Category Archives: Consultation Response

LSEG comment on council plans to allow two-way cycling on Rose Street

City Centre Transformation, Consultation Response, Council Policy, Cycle Routes

Rose Street is the closest thing that Edinburgh has to a pedestrianised street. Cycling through the street, as opposed to accessing the shops and restaurants on it by bike, should be strongly discouraged. Encouraging cycling on this unique street would invite conflict with pedestrians, as has been widely acknowledged and especially create a more hostile space for older, disabled and blind people. Even in the Netherlands and Copenhagen’s famous Strøget, cycling on pedestrian shopping streets is discouraged – or prohibited entirely.

Council officials recommend setting aside objections by LSEG, Edinburgh Access Panel and New Town and Broughton Community Council to proposals to allow two-way cycling on Rose Street in a report to the TRO subcommittee on 11 October 2025.

The report claims that there is no intention to use Rose Street as an alternative cycle route to George Street. However, the report to TEC* which first suggested exempting Rose Street from the one-way prohibition set out exactly this as the rationale for this exemption: “4.21 Redirecting cyclists down Rose Street offers a low-cost alternative route [to George Street] that can be implemented quickly without the need for major infrastructure changes.” Using Rose Street as a cycling route “presents a quick and low-cost solution”. These comments were made under the heading: “CCWEL Alternative Routes Prior to George Street Completion”.

Accordingly, we retain our concerns that removing the one-way exemption would mean that Rose Street could still very much be seen by officers as a viable alternative through-route across the city by bicycle. If Rose Street is no longer considered as a suitable cycle route, then the rationale for introducing the TRO in the first place falls away.

The report went on to acknowledge that “integrating cyclists into a space primarily designed for pedestrians presents challenges. The narrow width of Rose Street, combined with the high footfall at certain times, could lead to safety concerns between cycling and walking/wheeling.” While most cyclists are considerate of other road users, we don’t believe that the suggested mitigating measures such as “Share with Care” signage would be effective in deterring those who are not. We hope therefore that the Committee will uphold our objection to the TRO allowing two-way cycling on Rose Street.

  • TEC 30 January 2025, Item 7.2

Two-way cycling on Rose Street: Objection to TRO24/27

Consultation Response, Council Policy, Cycle Routes, , ,

We object to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO/24/27 bit.ly/3IFOQQ6) allowing two-way cycling on Rose Street. The idea of promoting two-way cycling on the street was raised in a report to the Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) on 30 January 2025, as a means to facilitate cycling across the city while the CCWEL route through George Street is not yet in place.  We made our objection to this proposal at that time.

The Council’s own report recognised that “integrating cyclists into a space primarily designed for pedestrians presents challenges. The narrow width of Rose Street, combined with the high footfall at certain times, could lead to safety concerns between cycling and walking/wheeling. With no dedicated cycling infrastructure, conflict could be created between users.”

It is not appropriate in our view to encourage Rose Street – the closest thing Edinburgh currently has to a pedestrianised street – as a major cycle route. The proposal does not respect the Council’s agreed travel hierarchy which places walking and wheeling first. The TRO is especially inappropriate given that the TEC recently decided that two way cycle access should be maintained on George Street itself during any redevelopment works. 

LSEG calls for a review of tactile paving guidance

Consultation Response, Council Policy, , ,

Written deputation from Living Streets Edinburgh Group: Tactile Paving at Continuous Footways (Motion 8.9, Cllr Caldwell)

At the January TEC, an official advised that the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (ESDG) does not currently recommend tactile paving at the edge of side-roads with continuous footways. It was suggested that this would undermine the message to drivers that they should cede priority to pedestrians (as required by the Highway Code).

However, Factsheet G7 clearly states that tactile paving is recommended at continuous pavements (screenshot below). https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/13723/edinburgh-street-design-guidance

The use of tactile paving at continuous footways in Edinburgh is highly inconsistent: it is installed on CCWEL along the A8 on Wester Coates; but absent at most of the similar continuous pavement junctions on most of Leith Walk. This inconsistency is in itself a significant problem for blind pedestrians. We recognise that this is a relatively new aspect of street design.

Our view is that it is more important for tactile paving to be present at junctions where there is continuous footway than at a conventional junction; otherwise a blind pedestrian has no way of knowing that they have left the footway and entered a space where they are likely to encounter a moving vehicle. Our view is that the presence of tactile paving won’t undermine the ‘pedestrian priority’ message to drivers, as drivers turning in or out of such a junction are highly unlikely to notice whether there is tactile paving, or not.

We therefore support the motion but also would ask that the ESDG policy is reviewed and clarified; and that new, consistent guidance is produced, after consultation with interested parties including the Edinburgh Access Panel and Living Streets.

LSEG response to Consultation on the National Speed Limit Review, March 2025

Consultation Response, Press Release, ,

Consultation Submission submitted on behalf of the Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG)

This submission is being made as a direct email rather than through your standard consultation form since the design of that form does not allow us to be able to adequately express our concerns for pedestrians. We trust that our views, as below, will nevertheless be considered seriously.

The LSEG very strongly supports the proposed lowering of the default national speed limit from 60 to 50 mph on single carriageway roads. Scotland has a very poor safety record on these roads, with a large proportion of all fatalities and serious injuries occurring on them, as evidenced in the Consultation Review report. The 60 mph limit is far too high for safe driving, other than where there are long stretches of strait road without intervening property entrances or side-road junctions. A 50mph limit will result in safer speeds on these roads and all the more so if the new limit is properly enforced. We note that an even lower, 60 kmph, national limit is now being introduced on rural roads in Ireland, many of which have similar characteristics to those in Scotland.

The benefits for pedestrians on such roads is unlikely to be great however, since traffic speeds at up to either 50 or 60 mph intimidate pedestrians, and without the protection of segregated paths, on what are mostly narrow rural roads, there is little pedestrian activity. Our principle concern therefore is that the introduction of the 50mph limit does not go nearly far enough to make conditions safe for pedestrians or to reduce the levels of suppressed pedestrian trips along these roads.

In many places there are extensive stretches of bends with the current 60mph limit but where the maximum safe speed around the bends is no more than 40, or 30, or even 20mph. All too often only ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway are in evidence. For conditions to be considered at all safe for pedestrians, with their visibility restricted by bends, speed limits need to be set at the appropriate lower levels that match the road design / conditions, not simply set to 50mph. There are also still many places, in particular on the approaches to villages or other settlements, where the prevailing speed limit needs to be reduced from 60 to well below 50mph; and, as in the Scottish Borders, 20mph in the villages themselves  We therefore call for there to be a comprehensive review following on from the introduction of the 50mph limit, with the aim to have speed limits set to appropriate levels for safe driving throughout the network, and whether or not there have been casualties in a particular location. This is a fundamental necessity if more walking is to be encouraged, in line with government policy. 

Even with the setting of the most  appropriate speed limits conditions will still be challenging for pedestrians and potentially dangerous without the provision of segregated routes. There is also a clear need in many places for the provision of pavements or off-road paths alongside rural roads. This provision could encourage many more walking trips, for example between adjacent villages or from villages to the nearest town where distances are not too great. It is also the case that more recreational walking, by visitors as well as residents, would be encouraged by the provision of more off-road footpaths in rural areas throughout Scotland. It is notable that many of the islands are very suited by size for recreational walking (and cycling) trips, yet still with very little provision of safe, segregated routes. Provision of such routes could encourage the leaving of cars behind on the mainland perhaps, or even altogether. Promoting such active travel would help increased tourism to take place without a comparable increase in car use.

Finally much intensified efforts to enforce the improved speed limits are essential in order to eliminate excessive speeding. Funding for these efforts needs to be resourced by means that are protected, otherwise grant cuts are likely when, as now, overall national and local public sector resources are under pressure. Without this the Vision Zero aim to have no serious injuries or fatalities will remain just a vision. The current enforcement system is simply not fit for purpose and needs reform, as the LSEG has argued elsewhere:   https://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2021/11/17/slower-speeds-safer-streets-for-edinburgh-an-action-plan/

We need to have a more comprehensive approach, with policies for the road safety of walkers (and cyclists) integrated with those for tourism and wider economic development.           

Leith Connections (Hawthornvale-Salamander Street): Comments from LSE on draft proposals

Consultation Response, ,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new ‘Leith Connections’ proposals from Lindsay Road in the west through Commercial Street, Bernard Street and Baltic Street to Salamander Street in the east. https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/leithconnections/  

We acknowledge that the proposals would bring some significant improvements for pedestrians – such as ‘continuous footways’ over side road junctions, a single-stage crossing over North Junction Street at the Ocean Drive junction, and a new pavement at the eastern side of North Junction Street. 

However, it is also very concerning to see some sections of pavement actually reduced, and no improvement to many pavements that are already less than 2 metres wide – the “absolute minimum” that the Council normally considers acceptable. These seem to include these streets (the number in brackets refers to the drawing sheet):

  • N Junction St 1.5m (1)
  • Lindsay Rd (S) 1.54m (2) 
  • Lindsay Rd (N) 1,67m (3)
  • Commercial St (N) 1.8m (3)
  • Salamander St  (N) 1.85m (14)
  • Salamander St  (N) 1.8m (14)
  • Salamander St  (S) 1.95m (16)
  • Salamander St  (N) 1.27m (17)
  • Salamander St  (S) 1.5m (17)

Pavements which are at least two metres wide is also the minimum recommended in national UK guidance such as Inclusive Mobility, allowing for adequate use by pedestrians using mobility aids including walking sticks and wheelchairs as well as by parents with small children, etc. bit.ly/IncMobility

There also appear to be ten ‘floating bus stops’ (which mean people getting on and off the bus have to cross a cycle lane when boarding or alighting).  We know this design is a serious concern to many disabled and blind people, as evidenced by calls from all the major visual impairment charities (RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind UK) for a halt to their use and/or removal of existing stops.  Some of the bus stops proposed do not even appear to conform to the minimum standards for footway and/or island width as defined by the Council’s own Street Design Guidance. 

The plan would also remove some bus stops altogether, as well as significant sections of bus lane on Lindsay Road and Commercial Street. Many of these changes are not highlighted on the Council’s consultation. Many were raised as concerns needing to be addressed in earlier consultations for example in the minutes of the 2021 Community Reference Group. 

The size of the cycleway itself is also limited by the constrained street space, and is not continuous owing to the Bernard Street pinch point in particular.  We understand also that some parts (especially in Salamander Street) would require additional land take which brings a significant degree of uncertainty over the viability of the whole scheme.

In view of these multiple problems, we query whether this is the best route for the cycleway at all, and whether a different east-west route would be better. For example, running behind the buildings to the north of Commercial Street, over the newly traffic-free Sandport Bridge and along Leith Links, where there is already a well established cycle route which could well be enhanced. 

This would avoid introducing unwelcome impacts on pedestrians and bus passengers by trying to accommodate too many travel modes in an insufficient space – the problem we have seen all too clearly on Leith Walk. This would also provide more traffic-free sections for the cycle route and presumably be significantly cheaper to build.