Welcome to Living Streets Edinburgh

StickyNews

Edinburgh, with its generally dense population and walkable distances, could be a European exemplar of a pedestrian-friendly city. But the many sensible walking-related policies of the City of Edinburgh Council too often don’t translate in practice into a safe and attractive walking environment on the streets. Motor traffic continues to dominate the vast majority of the city’s streets – yet there are clear economic, environmental and social benefits in prioritising pedestrian movement within a high-quality public realm.

Despite the many barriers to walking, 35% of journeys by Edinburgh residents are still made on foot, and the Living Streets Edinburgh Group is engaging strongly with the Council, pressing for the pedestrian environment to enjoy the kind of prioritisation given to cycling expenditure – now due to rise to 10% of the Council’s transport budget.

Our overall aim is to:
Promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around Edinburgh.

To this end, we want to see:

  • walking given the top priority over other forms of travel in all council transport and planning policies;
  • a reduction in the volume of motorised traffic and its impact on people using the street;
  • better designed and maintained pavements, road crossings and other pedestrian facilities;
  • more effective and joined-up monitoring and inspection of the walking environment by CEC;
  • planning policy which encourages dense, sustainable housing over car-dominated development;
  • more effective implementation of pro-walking policies ‘on the ground’.

Our priorities for action in 2017-18 are to:

  • campaign for increased budgets (capital and staffing) for the pedestrian environment by CEC;
  • influence the annual CEC capital maintenance programme, to maximise the benefits for walkers;
  • support the 20 mph initiative, effectively enforced;
  • campaign for a fundamental review of CEC’s policy on ‘A-boards’ and other street clutter;
  • support the development of pedestrian-friendly cycle infrastructure;
  • support location-specific campaigns including George Street, Holyrood Park and the Cowgate;
  • grow the number of our supporters and campaigners.

Reducing Pavement Clutter

News, ,

Living Streets Edinburgh Group is pleased to have been awarded a grant from Paths for All under its ‘Smarter Choices, Smarter Places’ programme to tackle ‘pavement clutter’ in the city.  We aim to build on the ‘A-board ban’ to help free some of Edinburgh’s narrow pavements of obstructions. The City of Edinburgh Council is providing match funding for the project, which runs to September 2019.

 

The idea is that we will work with local council staff to identify – and hopefully remove – obstructions which get in the way of people walking. Our focus is especially on ‘fixed clutter – such as guard rails, signage poles or old phone boxes, but we will look at other obstructions too such as bins or encroaching vegetation from hedges. We aim to identify at least 100 pieces of ‘clutter’ in all. Our focus is across the whole city, not just in the city centre and we want to look at residential areas and local shopping districts.

As well as making some specific streets clearer, we hope that the project will generally raise awareness of problems caused by clutter and opportunities to remove it. We also see this as an opportunity for LSEG to build relationships with locality staff and also to involve community councils, and the Edinburgh Access Panel.

How you can help

We are looking for local community groups and individuals to tell us areas where you think there is a particular problem with pavement clutter. You can contact us by email, twitter of Facebook and we will then have a look at the street. We will also invite community councils in areas that we are looking at to join us on a walk around the area and suggest items that should be cleared from the pavement.

Living Streets Edinburgh Annual General Meeting 18 February 2019

Public Event

You are cordially invited to attend our Annual General Meeting at the Living Streets  Scotland office at 5 Rose Street, Edinburgh, on Monday 18th February at 18.00.

The agenda is as follows:

  1. Introductions / apologies
  2. Minutes of last AGM.
  3. Convenor’s Report.
  4. Treasurer’s Report.
  5. Nomination of formal post-holders ( Convenor and Treasurer ).
  6. Nomination of other Committee Members.
  7. Presentation by Stuart Hay, Director of Living Streets Scotland on the bigger Scottish                  picture and Edinburgh’s distinctive role.
  8. Discussion: 2019 campaigns / getting involved with Living Streets Edinburgh.
  9. AOB.

The meeting will finish by 20.00 at the latest. We look forward to seeing you on the 18th.

 

George Street Consultation: response by Living Streets Edinburgh (LSEG)

City Centre Transformation, Consultation Response, George Street, , , , , ,

Introduction:

Living Streets Edinburgh Group is the local voluntary arm of the national charity, Living Streets, which campaigns for better conditions for ‘everyday walking’. In LSEG our key aim is to promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around the city.

We welcome many aspects of the proposed design, which are way overdue: for example, removal of general parking, reduction of traffic space widening of pavements, removal of street clutter, and introducing seating. We append our general statement of preferences for street design, which the proposals generally meet well.

LSEG has a long-standing ambition to pedestrianise George Street – which we were told has widespread public support through the consultation. Edinburgh – perhaps uniquely for a European city of its size and history? – lacks any properly traffic-free space and George Street (and the Royal Mile) are the obvious candidates for this in the New and Old Towns respectively. The form that pedestrianisation should take depends on the type and volume of traffic that will use the street. Which parts of the street will be used by buses? Taxis? Private vehicles? The answer to these questions will determine the scale and type of appropriate pedestrianisation: for example, if buses are to continue to use the eastern section of George Street, then it would only make sense to pedestrianise the western two blocks.

We therefore believe that the design should follow decisions on the purpose of the street in terms of its ‘movement’ function, without of course undermining its crucial ‘place’ function. The emphasis on the ‘flexibility’ of this design (so that the street can accommodate traffic which is currently permitted, as well as options for reduced traffic levels) is a mistake and makes it hard to comment on the suitability of the proposed design. Decisions to restrict traffic should therefore be made now.

Having said this, we have the following comments on specific aspects of the design:

General parking:

We welcome and give unqualified support to the removal of general on-street parking. We note that a 1,600 space (?) car park will open soon in the St James Centre (regrettably). Careful consideration is needed for the provision of space for loading, service vehicles etc, and the management of such provision (see also ‘Enforcement’ below).

Blue Badge parking:

This should be provided ‘as appropriate’. To determine what is appropriate, detailed surveys of current Blue Badge parking patterns should be carried out, along with consultation with relevant disability groups. Provision is likely to consist of parking both on or near George Street (eg at the top of the steeply sloping streets like Castle St, Frederick St, etc) and also at the bottom, because some drivers/passengers will be heading for Princes St, rather than George St, and may be unable to manage the slope.

Crossings:

It is essential that all pedestrians can cross George Street easily, safely and with confidence. This should be both at the junctions with adjoining streets and also mid-block. We are not convinced that the design achieves this, as the ‘plazas’ do not appear to offer any formal pedestrian priority. Although we generally welcome the use of zebras to provide this, we doubt that the current crossing provisions adequately cater for the needs of people with visual impairments.  Our understanding is that there are only three signalled crossings – at the east and west ends, and at the Hanover St junction.

Cycle lane:

The cycleway as currently designed means very tight pavements on the south side of George Street at junctions, especially with Frederick St. It is essential that all pavements on this ‘flagship’ street fully meet the Street Design Guidance’s ‘desirable minimum’ width of at least 4 metres; this does not appear to be the case at these points. However more fundamentally, a 4 metre cycleway conflicts with the principle that George Street should be about ‘place’ not ‘movement’. If general traffic is restricted, as we advocate, this would remove the need for a separate cycleway at all, as cycling on the carriageway would be attractive and safe. This would also be more convenient for cyclists joining and exiting along George Street than a bi-directional cycleway.

We support provision of a safe and attractive cycling environment in the city, including to and on George Street. However, we question whether George Street is the right place for the major segregated west-east route catering for a range of cyclists including commuters, delivery cyclists etc as well as people arriving to enjoy George Street itself by bike.  Alternative, more direct options for a cross-city route include Queens Street or Princes Street. We therefore think that further consideration should be given to the best route for a segregated section of the National Cycle Network, as part of the ‘city centre transformation’ and the overall reduction in traffic in the city centre.

Management and Enforcement:

It is vital that plans for management and enforcement – of parking, waiting, loading, blue badge spaces, speeding, bins, ‘A-boards’, etc – is fully planned at the outset. Shops, bars and restaurants will need deliveries and waste collection etc and these need to be organised in a way (and at times) that does not result in vans, bin lorries, etc outwith designated times. Edinburgh does not have a good record of managing existing pedestrian priority spaces (eg Grassmarket, Castle Street, Rose Street). Without robust enforcement measures (which are likely to reduce with the removal of current pay and display parking), the intention to create people-friendly spaces will be defeated.

’Plazas’:

We agree that attractive spaces should be provided for both formal and informal events, social activity etc so that the vitality of the street is maximised as a lively place where people want to visit and stay at all times of the day, and year. However we need to have more detail on how such spaces will be managed – especially during the festivals (see also ‘Enforcement’ above) – to comment on whether the proposed design is suitable.

Trees:

We understand that tree planting on George Street is likely to be controversial, especially on ‘heritage’ grounds. However, we tend to favour the introduction of appropriate greenery which makes the space more attractive without compromising the historic and architectural appeal of the street.

Appendix: ‘Standard’ LSEG key principles relevant to George Street

A fundamental point is that all proposals and designs must explicitly conform to the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (ESDG) for the category/categories of street affected. Until the adoption of finalised Detailed Design Sheets for the ESDG, the latter’s Design Principles (as already adopted by the Council) should be adhered to, for example with regard to:

Space:

1. An increase (or no net loss) of pedestrian space.
2. Footways meet recommended widths.
3. Conflicts with cyclists are avoided, with dedicated and well-defined space provided for pedestrians (including separated ‘tiger’ crossings).

Crossings:

4. Junctions make foot crossing easier by being raised, with radii of corners and widths minimised
5. In busier areas, controlled crossings are provided in convenient places, with acceptable waiting and crossing times.
6. Pedestrian priority is made clear at all the key crossing points of the cycle routes, eg with continuous footways across side streets at junctions.

Equalities:

7. The design meets the requirements of the 2010 Equality Act by including the reasonable adjustments that the Council is legally required to implement in order to make the streets accessible to people with disabilities such as dropped kerbs (where continuous footways are not feasible), seating and tactile paving.

Public realm:

8. The footway is made free from clutter.
9. Guardrails are avoided / removed.

Impact of traffic:

10. If the area is a residential or shopping street or busy pedestrian route the speed limit is 20mph and the design helps to achieve this as a maximum speed in practice.
11. The level of parking and access to motor vehicles is appropriate and does not dominate the space.
***

Edinburgh: connecting our city, transforming our places – Consultation response

City Centre Transformation, Consultation Response, , ,

Response to the City of Edinburgh Council Consultation

Edinburgh: connecting our city, transforming our places

28 October 2018

(The full document can be downloaded as a PDF here – 1mb)

The Role of Living Streets Edinburgh

1.1 Living Streets Edinburgh is the local group of Living Streets, the national charity for everyday walking. We aim to promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around Edinburgh.

1.2 To achieve this we want to see:

  • Walking given the top priority over other forms of travel in all council transport and planning policies
  • Reduction in the volume of motorised traffic and its impact on people using the street
  • Better designed and maintained pavements, road crossings and other pedestrian facilities
  • More effective and joined-up monitoring and inspection of the walking environment by Edinburgh Council
  • Planning policy which encourages dense, sustainable housing over car-dominated development
  • More effective implementation of pro-walking policies ‘on the ground’.

1.3 Within this context we respond to consultations by the City of Edinburgh Council on plans and policy that impact on the walking environment and we also comment on planning applications.

1.4  The publication of the prospectus “Edinburgh: Connecting Our City, Transforming Our Places” is the most significant consultation that the Council has ever carried out in terms of:

  • Its timing against a backdrop of international, national and local acknowledgement that climate change and human health issues must be addressed now and cannot be left for future generations; and
  • As a consequence, the scale and nature of change required to our streets and public spaces, transport infrastructure, and the behaviour of everyone using them if Edinburgh is to be a city that truly has people at its heart.

1.5  Living Streets Edinburgh Group therefore wholeheartedly welcomes this consultation, the opportunity to contribute to the discussion, and looks forward to working with the Council and others towards meaningful change in our city.

Response to the Prospectus

The Big Picture

2.1  Sometimes bold decisions are required.

2.2  Now is such a time for the City of Edinburgh Council following publication of the Prospectus “Connecting Our City, Transforming Our Places”.

2.3  It won’t be the first time that a radical decision and change of direction has been taken to improve life for the people of Edinburgh and allow the city to prosper.  The 18th century saw the city fathers embark on the New Town development in response to overcrowding, poor quality buildings and insanitary conditions.  Not only did this improve the lot of citizens, it enabled the city to maintain its place amongst its European counterparts during the Age of Enlightenment, a time when Voltaire said “we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilization.”  One wonders if he would say that if he walked around Edinburgh today.

2.4  Having created one of the most outstandingly beautiful cities in the world we have, since the advent of motorised transport, increasingly eroded the ability and opportunity for people to enjoy it.  Not only that, we have created an environment that is crowded, unsafe and unhealthy. The very attributes that the New Town sought to address.

2.5  In 1895 there were 15 motor vehicles in the whole of UK, by the 2011 census there were 181000 cars owned by Edinburgh residents alone.  Factor in additional commuter/visitor traffic, HGVs/commercial vehicles, buses and the scale/nature of the problem is apparent.  Instead of using the motor vehicle as a tool to be managed for the greater good, it has been allowed to dominate and shape our environment and dictate our relationship with it.  Some of us use cars, but all of us are pedestrians. Yet people are directed to move around the streets and public spaces in a way that minimises disruption to traffic flow – motor vehicles remain in charge.  This is a far cry from the philosophy of Patrick Geddes, who contributed so much to Edinburgh and the world and recognized the fundamental relationship between folk and place.

2.6  Our statutory planning system has now been in place for 70 years, yet this situation has been perpetuated across the country, including Edinburgh, and continues in the face of widespread evidence of the negative impacts and the existence of Scottish Planning Policy, which clearly prioritises travel modes  – walking, cycling, public transport, and cars in that order.  Despite being Scottish Government policy, this hierarchy has yet to underpin the local development plan and decisions on planning applications.

2.7  Disregard of the hierarchy and the need to change our behaviour is borne out by analysis of 2017 Household Survey Data for Transport Scotland that shows Edinburgh has experienced a sharp decline in walking as the main mode of commutes under 5 miles to work.  This is in contrast to the position in Glasgow and Scotland as a whole where walking has at least remained more or less constant.

2.8  There has been a realization elsewhere in Europe and further afield that this is no way to plan for cities and towns.  Slowly, but surely, streets and public spaces in many cities are being reclaimed for the people who use them, a process that in some cases has been underway for decades.  If municipal authorities in cities as diverse as Melbourne, Copenhagen, Ghent, Bologna, Utrecht, Madrid, Oslo and New York are able to face up to the challenge and pursue a transformational agenda that benefits people and local economies, then surely Edinburgh can do likewise.  It could be the beginning of a New Age of Enlightenment focused on people and place.

2.9 People and place: people are designed to walk, so provide places conducive to walking and the benefits that follow are significant.  Not only in terms of health, but also by facilitating people coming together, fostering a sense of community and helping to address social exclusion.  More than that, it is better for the local economy with greater footfall more likely to spend than those who drive past.  Look to Jan Gehl whose starting point has always been to design and plan for human proportions and speed of travel.  The Council is directed to the Living Streets report “The pedestrian pound –  The business case for better streets and spaces”. https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/1391/pedestrianpound_fullreport_web.pdf

2.10  It is accepted that the initial decision will require courage by the City of Edinburgh Council in the face of inertia, vested interests and fear of change.  But other cities have done it, Edinburgh has in the past, and can do so again.  Take a lead from the Spanish city of Pontevedra where a new mayor provided the catalyst to swiftly address longstanding problems and in a very short time radically transformed the historic city on the basis that cars don’t have an automatic right to occupy public space.  As César Mosquera, that city’s head of infrastructure so eloquently put it: “How can it be that the elderly or children aren’t able to use the street because of cars? How can it be that private property – the car – occupies the public space?”

2.11  Taking a wider perspective, the climate change agenda requires positive action at every level from Government down to the individual; we are all in it together.  However, with transport we are going backwards.

2.12  The independent Committee on Climate Change reports on Scotland’s progress towards meetings emissions targets, as requested by Scottish Ministers under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.  The most recent report found that transport emissions had actually increased by 2% in 2016.

2.13  The City of Edinburgh Council air quality monitoring identifies an overall reduction in vehicle pollutants, but acknowledges that there are many locations within the monitoring areas where safe levels are actually being exceeded.  Anyone experiencing Edinburgh streets as a resident or pedestrian knows that air quality is poor within the city centre and along several other routes in the city.

2.14  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently published a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC.   The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.  Closer to home the UK Government has committed to having zero emission new cars by 2040 and in light of latest evidence is under pressure to bring this forward to 2032.

2.15  Against this background, the consultation is timely and Edinburgh has an opportunity to once again be at the forefront of city planning.   As Councillor Lesley Macinnes says in her foreword to the Prospectus:
“Reducing congestion and vehicle-borne air pollution, improving journey times by public transport, realising the lifelong health benefits of walking and cycling, and creating streets and public spaces that support city living for all are key to sustaining our inspiring capital city.”

2.16  No one would argue with that and the case contained within the Prospectus clearly points towards the need for a radical change in direction.  The Prospectus states unambiguously that no change is not an option, but then offers business as usual and a strategic approach as choices which in effect amount to no change, given the scale and nature of the circumstances that face us.

2.17  Thankfully, transformational change is presented as the third option and it is clear on reading the document that this is really the direction the authors and Council consider to be necessary and hope to pursue if they receive support. The Prospectus states that a transformational approach would involve a radical rethink of how the city moves and operates.  Well, a radical rethink is exactly what is required; the time for tinkering around the edges and ignoring the evidence has long since passed.

2.18  The Prospectus sets a date of 2050 for achieving the kind of city we aspire to.  In light of the issues facing us as a city, nation and planet this is not nearly ambitious enough.  Once the decision has been taken to pursue transformational change, a date of 2030 should be set.  This will enable everyone involved to focus on planning and realising actions within a timeframe we can all relate to and benefit from.

2.19  Transformational change is an overarching decision of principle that should then provide a framework and context for the Mobility Plan, Low Emission Zones, Local Development Plan and other strategies/plans that follow.

2.20  Whilst it is appreciated that work on information gathering and identification of potential allocations has to continue, it is disconcerting to hear that the next Local Development Plan is currently being prepared in parallel with this Prospectus rather than taking a lead from it.  Transformational change will necessitate a fundamental rethink on, for example, movement patterns and infrastructure and the location of allocated sites.  It makes better sense for this to be reflected in the Main Issues Report (MIR): consequently publication/consultation on the MIR should not take place until the fundamental decisions on transformational change and likely range of consequential actions have been taken.

Comments on the Themes and Ideas

2.21  In broad terms the 3 themes and 15 ideas in the Prospectus should of course all be pursued, although there will be instances where the detail will need revision or adjustment to reflect the position of walking at the top of the movement hierarchy and to reflect comments in this submission.  One fact is abundantly clear; all of this can only be realised by transformational change.  In many ways the ideas therefore have to be more radical.

2.22  In terms of the position of walking in the movement hierarchy, and to reflect that this is a citywide aspiration, Idea 1 should simply refer to A Walkable City as the intention, with recognition in supporting text that the city centre has particular issues that must be urgently addressed. In this regard, Living Streets Edinburgh has adopted a 10 point plan for the city centre (Appendix 1 attached) which should be taken on board as part of the transformational change project.

2.23 The opening words of Idea 1, “reducing the dominance of vehicular traffic”, effectively constitute an overarching objective which will in turn enable the realisation of the other ideas in the Prospectus.  Recent actions such as the reconfiguration of Picardy Place and re-opening of Leith Street accommodate and perpetuate the dominance of vehicular traffic – so the Council really has to markedly change direction to show it is serious about this Prospectus.

2.24  A relatively straightforward early demonstration of intent would be the phased removal of a significant amount of on street parking.  The local transport strategy has a target of reducing car commuting from 42% to 29%.  The new St. James Centre will have parking for 1700 cars, so there is off-street parking available.  The removal of on-street parking, in and around the city centre in the first instance, is an action wholly within the Council’s control.  A similar programme is well underway in Oslo and has led to an increase in walking and wider active travel.  The removal of on street parking will in turn allow for the creation of wider pavements, on street cycle lanes and associated reconfiguration of streets to remove vehicle priority. These actions will complement other measures taken under Idea 14, Controlling the Impact of Commuter Parking.

2.25 Although it may be implicit in sections of the Prospectus, it is suggested that the document would benefit from a section on equality and the application of the Equality Act (2010) setting out how proper consideration has been taken during work on the Prospectus itself and how it will be intrinsic to the plans and actions that follow.  This is critical as transformational change has to benefit the whole community, including those who have been previously been forgotten when designing simple details for pavements, street furniture, pedestrian crossing times etc.

2.26 Under Idea 3 Strengthening our town centres, the economic benefits that tourism brings could be distributed more evenly by encouraging accommodation and associated provision across the city, with enhanced public transport and walking routes for people to get to the popular destinations.  This would alleviate pressures on the city centre, which, in tandem with prioritising walking in line with the Scottish Government hierarchy, would contribute to the wider transformation agenda.

2.27 Buses are a strength and a real success story for Edinburgh compared to other cities.  The Council should recognise this and build on it.  Idea 4 as written runs counter to this and potentially to Ideas 5 and 11.  There will certainly be scope for some rationalisation and route modifications as part of prioritising the city centre for pedestrians.  However, great care has to be taken to maximize the scope for through routes, as having to change buses will be a disincentive for many users and will run counter to the intention of Idea 4 to create better accessibility.

2.28 Contrary to what is implied in Idea 4, buses are not in themselves the problem. Given the air quality challenges and emission targets, it is better to concentrate on transforming the whole bus fleet to zero or low emission.  This along with some rationalisation, removal of cars and reduction in commercial traffic will help secure the improvements required in the city centre.

Conclusion

2.29  Transformational change requires the City of Edinburgh Council to state unambiguously that movement across all of Edinburgh will be based on the hierarchy set out in Scottish Planning Policy, with walking the first option, and that this will be reflected at all levels of decision making.

2.30  In preparing and consulting on this Prospectus the City of Edinburgh Council has taken an important step in securing transformational change for residents, visitors and the local economy.  It is critical that momentum is maintained and the transformational change becomes a reality, thus maintaining the tradition that started with the New Town, continued with being the first Scottish local authority to appoint a Medical Officer of Health in 1862, and more recently the implementation of smoke control areas, ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, and the introduction of 20mph speed limits across the city.

2.31  Living Streets Edinburgh would very much like to sit down with the City of Edinburgh Council and others to work on the detail of the various ideas and a full implementation programme for bringing about transformational change by 2030.

2.32  Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. When the responses to the consultation are reported to the Council, Living Streets Edinburgh respectfully requests that this submission be reported in full without editing or précis.

Living Streets Edinburgh
28 October 2018

Tram Extension to Newhaven: Further Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

Consultation Response, Trams, , , , , , , , , ,

 Introduction

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is the local voluntary arm of the national charity, Living Streets, which campaigns for better conditions for ‘everyday walking’. In LSEG our key aim is to promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around the city. This note supplements the responses we made to the initial public consultation in April (http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2018/04/27/commentary-on-taking-trams-to-newhaven-consultation/) and July 2018.

In general, we remain supportive of the tram extension and further investment to improve public transport in Edinburgh. This is essential if the city is to become less car-dependent while at the same time growing by at least an expected 100,000 people in the next 20 years.

Positive aspects

We are encouraged by a number of new elements in the proposed tram design, as shared with us on 11 October 2018. Together, these will represent significant improvements as part of the process of making Edinburgh a truly ‘walkable city’:

  • General adherence to the Council’s Street Design Guidance (SDG), with many tightened junctions, continuous pavements, etc.
  • Three or four locations where roundabouts are being replaced by traffic lights with signalised crossings, which are easier for pedestrians to cross.
  • Major improvement of Elm Row and the awful London Road junction.
  • New ‘public realm in several few areas, eg Bernard Street, Ocean Terminal rouddabout.
  • Many more crossings (signalled and informal) across Leith Walk (north end).
  • On Leith Walk, all lamp-posts will be relocated to the (1.8m wide) central reservation, aiding comprehensive pavement decluttering.

Remaining areas of concern:

  • Some pavements are very narrow, especially at three bus stops at the north end of Leith Walk (one on the west side, two on the east); here the pavement is approximately 2m wide (with bus stop ‘floating’). This is inadequate and fails to meet SDG standards; we support the tram team’s suggestion that pavements are widened to 2.4m, by ‘pinching’ the one-way cycle path further at these bus stops.
  • We continue to have concerns regarding widespread use of ‘floating bus stops’ throughout the scheme, at a time where the promised evaluation of the first such bus stops in the Pilrig to McDonald Rd area remains outstanding. We also understand that there is insufficient room for this type of bus stop design to comply with SDG standards at these three bus stops. A lack of space could create conflicts for cyclists and pedestrians, especially if there isn’t grade separation – as per the Pilrig to McDonald Rd section design.
  • We are concerned that New Kirkgate is still an ‘option’ for a cycle route. Although we understand why northbound cyclists will be banned from entering Constitution St (because cycling will not be permitted through a tram stop) the Kirkgate is not a suitable place for commuter cyclists, or any other non-walking through-traffic.
  • Pavements in the central part of Constitution St at North Leith church must be maintained at 2 metres wide or more. Any provision of loading facilities which reduced either pavement below this would be unacceptable.
  • There is some shared cycle/pedestrian space proposed at Newhaven (extending an already shared space). We support investigation of options to provide separate cycle and walk spaces.

Next steps:

  • We welcome the proposed setting up of an ‘Active Travel Group’ to look at detailed designs, involving stakeholders such as Spokes, Sustrans, Edinburgh Access Panel and LSEG. We will contribute to this as far as possible; however, our default position is that designs must adhere to SDG standards.
  • We understand that consultants will prepare a report identifying exceptions to the standards in the SDG, which will be shared with the Active Travel Group.
  • Funding has been secured to consider cycle route options from Foot o’ the Walk to Ocean Terminal. Again we will participate as necessary with this, but we query the proposition that Ocean Terminal is necessarily where most cyclists want to head to from Leith Walk at all? We expect that there will be a range of destinations for cyclists leaving Leith Walk northwards (to east and west as well as north) and these may be more important desire lines for cyclists than Ocean Terminal.
  • We ask the Council to report on the evaluation of the Floating Bus Stop designs on Leith Walk.
  • While we welcome the greatly-improved design of Elm Row, including the stopping-up of Montgomery Street, we suggest that a modelling exercise is undertaken in order to understand the effects of any traffic displacement on other streets in the vicinity.
  • We welcome a number of potential opportunities to secure other street improvements which are beyond the immediate scope of the tram project such as: improved public realm at Ocean Terminal; traffic management of streets between Easter Road and Leith Walk; removal of the roundabout at foot of Easter Road at Leith Links; and re-instatement of historic ‘Boardwalk’ along the coast.

 

The full response can be downloaded as a pdf file here – Tram Extension to Newhaven Further Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh