. But I'd like to see a concrete business case for it, that checked that the number of potential users would support running tram-trains along that route.
Firstly, it seems to me that this is not a council announcement of anything. The map is plastered with the repeated word "concept". It contains both Picardy Place and York Place (Picardy Place was created when York Place was removed, when the tram extension was carried out in 2023). I've seen discussions that it's based on an old version of the existing routes taken from Wikipedia.
The source is a Scotsman article, rather than a council publication. And even then the coverage is mostly taken from a speech given at the Rail in Scotland conference - where the council's transport convener said he "was excited at taking a closer look" - but it's not the main priority. Certainly there's nothing on the council's news page mentioning it.
So I'm not convinced that this is more than a "Here's an interesting possibility"
Secondly, I'm not convinced it's viable financially. Which isn't to say that trams, in general, can't be worthwhile. If Edinburgh hadn't badly botched the construction of the first tram line then it would be well in profit now. But that tram line runs from one of the most densely populated parts of the city (Leith Walk) to one of the business hubs (Gyle and Gogar), through some of the most touristy stretches (Princes Street).
Much though I love the idea of a tram that literally stops in my road and goes to both the airport and Portobello, nearly the whole route is low-density. The bus route that is closest to it is the 38, which is so low-use outside of rush hour that it's a single-decker that has to be subsidised.
Admittedly, it's cheaper to build than a new tram line, as it's mostly a question of re-using the old train line. But I'd like to see a concrete business case for it, that checked that the number of potential users would support running tram-trains along that route.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
