Category Archives: Council Policy

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. 

“We are all pedestrians”: Transport convener addresses Living Streets Edinburgh AGM

Council Policy, Public Event, , , ,

Following criticism about “vanity prestige projects” being prioritised over pedestrian access, Stephen Jenkinson addressed our AGM

Edinburgh Council’s Transport Convener has sought to reassure Living Streets Edinburgh Group supporters that pedestrian access is a top priority for his committee.

“We need to ensure that we keep [pedestrians] front of our minds and decision-making when we implement projects and developments across the city,” Stephen Jenkinson, Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at Edinburgh Council, told the volunteer group.

The comments at our AGM on 29 May follow concerns that the committee has given the go-ahead to what our convener David Hunter named “vanity prestige projects”, rather than focus on less expensive but more beneficial, pedestrian-focused projects.

Jenkinson acknowledged the concerns and added: “I would challenge that in a little way. I think the City Mobility Plan, in a grand sense, is about delivering big projects. The scope of a lot of those projects will include pedestrian and public realm benefits.”

The convener said that when he took over from his predecessor, Scott Arthur, now MP for Edinburgh South West, he discovered a large list of proposed projects listed under the 10-year City Mobility Plan, and tasked council officers to prioritise them.

He explained that many schemes have to compete with other local authorities for external funding, and the funding framework has moved from multi-year to single-year.

“I want to reassure you that pedestrian priority is a priority not only for me but many members of the committee and the council. It isn’t a zero-sum game when it comes to moving people and vehicles around the city,” he added.

Helping everyone to get around the city

The need for pedestrian priority is urgent. Two disabled person’s rights advocates from the Lothian Centre for Inclusive Learning – Ashleigh and Kirin – told the AGM that floating bus stops, incorrectly placed dropped kerbs, a lack of space around disabled parking bays, and cycle lanes in the middle of pavements, all hinder those with sight and mobility issues.

Kirin, who has sight issues, praised the banning of advertising boards – a campaign led by Living Streets – but said there is still a lot of street furniture to navigate.

“I just want to get around the streets, just like you, but it’s trickier because I can’t see as well,” she said.

Kirin also joked about using her cane: “The pavement parking ban has been very helpful which has stopped us from scraping your cars!”

Positive noises from the TEC?

Jenkinson pointed out:

  • £4-6 million funding will be invested in the Granton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme, which will bring pedestrian benefits.
  • the 2025/26 budget for dropped kerbs has doubled to £400,000, thanks to Transport Scotland funding.
  • in response to concern that the council has frozen the footway budget this year, Jenkinson said the budget has increased 25% since 2022.
  • the success of the pavement parking ban means footways will generally see less wear and tear from vehicles.

Engine idling: Will the council act?

Jenkinson said he had also written to the Scottish Government to advocate for higher fixed penalty notices for engine idling, which currently stands at £20 and would not cover the cost of enforcing the fine.

In contrast, fixed penalty notices for pavement parking stand at £100 and have generated more than £244,000 in revenue for the 12 months ending February 2025 alone.

Living Streets Edinburgh convener David Hunter thanked Jenkinson for standing strong on no exemptions for pavement parking and for attempting to answer audience questions:

  • Will the Council monitor pedestrian movement, and use that data?
  • Will the Council follow other countries like the Netherlands and re-design junctions like Toll Cross before resurfacing them?
  • Will the Council re-consider removing the Braidswoods modal filters, which have successfully reduced daily vehicles from 10,000 to 6,000?
  • Will the Gorgie Liveable Neighbourhood retract its proposal to include floating bus stops?

Watch this space.

LSEG calls (again) for more investment in everyday walking

Council Policy, News, Press Release, , , ,

The Council’s Transport and Environment Committee on 22 May will consider a report recommending priorities to deliver the City Mobility Plan. We’re surprised, and very disappointed, to see no mention of some key initiatives which we were able to get included in the CMP delivery plan. Especially disappointing after the committee decided to freeze footway maintenance while increasing spending on roads, only last month. We’ve therefore sent councillors this message.

Dear Councillor

I’m writing in connection with the report on City Mobility Plan priorities, Item 7.5 on the TEC agenda for 22 May bit.ly/43ktlep  The recommendations do not adequately reflect the CMP’s ambition to effect “a transformational change in walking and wheeling in Edinburgh”.

Over two years ago, two new initiatives were introduced into the Active Travel component of the City Mobility Plan: ‘Action for Better Crossings” (ABC) and the “Edinburgh Accessible Streets Initiative” EASI). These programmes (both proposed by us) finally offered the prospect of a strategic, rather than piecemeal, approach to addressing some of the most fundamental problems with getting around the city as a pedestrian – for example:

  • the time that you have to wait for the green man at traffic lights,
  • the thousands of missing dropped kerbs on pavements,
  • narrow footways, 
  • pavement clutter, etc.

As we understand it, effectively nothing has been done yet to implement either initiative as a coherent programme. We had hoped that they would form a key part of this report. However, there is no mention whatsoever in the report of either ABC or EASI, despite Council having confirmed them as at the heart of CMP policy only last year (see attached).

Instead, some elements of ABC and EASI are simply noted as part of the ‘rolling programme’ in Appendix 4b. Paragraph 4.14 of the report states an expectation that these will be funded at “an overall level roughly equal to recent overall investment”. This isn’t good enough: there is no indication of how much money is budgeted for these schemes; certainly there has been no systematic investment at all in recent years in widening footways. Many of the other aspects like the pedestrian crossing programme and the crucial school streets reviews have huge backlogs owing to lack of resourcing.

These vital programmes need to be considered alongside, and on the same level playing field, as the active travel and public transport listed in Appendix 1. Councillors should be able to consider whether investment in school streets, road safety, ABC or EASI is more or less worthy than these projects, whether they be George Street, Hawthornvale-Salamander Street, the Lindsey Bridge or Dalry 20 Minute Neighbourhood. Otherwise the opportunity to consider where best to invest both staff time and capital funding is lost and a ‘silo’ approach is entrenched.

We also have serious concerns with the overly-complex methodology for assessing projects in Appendix 1. It gives no weighting to walking and wheeling (“top of the travel hierarchy”) and doesn’t sufficiently value schemes relatively modest but important to pedestrians such as Calton Road and the Causey. These projects fail to score highly enough only because work on them has already been “paused’ for years.

However, the fundamental weakness of the report is to take too narrow an approach to evaluating a limited set of projects. We would therefore like to see the report deferred perhaps for two cycles, and a new report brought forward with a more strategic approach to future investment, including the programmes mentioned above.

David Hunter

Convener

Council spend on roads outstrips funding for pavements

Council Policy, News,

Living Streets Edinburgh is calling for a re-set of capital spending to focus on everyday walking, following recent analysis of council budgets by the group which campaigns for everyday walking. While ‘walking and wheeling’ remains top of the transport hierarchy in theory, the percentage of the roads budget spend on footways has in fact fallen year on year since 2022.

Although there was a significant uplift in budgets for footway maintenance following the last council elections in 2022, as promised in the Labour administration’s manifesto, total roads spending has almost doubled. Carriageway maintenance (roads) budgets have continued to increase significantly. With footway budgets at a standstill since then, only 13% of the overall roads budget now goes on footway maintenance, compared to 21% in 2023.

Living Streets Edinburgh Convener David Hunter said: “We know that there’s a lot of concern about potholes and the state of the roads in Edinburgh, but it’s frustrating to see so little of the roads budget targeting pavement improvements. In every city neighbourhood, there are cluttered, narrow pavements full of trip hazards which make it hard for people to get out to the local shops health centre or to catch the bus.

We’re expecting the Council to announce its plans for spending on the City Mobility Plan and active travel shortly. If the Council is serious about getting people out of cars and supporting sustainable, inclusive local communities, it’s got to do more to improve local walking environments.”

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.