The campaign to Save the Roseburn Path has featured prominently in recent months, garnering substantial media coverage.

Behind the debate about this specific section of the North Edinburgh Path Network are wider issues about the future development of Edinburgh and, in particular, its transport system and the status of its green spaces. The current state of the campaign was the focus of a get together held in Comely Bank on Friday evening. 

All attendees had the imminent deadline for submissions to the public consultation on their minds. All responses are due before midnight on 17 November. The event was hosted by Rosanna Rabaeijs, one of the campaign’s more active supporters. Though poor weather limited the overall attendance, the discussion was engaging, well-informed, and wide-ranging.

Those in attendance spoke as supporters of the campaign, rather than expression an official campaign view. I sat in on proceedings, interested to see how those involved felt about the issue and the way the campaign was going. The meeting offered an insight into the varied discussions going on among the supporters. It also illustrated the real passion that many of them have about saving the path.

Striking a Chord

An underlying tension at the meeting was the contrast between the sense that the campaign had struck a chord and achieved good media coverage, versus the belief that the fundamental decisions had already been made. Attendees committed to continuing their leafleting and campaigning over the weekend until the deadline, despite the underlying fear that their efforts might prove futile. 

Recent media attention included coverage in The Herald‘s series of articles and videos on Edinburgh’s trams. Also, lighthearted viral social media content—including a video of the Pianodrome’s Will Pickvance ‘Cycling the Roseburn Path‘ with a piano. The feeling that the campaign had, through the efforts of Euan Baxter and others, achieved significant cut-through seemed supported by early indications that a majority of those responding to the consultation were aligned with the general ‘Save the Roseburn Path’ view.

Despite deep scepticism about the entire process, there was a clear determination that what the campaign sees as the destruction of the path must be fought against. This includes continuing the campaign even after the final council decisions are announced.

Attendees vowed to continue pushing for robust measures to mitigate damage to the green corridor. Ultimately, though, as one speaker put it: “once it’s gone, we can rant all we want, but it will have gone.” Hence, the importance of stopping the proposal as early as possible. 

Viewpoint diversity and core consensus

One interesting aspect of the meeting was the significant diversity of viewpoints among attendees, though all were fundamentally supportive of the campaign. On one end of the spectrum, some accepted that a single tram line and active travel route might run alongside each other, although they found the current proposals deeply flawed and insufficient.

At the other end, some were totally opposed to the tram project, arguing the existing lines were a fundamental mistake. In short, that trams were an outmoded form of transport. This was the range of views present at the meeting.

For some, their concerns over the path were part of a wider critique of Edinburgh’s transport policy, including the state of the roads and ill-advised programmes. There was mention of combative discussions on the campaign’s Facebook group, though some of the nastier stuff was dismissed as the work of trolls.

Rosanna Rabaeijs emphasised that the group was a loose grassroots organisation, united solely by the need to preserve this vital green corridor. This common goal brings together individuals with otherwise divergent general views on Edinburgh’s future.

Environmental Issues

What has emerged during the campaign has been a significant split among those who share a generally environmentalist take on the city’s future. Some view the extension of the tram along the Roseburn Path as part of a greening of the city, while those involved in the Save the Roseburn Path campaign oppose this stance.

One area of disappointment expressed by some individuals was the extent to which many major environmental bodies had seemingly signed up to the tram proposal. Rosanna Rabaeijs highlighted that the cycling campaigning group Spokes had backed the plan, despite its foundational role in establishing the path network in the 1980s. She felt that they, and Friends of the Earth, had in signing an open letter in favour of the trams, overlooked some significant aspects. Despite this, she hoped that the campaign could still work with these groups.

The campaign strongly believes that any genuinely environmental perspective should recognise the incredible value of the path, including the vast amount of wildlife, trees, and vegetation that would be severely affected.

More broadly, some expressed the fear that, even if responses to the public consultation from local residents were overwhelmingly against the proposal, the unified views of these larger, influential organisations might ultimately hold sway.

One speaker relayed a statement from an insider: that what would end on 17 November was “a consultation, not a referendum”. In short, a unanimous rejection of the proposal by individuals might not be enough to stop it.

Heritage v health – countering the arguments

The justification for the tramline -the need for mass transport to carry the growing load from developing areas like the Waterfront and Granton – was well understood by attendees. One interesting suggestion was that, instead of a tram, the current path should be significantly widened to allow far more space for workers and cyclists travelling from Granton into the city centre.

In discussions with railway experts, the campaign often hears the argument that because these paths were railways in the past, converting them into tramways is consistent with that heritage—a prospect long articulated on information boards along the Roseburn Path. Countering this view was essential, many in attendance felt. Arguments included that Edinburgh has changed too much for heritage-based arguments to remain coherent. Or, the rhetorical question: “What were they before they became railway lines?”

A central theme expressed throughout was the increasingly recognised mental health benefits of walking such paths today. Attendees related their own experiences, noting this was also the number one aspect expressed to them by others.

Many argued that trams travelling up to 40 mph would fundamentally alter the experience of using the path. The path is seen as far more than a way to get from A to B. It is an essential time in nature, a wildlife haven surrounded by trees. One contributor also noted that the steep-sided section, which was prone to flooding and landslides when it was a rail line, relies on the current trees for stability. The proposal would, they believed, compromise this.

Questioning the coherence of the plans

While the mental health impact was much discussed, physical health aspects also featured. As was the related argument that the tramline would radically improve access to the Western General Hospital, which was met with great scepticism. If anything, attendees suggested, routing the tram down Orchard Brae would make more sense, as it would also serve the substantial new development on the old Victoria Hospital site – as well as the main entrance to the Western.

There was a sense that the hospital-linking aspects were being used as an emotional lever for undecided voters, but were fundamentally incoherent. The plans put forward were flawed: there were “so many holes in the documents” that they were simply “not robust.” There was a strong feeling that the prominent soundbites used to promote the tram extension proposal were covering over cracks. In other words, implementation would suffer similar issues and delays as the original leg of the tram network—one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.

Concerning the project’s disruptiveness, attendees highlighted that the Roseburn Terrace Bridge would have to be taken down and entirely rebuilt. This major undertaking, they argued, was not receiving sufficient public attention and significantly undermined the claim that routing through the Roseburn Path would be “far less disruptive” than the Dean Bridge/Orchard Brae alternative.

The Stakes of Preservation

The discussion made it clear that the campaign to Save the Roseburn Path is not just about a specific section of tarmac. It represents a fundamental disagreement over the future identity of Edinburgh.

Despite the palpable scepticism regarding the consultation process – and the fear that powerful bodies will ultimately outweigh local sentiment – the determination to continue the fight remains strong.

The core consensus among the supporters of the campaign is that the value of the path has been significantly undervalued, particularly regarding its essential role in mental health, local ecology, and active travel. Ultimately, the meeting affirmed that the path is seen as an irreplaceable green corridor, and its loss would be a permanent political and environmental failure, far outweighing the perceived benefits of the proposed tram extension. 

The tram consultation is here.