Category Archives: Press Release

Put pedestrians first in active travel schemes, say walking campaigners

Walking campaigners Living Streets Edinburgh have called for the Council to put pedestrians first in new active travel schemes – as council policy states. The call comes as the group criticises plans for Dundee Street which would see large sections of busy pavement narrowed to accommodate new cycleways. The group has learnt that pavements would be reduced in at least 12 locations, in some places by as much as 2.4 metres. One pavement (at the Edinburgh Printmakers) would be left little more than a metre wide.

David Hunter, the group’s Convener, said: ”Despite a £10 million price tag, the plans for Dundee Street would not only leave many pavements below the minimum width recognised in both local and national guidance, they would actually reduce pavement space.

“New cycle lanes shouldn’t come from walking space. We’ve already seen how pedestrian space was squeezed out in Leith Walk, and Dundee Street would make the same mistake. We really need to see the Council stick to its own policy – that means putting pedestrians’ needs first, above other road users.”

Living Streets also criticises the lack of pedestrian improvements at Boroughmuir, Tollcross and Craiglockhart schools, and the introduction of nine ‘floating’ bus stops, which means that passengers have to cross a cycle way to get on or off a bus. 

Living Streets Edinburgh Group supports the provision of alternative routes for cyclists to the Union Canal towpath, but suggests this should be achieved using traffic-free and quiet streets in Shandon and North Merchiston rather than on Dundee Street. Their full response is here: https://bit.ly/3LbYDPi

***

Note to Editors: this is the link to the council’s public consultation on the scheme, which closes on 12 January 2026 bit.ly/4nOpDCN

Dundee Street Fountainbridge Active Travel Project: Response by LSE

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

Living Streets Edinburgh Group: our asks for Holyrood 2026 elections

Living Streets Edinburgh campaigns to make walking and wheeling better, safer and more accessible in Edinburgh. We support national calls for the Scottish Parliament to give more priority to active travel and have four specific changes we want parties and candidates for the elections to commit to:

  1. Engine idling

The penalty for breaking the law against engine idling hasn’t increased since 2003 – still standing at £20. This means that it’s not economic for councils to enforce compliance and it is no surprise that there is effectively zero enforcement. This is absurd given the time money and effort spent in recent years on raising awareness of air quality issues in Scotland and introducing Low Emission Zones.  We want to see the penalty raised to an effective level, and index-linked to future inflation.

  • ‘Continental-style’ zebras

We want to see cheap, simple zebra crossings (i.e. ‘paint-only’, without Belisha Beacons) permitted on Scottish streets. This is a quick and cost-effective way to give pedestrians priority, especially on side roads where pedestrian priority is now confirmed in the Highway Code. Evaluations of the design by Edinburgh Napier University and Transform Scotland have demonstrate their potential (https://transform.scot/2023/12/04/new-research-would-european-style-zebra-crossings-work-in-scotland/). The Scottish Government says that it has no devolved powers to even trial these zebras – in which case, the Scottish Government must press immediately for such powers.

  • Roadworks

While roadworks are inevitable both for maintenance of streets and to maintain and improve public utilities, they cause severe and often unnecessary problems for all modes of travel – including pedestrians. The Scottish Road Works Commissioner has stated that 2/3 of works are on footways.  This not only disrupts pedestrians (especially disabled people) but also often results in long-lasting damage to roads. We want to see a ‘lane rental’ system introduced, as permitted in England, where the works undertaker pays for the occupation of the road on a daily basis. This will encourage works to be completed as quickly as possible, minimising disruption, and also increase resources available for inspection of works, improving the standard of reinstatements.

  • Safety Cameras

Two thirds of safety cameras (for speeding and red light jumping) in Edinburgh are ‘bagged’ (out of commission);  8 cameras were bagged in 2025 alone. https://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2025/08/25/bagged-speed-and-red-light-cameras-in-edinburgh-result-from-our-foi-request-august-2025/   This sends a green light to motorists that there are no consequences for speeding and jumping lights. Police Scotland, which operates the cameras, bears the cost of maintaining and upgrading them – but receives no income from penalties, which ultimately goes to the UK Treasury. So Police Scotland currently has a financial incentive to minimise the use of cameras, which are an essential tool to encourage safe and legal driving. We want MSPs to lobby for change on a UK basis so that the revenue generated by safety cameras is retained by the enforcement agency – normally Police Scotland.

Living Streets Edinburgh Group

October 2025.

***

Our call for fair and effective speed enforcement (Letter to Transport Minister)

Dear Ms Hyslop

Safer Speeds for Scotland

We are writing to you to highlight a crucial road safety issue that is undermining Scotland’s Road Safety Strategy. Namely the fact that there is no effective enforcement system for Scotland to be able to ensure that safe driving speeds are achieved. 

Given the fundamental importance of safer driving speeds for collision speeds and the resulting casualties, this issue underlies all other efforts to improve driver behaviour. There is no possibility of approaching the ‘Vision Zero’ goal that our governments at UK, Scotland, and local authority levels claim to support, without reform of an enforcement system that is unfit for purpose. 

In Scotland we strongly support the proposed reduction of the national speed limit from 60mph to the more appropriate 50mph on single carriageway roads. This will help to reduce an appalling level of casualties on these roads, especially if followed up with further adjustments to set reduced speed limits that are appropriate to individual road sections. However it will do nothing to ensure that drivers keep to these safer speeds. Without suitably intensified enforcement efforts it is certain that many will not. 

As it stands there are no incentives for either Police Scotland or local authorities to make greater enforcement efforts. All the revenue income arising from fines and penalty charges for speeding currently revert to the UK Treasury, leaving a situation whereby more enforcement requires more expenditure at the expense of the many other pressing priorities for public services. Here in Scotland that income is in effect deducted from Scotland’s block grant, and so is unavailable for any public service purpose in Scotland. There is also no provision for local authorities to assist the police in providing better enforcement. So much for effective devolution of powers to the local levels at which they are needed!

Responding to a question from a Lib. Dem. MP in December, the UK Government minister, Lilian Greenwood, brushed it aside stating there were currently no plans for changes.  

It surely is time for the Scottish Government to demand a system that funds enforcement where it is needed, and at the levels that are needed, through the retention of income from fines and penalties. There is a gaping hole in the devolution of enforcement powers over road safety and it is one which must be fixed. We assume that fixing it commands your support and that of your SNP colleagues in government. So we hope that you will now help in bringing pressure to bear on the UK Government.    

We will also be writing to the UK Secretary of State for Scotland to request his support internally in pressing for this change.       

John Russell

Living Streets Edinburgh Group

LSEG calls (again) for more investment in everyday walking

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