Category Archives: Consultation Response

Dundee Street Fountainbridge Active Travel Project: Response by LSE

Consultation Response, Cycle Routes, Press Release, , , , , , ,

Summary

We support the overall objectives to provide an attractive east-west route for cyclists as an alternative to the increasingly-congested Union Canal towpath, to enhance cycling, walking and wheeling on the corridor and to make the street more accessible for everyone. There are a number of proposed improvements for pedestrians especially in the form of new opportunities to cross the road and better side road treatments.

However, the plans as a whole not only fail to prioritise pedestrian movement but in several places, space for walking and wheeling is actually significantly reduced. There are large sections of pavement which are left well below the “absolute minimum” width specified by the Council’s own guidance for the street (and indeed for any street, let alone one as busy as this). There is negligible improvement in the pedestrian space at the schools which should have been a primary consideration. Every bus stop has a cycle bypass (‘floating’ bus stop), most of which also do not conform to the council’s own minimum standards and will cause significant concern to many pedestrians, especially those who are blind or disabled.

As a result, we do not support the proposals.

Dundee Street/Fountainbridge

Pavements (footways)

With ‘walking and wheeling’ recognised by the Council and nationally as at the ‘top of the sustainable travel hierarchy’, the most basic need is adequate pavement space. Unfortunately, this isn’t provided in the proposals, a fundamental weakness of the proposals. As we saw in Leith Walk, walking space is increased only where space is left over after other considerations; where space is most contested it is walking which suffers.

There is no general widening of the footway along the main road (Dundee Street/Fountainbridge), including at some of the narrowest sections. According to the ESDG, the pavements on Dundee Street/Fountainbridge should be at least 2.5 m wide (Factsheet P3). Several sections (southern pavement at the Diggers junction, northern pavement west of the Telfer Subway, southern section at the Edinburgh Printmakers) are below the council’s “absolute minimum” permitted width of 2 metres for any street.

The extent of substandard footway widths may be greater than appears. For example the plans show the southern pavement at the western end of Dundee Street (“Diggers”) as 2.1 metres wide, rather than 1.7 metres in reality.

We have been notified of at least 12 sections of footway which are actually being reduced in width – by as much as 2.4 metres (see appendix 1).

There are positive aspects in the plan with regard to pavements too. ‘Continuous footways’ across almost all side streets give pedestrians enhanced priority and should slow down traffic. It is essential that they have appropriate tactile paving to alert visually impaired people that they are entering a space where they are likely to encounter a turning vehicle. Some side road junctions are also being narrowed which again is important to slow down traffic. Especially hostile junctions are the entrances to the Fountainpark Centre and the Western Approach Road (where we would like to see traffic calming measures through a raised carriageway).

Once the Fountainbridge developments are complete, we understand that there will be significant amounts of new pedestrian space on the south side of the street, which will be welcome. If and when this materialises, it will provide an opportunity to reconsider the balance of pavement widths between the north and south sides of the street.

We want to see a pedestrian (and ideally cycle) link from Yeaman Place to the canal. The Walker Bridge is the only bridge over the Union Canal in Edinburgh which doesn’t give access to the towpath. There is no access to the canal between Harrison Park East and Gibson Terrace, a distance of over 650 metres. This gap effectively denies the general Polwarth community access to the canal. It also reduces the sense of safety for people (especially women) using the towpath on foot, running or cycling. Our understanding is that plans for the former Dalton scrapyard on Yeaman Place could deliver this vital link.

Schools

Providing adequate pedestrian space at schools on a busy road should be a primary objective of the scheme. Sections of the street have very high footfall from children at Boroughmuir High and Tollcross Primary schools. Edinburgh Street Design Guidance Factsheet p3 states “A 3m minimum footway width is to be provided outside schools and other buildings likely to generate concentrated pedestrian flows.” (page 3)

The section of pavement immediately west of BHS is being widened by only 30 centimetres to 2 metres, despite being used by hundreds of children every day to access Sainsbury’s and other shops. This modest widening (introduced in response to our comments on an earlier draft) is achieved by reducing the width of the northern footway.

There appears to be no change to the footway dimensions at Tollcross Primary School on either side of Fountainbridge. The pavement at the school gate is currently just under 2.5 metres wide and has guardrails which narrow it further.

Immediately at the entrance to both schools, a cycle bypass/floating bus stop is proposed. This is despite the council’s own guidance cautioning that “the provision and design of floating bus stops in close proximity to schools, hospitals, sheltered housing etc. should be given careful consideration.” (Factsheet C4, page 18).

Pedestrian /cycle crossings

A number of new and amended crossings are introduced. These are mostly very welcome. Of note is the installation of pedestrian phases across the Henderson Terrace/WAR ‘Diggers’ junction. This will rectify one of the most notoriously hostile junctions for pedestrians in the whole city.  Also welcome are the signals at the Yeaman Place and Grove Street junctions and the zebra crossing over Drysdale Road, although this should be more directly on the walking desire line.

The junction at Gardners Crescent would be converted to a ‘CyclOps‘ style (Cycle-Optimised) junction which we think would be the first such junction in Edinburgh; as such it needs the most careful thought. As we understand it, pedestrians will have to cross a cycle lane before being able to cross the road but cyclists will not have to stop at a red light for many manoeuvres, being instead expected to give way to pedestrians at zebra-style markings. This has the potential to result in conflict because pedestrians who see the green man invitation to cross may encounter cyclists who do not stop. This will be especially difficult for older, disabled and blind people. We understand that in the Netherlands, such junctions have pedestrian crossings towards the outside of the cycle roundabout, with clear yielding markings and speed calming measures for cyclists.

Cyclists are expected to navigate the junction in a clockwise direction, but cyclists heading north from the canal basin will mostly instead want to cross the cobble-free eastern arm of the junction (anti-clockwise) to access the popular shared-use path at Lochrin Square. Again, this will cause conflict with pedestrians (and likely, other cyclists).

Although there is logic in the positioning of the crossings, the design introduces big new gaps in crossing opportunities across Dundee Street. There are three signalised pedestrian crossings clustered in the space of 130 metres – Yeaman Place, Telfer Subway and Gibson Terrace – while the next crossing to the west is 300 metres away at Henderson Terrace.

Removing the crossing at the centre of Fountainpark/KwikFit also creates a long gap from Gibson Terrace to the Viewforth junction. The plans remove the heavily-used pedestrian island refuge which is directly on the natural walking desire line from Boroughmuir High School to the Fountainpark centre. We do not envisage that pedestrians will take a detour from the school area to use the controlled crossing at the Viewforth junction and consider that these changes will increase danger crossing Dundee Street, especially for children.

Bus stops

Every one of the nine bus stops will have a cycle bypass (‘floating bus stop’) so that the cycle lane passes between the pavement and the bus stop. Most of these bus stops do not meet the minimum standards set out in the Council’s Street Design Guidance, which stipulates a minimum footway of at least 2.5 metres wide, in addition to the bus stop ‘island’ (Factsheet C4). The bus stop on the north of Dundee Street over the West Approach Road has no footway at all; all pedestrians therefore have to cross the cycle way twice (or simply walk in it) to move along the footway. Having to cross a cycle lane on a pavement and especially at a bus stop is recognised in all guidance (local and national) as a concern for disabled and especially blind people.

Ashley Drive to Fowler Terrace

We agree with the intention to provide quiet routes for cyclists through low traffic streets to offer attractive alternatives by bike to the congested towpath. We think it likely that most city-bound cyclists would wish to turn off the canal at Harrison Park rather than Ashley Drive and many would prefer to use the traffic-free path through the centre of Harrison Park or Harrison Road, rather than cycle down Ogilvie Terrace to Harrison Gardens and then uphill again to West Bryson Street.

If Ogilvie Terrace is to feature as a key cycle route, a principal aim should be to connect to the under-used former railway path accessed through Harrison Place, which joins Dundee Terrace. It seems strange that the designs ignore the potential to promote and enhance this traffic-free cycling and walking route (eg with improved lighting, surface and signing).

The route from Harrison Park East to Watson Crescent could be another quiet route.

There are three zebra crossing proposed in this section, which in general terms is of course welcome for pedestrians. However, they are not located where they are most needed. The priority should be installing a zebra crossing on Ashley Terrace at the primary school, as the local community has long campaigned for. Some of the short sections of segregated cycleway appear to be of little use to cyclists and build in potential conflict with pedestrians where they criss-cross the footway areas, to everyone’s disadvantage.

There is no attempt to ensure that pavements in the Shandon/North Merchiston areas generally meet 2 metre minimum width required by Council standards.

Conclusions

Until recently, there has been a general presumption that street space for segregated cycling facilities should come from motor vehicle space, not walking space. This presumption has been effectively abandoned here. As we saw in Leith Walk (and in draft proposals like Hawthornvale-Salamander Street, Meadows to George Street, etc) trying to accommodate too many competing claims for travel modes into insufficient space results in sacrificing minimum standards for walking space.

The Council should investigate the possibility of accommodating cycle lanes in Dundee Street/Fountainbridge while retaining acceptable walking space, by reducing carriageway space radically. However it is not clear whether that this is realistic given the requirement for essential motor traffic including buses, even if general traffic was significantly reduced.

The proposed cycle lane should at least be deferred until the Fountainbridge development is completed. This should clarify whether there is sufficient public realm which can better accommodate the competing claims for adequate footway, carriageway and cycle way. In the meantime, some of the less controversial aspects of the scheme (such as improved crossings) could be introduced, with a much reduced budget.

Another approach to providing cyclists with alternatives to the Union Canal towpath would be to invest more in ‘quiet route’ networks, where cyclists are routed through low traffic streets, with filters if needed. This would avoid the major loss of pedestrian space on Dundee Street and may be more useful for cyclists. It would also be far cheaper.

Either way, if the Council is really committed to a travel hierarchy which places walking and wheeling at the top, it cannot continue to design schemes which do not meet even minimum standards for pedestrians, at schools and for older and disabled people. We ask the Council to reconsider its whole approach to bidding for major active travel funding until it develops a better understanding of how to integrate walking, cycling, public transport and general traffic in a way which respects the sustainable travel hierarchy.

December 2025

***

Appendix 1: proposed reductions in pavement widths

Dundee Street/FountainbridgeReduction in footway width (metres)
North side, bridge over WAR-0.3
South side between Dundee Terr/Yeaman Place-1.2 to-1.5
North side, between Telfer Subway and Fountainpark entrance-1.3
North side, between Fountainpark entrance and Gibson Terrace-1.8
North side, between Gibson Terrace and Fountainpark centre-2.1
North side, between Fountainpark centre and Fountainpark exit-0.3
North side, between Viewforth and Drysdale Road-1.00
North side, between Drysdale Road and Gilmore Park-1.5
North side, between Gilmore Park and hotel loading bay-2.4
North side, between Grove St and Freer Gait-1.4
South side, between Freer Gait and Gardner’s Crescent-1
South side, Gardner’s Crescent-1.5

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.