Category Archives: Cycle Routes

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. 

General response to various cycle schemes under ‘spaces for people’

Consultation Response, Cycle Routes, , , , , ,

This is a general response to the various cycle schemes advertised under the ‘spaces for people’ initiative (eg Wester Hailes Road, Ferry Road, Comiston Road, etc).

We support improvements to cycling infrastructure which encourages cycling and reduces motor traffic, so long as it is not detrimental to the actual and potential walking environment. Organisations like Spokes have rightly been very clear that new space for cycling must come from space for motor vehicles, rather than for walking. We therefore wish to record our support for the overall programme. However, we have two significant qualifications.

Pedestrian improvements

It is hard to see *any* improvements for people walking in these schemes? While general pavement widening may be difficult to achieve simultaneously with installation of cycle lanes, this should be a priority where pavements are especially narrow (eg south side of Ferry Road). We would expect to see at least significant efforts to remove pavement clutter such as signage poles and guard rails and simple measures such as cutting back hedges, sweeps of roadworks debris (traffic cones, sandbags, etc.) We also want to priority for pedestrians increased at all signalled junctions. Given that almost everyone is a pedestrian in their own neighbourhood, such measures are also likely to increase local support for these schemes, including among people who don’t cycle.

Floating Bus stops

We note that there are dozens of ‘bus stop bypasses’ or ‘floating bus stops’ proposed in these cycle schemes, which route cyclists between the bus stop and the pavement, rather than on the road. There appear to be at least: 13 on Comiston Road, 10 on Ferry Road, 9 in Wester Hailes, 7 on Meadow Place Road and 5 on Fountainbridge.

As the Council’s Active Travel team is well aware, the Living Streets Edinburgh Group has never been happy with this design concept which means that bus passengers boarding – and especially alighting from – buses have to cross a cycle way and may therefore unexpectedly encounter a cyclist, possibly travelling at considerable speed. While we recognise the benefits for cyclists, this design can only disadvantage bus users and pedestrians, especially older people and blind people, many of whose representative organisations have objected to the design concept.

Living Streets Edinburgh did not object to the first Leith Walk examples, on the understanding that a full monitoring and evaluation was carried out. The Council eventually agreed to this in 2017 but although we understand that this exercise has long been completed, it has never been published. It is wholly inappropriate to use the Covid19 pandemic and ‘spaces for everyone’ programme as the means for the sudden mass installation of these controversial bus stop designs at virtually no notice and with minimal consultation.

We therefore strongly oppose their inclusion in the Council’s current proposals. We suggest that instead, a much wider review exercise is taken at a later date, to consider the use of floating bus stops in the city strategically, once evaluation evidence is in the public domain. This should involve all relevant interests – walking, cycling, bus passengers, disability groups, etc.

Response to Meadows to George Street: Concept Design Consultation

Cycle Routes, George Street, , , , ,

LSE strongly supports and welcomes the general thrust of the City Centre Transformation proposals and is making a separate submission to that effect. With regard to this consultation, the design proposals embodied in the Concept Design for the Meadows to George St. Project are particularly welcome. The enhanced priorities for walking, cycling and public transport envisaged are essential for the improvement of the Meadows to George St. Route and for the city centre as a whole.

Traffic Reduction and Pedestrianisation

The proposals to remove general traffic from George 1V Bridge and part of the Mound, and to eliminate the outmoded Forrest Rd./Teviot Place/ Bristo Place gyratory scheme are particularly welcomed. So too is the intention to restrict access along Forrest Rd primarily to walking and cycling, with restricted loading/ unloading hours for deliveries. This would release the potential to create a vastly improved environment for pedestrians in and around Forrest Rd.  The extent to which that potential is realized will depend on there being effective management and enforcement regimes in place regarding both access for deliveries and the disposal of waste. All too often such good management and enforcement have been lacking to date.  We therefore would expect to see proposals for effective scheme management and enforcement advanced in parallel with the detailed designs for this scheme.  We also have reservations as to whether all bus services should be removed from Forrest Rd, as discussed below.

The diversions of general traffic away from George1V Bridge via Chambers St and Market St are very welcome in principle, but it seems obvious that this will mean higher traffic levels on the Bridges and Jeffrey Street. Not all of the diverted traffic can realistically be expected to evaporate. It therefore seems reasonable to expect to see some analysis of the expected impact, especially on the Bridges route, since it is already operating under stress, with a poor accident record, being often congested, and where current conditions for pedestrians are as bad as or worse than those on George 1V Bridge. Until these impacts are clarified, we cannot unreservedly support these traffic proposals.

 

The Cycleway

The design concept proposals envisage a 3 metre wide, 2-way cycleway along the east side of the route, through George 1V Bridge, the Mound and Hanover St. This is preferable to the alternative of 1-way cycleways along both sides of the street, in that it allows more space for wider pavements, and reduces the conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists at bus stops, halving the number of such locations. There remain nevertheless some serious difficulties associated with the floating bus stop design, and at the east side stop at the foot of the Mound in particular.

Floating Bus Stop Provision

Our concern over floating bus stop design centres on the conflicts they introduce between cyclists and pedestrians crossing the cycle lane to board a bus, or alighting from buses into the cycle lane. It is worth noting that the recent re-introduction of rear door exit buses by Lothian Buses is almost certain to make the alighting conflicts greater. Moreover we are still awaiting the findings from the promised evaluation of the Leith Walk floating bus stop.

We are not aware of any precedents of busy two-way cycle lanes at floating bus stops, either in Edinburgh or elsewhere in the UK. The Council’s own street design guidance (Factsheet C4, Segregated Cycle Tracks) only addresses one way cycle tracks at bus stops. This design therefore does not appear to conform to Council design standards.

The proposed design for the crossing points at the floating bus stops has included some highly desirable elements that LSE would regard as essential. The two raised and zebra striped crossings of the cycleway, linking to the floating platform on either side of the stop/shelter position, are of vital importance. Sufficient width, height, and ramping will all be critical to how well they help to reduce conflicts with cycling. A standard crossing width will not be adequate given the peaked nature of crossing at bus boarding times, and we suggest that they should be of at least twice the standard width, if not more when based on current and forecast passenger pick up and drop off levels.

At the foot of the Mound, and to a lesser extent in Hanover St., cyclists would be approaching the bus stop downhill, at speed in many cases, and creating severe conflicts with pedestrians at the stop. This is unsafe. At the 3rd June workshop cycling representatives also raised concerns about the suitability of the 2-way cycleway provision over this steep downhill section, and it was suggested that downhill cyclists should use the carriageway instead. We would strongly endorse this suggestion, as it would reduce the most severe conflicts that are otherwise likely to arise.

The platforms associated with the proposed floating bus stops would provide some additional space for awaiting passengers, but at the busy stops and pavements involved there is concern that this space would still be inadequate to allow for the concentration of conflicting pedestrian movements, and for safe interactions with cyclists in particular. Moreover those concentrations are being intensified at some of the busiest stops, in Hanover St and at the bottom of the Mound, by having a single stop and a single shelter for all bus services. The loss of already inadequate shelter and seating space at these stops will inevitably mean worse conditions for waiting pedestrians, and for those with mobility impairments in particular. We can see no justification for this and wish to see these losses compensated for by the provision of additional shelter and seating. That provision should be informed by an analysis of pedestrian flows and passenger usage at peak times of the year for the stops involved.  It is difficult to believe that this has been undertaken for these stops to date (if it has can we please see the results?), but it should become a routine procedure wherever a reduction in stop and/or shelter/ seating provision is under consideration.

Other Bus Services and Stops

A similar reduction in provision of bus stop facilities is seemingly proposed in shifting the provision of bus services from Forrest Rd. to Teviot Place, and gives rise to similar concerns. This shift is also likely to result in longer walks to most destinations and have adverse effects on the growing proportion more vulnerable bus users who are mobility impaired as pedestrians. We would wish to see a thorough analysis of this issue being undertaken before a commitment is made to the move. More generally this is an important issue that has not been receiving sufficient attention as yet in developing the wider City Centre Transformation proposals.

At the workshop we were informed that under the revised bus stop arrangements there would be no breaches of the CEC standard for the maximum walking distance between stops, which we understand to be 400m. It is understand that only one bus stop is to be removed under the concept design proposals, that being at the uphill stop on the Mound close to the junction with Market St. LSE does not object to this change since this stop is little used and does not serve any significant destinations. However, with no compensating changes being made to the stop locations along the route on either side, the distance to the next southbound bus stop (National Library) is about 500m. There will be pedestrians undertaking a longer and steep uphill walk, so there should be seating provided at intervals to help ease them on their way. The additional space proposed for pedestrians at the junction with Market St., and in association with the welcome closure of St Giles St. to traffic from Bank St., would seem to offer suitable locations. Such provision is especially important given the heavy demand for bus passengers and other pedestrians to visit the High Street.

Pedestrian Crossings

The loss of the median strip, which currently enhances the crossing opportunities for pedestrians throughout George 1V Bridge, is regrettable, but is seen to be acceptable given the wider pavements and reduced 6.5m carriageway width envisaged, provided that the current number of locations for crossing facilities is retained.

More formal enhanced crossings are proposed, light controlled at the Chambers St junction and with a zebra facility approximately half way along. It seems that dropped curb crossing points are envisaged at the other locations, but it is not clear from the on-line consultation drawings that this is the case, so we would appreciate clarification. There is a high demand for crossing next to the Victoria St. Junction and a clearly designated crossing facility is needed at this point in particular.

The proposed crossing of Bristo Place, Bedlam to the Museum, will provide a welcome and much needed facility.

Pavements

Wider pavements and other additional pavement space are an integral and very much needed feature of the concept proposals, and we look forward to the detailed development of these proposals.

There remain nonetheless some pavements where widths that are sub-standard remain; specifically along the Mound beside the RSA and National Galleries, and in Bristo Place. The space available at the east side Hanover St junction with Princes St also remains inadequate for the intense concentrations of pedestrians wanting to cross there.

The Mound galleries section is a particular concern. It is only ~ 2m wide, in contrast to the 3m minimum desirable width specified by the Council’s Design Guidance. This pavement serves many pedestrians, especially at peak seasons for visitors.  Those numbers can only be expected to increase, and a wider pavement should clearly be provided here. It would also be running alongside the proposed 3m wide cycleway serving many fewer cyclists, unless that section is modified to allow downhill cyclists to use the carriageway. Such a modification would have the added advantage of making it easier to accommodate the widened pavement that is needed.

The Bristo Place east side pavement is only ~ 2.5m wide, and can be expected to have to accommodate substantially more pedestrians if the relocation of the Forest Rd bus stops to Teviot Place goes ahead. We would therefore wish to see a wider pavement included here in developing the detailed designs. All the more so, and essential, if a loading area is to be  part of the design. From the exhibition drawings it would appear that a loading area is envisaged that overlaps with the existing pavement, and would take up most of the existing pavement width! This would be totally unacceptable for pedestrians.

It is claimed that a SUSTRANS analysis concluded that “all pavements reach the desired comfort level of the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance”. It is difficult to understand how this conclusion could have been reached in regard to these particular sections of pavement, and we can only surmise that the analysis was undertaken at an off peak time of year and with no allowance for the increases in activity that are to  be expected over the years to come. We would like some clarification on this and would appreciate the analysis being made available.

Greyfriars Bobby

The numbers of worshipers arriving at the wee dug’s statue, to stand and stroke and photograph him, have long resulted in severely obstructed space for pedestrians with crowds spilling over into the carriageway much of the time. The increased space it is proposed to provide will help to alleviate the current conditions, but will not eliminate the problems. Those problems moreover can only be expected to grow as the numbers of tourists continue to increase. It is surely therefore  time, in association with this project, for Bobby to be provided with a new home, away from the street and safer for all concerned. Preferably perhaps this should be in Greyfriars Kirkyard, where he can  be re-united with his master and where the worship can take place in appropriate peace. Please make him party to the project too.