LSE Objects to new Haymarket Development

This development is an opportunity for the Council to help deliver the ambitions set out in the City Centre Transformation programme. This application is not consistent with these ambitions or the professed ‘climate emergency’. This is ‘business as usual’.

Most fundamentally, why would such a central site, and Edinburgh’s busiest transport interchange on the west side of the city, be suitable for car parking, but not homes? If the council does intend to reduce city centre traffic by 25% as stated, there should be no car parking at all at such a site.

The development appears to make little or no contribution to the surrounding pedestrian area. It is an opportunity in particular to transform the Haymarket junction and western part of Morrison Street, some of the least pedestrian-friendly streets in the whole city. This needs the pavements on the outside of the development to be widened and improved with much more engaging, active frontages. It is not good enough to simply funnel pedestrians into the development itself: allowing people to walk through the development in comfort while leaving Morrison Street as a grim thoroughfare is not acceptable. The developer of prestige sites like this should be making significant financial and design contributions to improvements to the wider pedestrian environment.

 

Response to Edinburgh City Centre Transformation Strategy Consultation

  1. Introduction

1.1      Living Streets Edinburgh Group welcomes the publication and consultation on the Edinburgh City Centre Transformation Strategy.   We would like to thank the Council for its leadership in bringing this forward and the bold nature of the vision, which has the potential to transform the walking environment.

1.2      We have taken the opportunity to respond to the consultation under the following headings:

  • General comments on the Strategy;
  • Need for City-wide Transformation;
  • Detailed Comments on the Strategy.

1.3      We are happy to meet with Council staff and Jacobs to explain and expand on our comments.   We would also like to be involved in the preparation of the final strategy and the detailed design process for individual elements within it.

 

  1. General Comments on the Strategy

2.1      Walking (with or without an aid) is something we all have in common; at some point we have to get out of the car, off the bus or off the bike and walk.  Despite this we have, as a city, long accepted and planned for the private car as the dominant transport mode. A strategy that reverses this, puts people first and gives priority to travelling on foot is long overdue.

2.2      Transformation brings with it expectation and responsibility.  Delivery will require serious intent and ongoing commitment by the Council.  The scale of physical and behavioural change involved is significant, but eminently capable of achievement in the city that conceived and delivered the New Town.

2.3      This is a project that will span a number of Council terms and must not be subject to the vagaries of different political administrations that may come and go over its lifetime.  It requires “buy in” from all parties for the long term.

2.4      The focus of the strategy is on the city centre, but it cannot take place in isolation and must require significant change throughout the city to make it work and ensure that benefits are widely shared (see next section).

2.5      The strategy has no statutory basis, yet it will have to be delivered through a variety of statutory plans/processes including City Plan 2030, the City Mobility Plan and Low Emission Zones.  It is therefore essential that there is a clear pledge by the Council to see it through, ensuring that it underpins the statutory plans and that all internal structures and processes are joined up and remain so.  We have already seen examples of opportunities to deliver wider benefits for every day walking being missed on simple small-scale projects because of lack of dialogue between sections of the same Directorate.  The scale and complexity of transformation in this strategy is such that this just cannot be allowed to happen.

2.6      It is regrettable that the Delivery Plan is still under preparation as it is an essential part of the package.  The strategy promises a range of potentially exciting changes over a relatively short timeframe, yet a costed programme of projects and interventions is not available.  Consequently there is a risk that expectations have been raised and may yet be dashed before the strategy is off the starting blocks.  The Delivery Plan may be more bedded in reality if it has a clear sense of priority, distinguishing between short-term essentials and what may be longer-term desirables e.g. lifts and the tram line extensions. The experience from Leith Walk suggests some streets can’t accommodate public realm for walking, segregated cycle infrastructure and tram tracks so the detail on what can actually be delivered is important.

2.7      The Delivery Plan will be at the heart of the transformation project and the scale is such that the Council, with budgets constantly under competing pressures, will have difficulty in finding and maintaining the necessary resources to fund delivery on its own.

2.8      Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland and is iconic in UK terms. It is therefore hoped that commitments have already been secured from Scottish Government to enhance the Council’s spending settlement for the duration of the project and to make additional ring-fenced funding available for specific elements, ideally with additional buy in from UK Government. There is a case for the business sector to contribute, as a beneficiary from transformation.  The Council can also secure funding via a workplace parking levy, congestion charging, more rigorous enforcement of parking and road restrictions, and more targeted developer contributions.

 

  1. Need for City-wide Transformation

3.1      In order to be meaningful transformation cannot take place in isolation in the city centre alone, it has to extend across the city and the timing is opportune to start this process.

3.2      SESPlan Strategic Development Plan 2 has recently been rejected by Scottish Ministers on transport grounds, one of them being that the plan does not take sufficient account of the relationship between land use and transport. The rejection letter from the Chief Planner dated 16 May 2019 makes specific reference to paragraphs 272-275 of Scottish Planning Policy. Para 273 prioritises modes of travel in the following order of priority: walking, then cycling, then public transport and finally use of private cars.   The reality is that, despite this unambiguous hierarchy, planning in the city has followed a reverse order of priority and the private car continues to dominate.  The Transformation Strategy can be a start in putting matters right, but it will not work in isolation.

3.3      The rejection of SDP2 reflects Scottish Government’s intention to deliver its policy and sends a clear message that City Plan 2030 and the City Mobility Plan should take the reasons for that rejection on board.  If the hierarchy in Scottish Planning Policy is applied across the city it means that transformation must extend to communities beyond the city centre, sharing the benefits and ensuring they do not suffer the consequences of any displacement of vehicular traffic from the city centre as a result of this strategy.

3.4      A significant reduction in car use is essential to make transformation work and ensure Edinburgh truly is a city with people at its heart.  In practical terms this means there has to be a change in mind-set in and around the city with acceptance that the private car no longer has priority.

3.5      There is plenty of good practice to draw on from within the UK and beyond.  For example, there is potential for mini-Holland style projects in neighbourhoods across the city, including Leith and Gorgie https://walthamforest.gov.uk/content/creating-mini-holland-waltham-forest or take a lead from the Barcelona Super Blocks http://www.bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblocks

3.6      An extensive city-wide programme of physical, fiscal and legal interventions is needed including:

  • widen pavements;
  • introduce continuous footways as standard;
  • create a network of segregated cycle lanes;
  • reduce the width of carriageways and increase street planting;
  • significant removal of on street parking;
  • prioritise pedestrians at crossings;
  • congestion charging;
  • a workplace parking levy;
  • city wide low emission zone;
  • rigorous enforcement of parking controls, speed limits, bus lanes;
  • expand and enhance the bus fleet replacing diesel with hydrogen or other zero emission technology;
  • review the bus network within and around the city, where necessary introducing new routes/improve frequency;
  • review train timetables and enhance services where possible;
  • provide/enhance park and ride provision as required.

 

  1. Detailed Comments on the Strategy

4.1      It is appreciated that this is a strategy, but it also identifies a range of specific measures and interventions without going into great detail.   It is stated that the Delivery Plan will provide a costed programme for individual elements over a 10 year period.   Having expressed disappointment that the Delivery Plan is not available as part of the current consultation, we consider it critical that it is the subject of further consultation when it is eventually produced.  This will allow scrutiny of the detail of the various projects and interventions and an opportunity to assess whether any of the ambition in the strategy has been lost or diluted.

4.2      The six principles on p16/17 are supported. However, the aims and objectives in the Interim Report that they are intended to deliver should have been repeated in the strategy so that anyone reading it can make a clear link to them from individual interventions via the principles.

 

4.3      The principle of People First (p16) and priority given to walking, cycling and public transport is most welcome.  With this in mind, and before embarking on detailed design, it is important to decide how to manage, not only private cars, but a variety of other traffic which contribute to unpleasant conditions for walking:

  • taxis/private hire cars;
  • bin lorries;
  • vans;
  • HGVs;
  • tour buses (incl ‘City sightseeing’);
  • long distance coaches.

4.4      To have a liveable (p17) and resilient city centre there should be a target to increase the residential population. This will have to be facilitated through planning decisions and controls over Air BnB type uses.  It will also to be necessary to have the necessary community facilities in place e.g. schools, doctors.

4.5      On p22, specific reference to and acceptance of the hierarchy of movement with people on foot first is welcome.  More detail is required on how pedestrian priority zones will be delivered, particularly the concept of vehicles as “guests” (which vehicles?), and there must be recognition that the city centre is a first phase, with pedestrians eventually prioritised across the city as required by the hierarchy.

4.6      The Pedestrian Priority Zone should cover the entire length of the Royal Mile and include Holyrood Palace/Scottish Parliament.  Its exclusion is illogical as it is that last section with narrow footways and constant traffic that is particularly difficult and unpleasant for the large number of pedestrians who use it.

4.7      There are no proposals to improve walking provision on Queen Street; this should be addressed.  It is one of the most important streets in the New Town, on the edge of the city centre, yet poor air quality, high traffic volumes and excessive waiting times at crossings create a hostile pedestrian experience.

4.8      The new pedestrian and cycling bridge between Jeffrey Street and Calton Road (p24) is welcome and it is hoped that reference to “vehicle free” extends to the currently unsafe junction with Leith Street thereby creating a more pleasant and safer approach to the station from Calton Road.

4.9      On p24 there is reference to “segregated and safe cycling routes”.  It is taken that this means all the cycle routes indicated will be segregated, including Cowgate despite its restricted width.

4.10   Does “full implementation of current Active Travel Plan” on p27 only refer to the cycling parts?   For the avoidance of doubt, the Council should commit to all outstanding walking elements in the ATP.

4.11   Public transport is key to the reduction in private car use and delivery of improved journey times and efficiency for buses accessing the centre (p28/29) is welcomed.  However, it also states that there will be a “reduced volume of buses crossing the city centre without a loss of service provision” with no indication of how his will be achieved.  The service improvement commitment to bus services is focused on the city centre, whereas people need to find it easier to use buses throughout the city.  Bear in mind that individual trips to the city centre may require more than one bus so it is essential that service enhancement is consistent across the city.

4.12   Is it correct to assume that “taxi” is used as a generic term to include all private hire companies?  As there is significant taxi usage in the city, incentives and controls should be in place to ensure vehicles are low or zero emission.  Is it possible to explore this as a condition of licencing?

4.13   The public transport interventions (p30/31) require careful assessment to ensure that they deliver benefits to all and that those who currently rely on these services do not lose out.

4.14   Bus priority can also be enhanced through bus lane extensions and greater enforcement, including parking at bus stops.  These are actions that can be taken now.

4.15   The concept of buses ‘kissing’ the centre needs to be illustrated to show how it will work and to ensure that people don’t have to change buses unnecessarily.  Many existing routes work and are supported because they cross the city centre (e.g. between Western General Hospital and Edinburgh Royal Infirmary) so introducing a change of bus may act as a disincentive.

4.16   More detail is needed on the proposed hopper service and the problem it is intended to solve. Likewise with the tram extensions on Lauriston Place and North/South Bridge which are surely unlikely to be delivered in the 10 year timeframe.

4.17   The desired 25% reduction in private vehicle movements in the city centre is noted (p32), but surely we can be more ambitious than that.  Apart from a few exceptions there is little need to bring a car into the city centre or to assume that residency in the centre requires it.  This target has to be revisited as well as consideration given to city-wide targets.

4.18   There is no target for reducing the commercial vehicle movements which contribute significantly to making walking unpleasant.  Traffic passing through the centre should be re-routed without detriment to other areas.  Vehicles coming into the centre will face greater kerbside restrictions, but this has to be accompanied by the rethink in vehicle types identified in the final bullet point on p32.

4.19   Reducing on-street parking (p34/35) is a key feature which is welcomed as it will increase space at a stroke for walking (and cycling) and will reduce car traffic looking for on-street places.  This has to involve more than lip service and a radical removal programme is required.  It must be accompanied by a work place parking levy, as well as a campaign to persuade businesses to voluntarily remove parking provision and replace it with incentives for employees to walk, cycle or use bus/tram/train. There is significant scope to apply this approach throughout the city and dramatically reduce the amount of on street parking in any location where public transport and walking/cycling are practical alternatives.

4.20   The Council has a policy that allows for car free developments, but it has been timid in applying it.   It should be the default position for new developments unless it can be demonstrated that the modes above cars in the hierarchy are not available.  Certainly within the city centre it has to be clear that no new off street parking is created aside from Blue Badge, car club and delivery bays. Otherwise new developments will generate more traffic growth. This must be set out in City Plan 2030. The space saved can go towards more housing (including affordable), more landscaping/gardens and allow for additional developer contributions towards public transport and other active travel infrastructure.   Developments such as the Engine Yard at Shrubhill on the edge of the city centre with its extensive underground car park should not be repeated.

4.21   The creation of an integrated transport and data management centre (p36/37) is noted, but more detail is required on what it involves and how it will operate to ensure it will be effective and provide all the data required.  This is critical as at present there is, for example, no proper monitoring of modal share.

4.22   The operations management plan is essential and it is surprising it does not already exist, but that would explain missed opportunities to enhance the walking experience.

4.23   It is assumed that the management of commercial bins includes the communal Council bins, but there also has to be management of private bins on the pavements.

4.24   The improvements in place (p38/39) are broadly welcomed.  There are however a number of specific comments:

  • The 4 vertical lifts will be an innovation, but it is hoped that their inclusion is based on reality and not vague ambition so as to avoid disappointment if they don’t happen.
  • The designated traffic free streets should be expanded to include Calton Road from the station car park to Leith Street and the eastern section of the Royal Mile.
  • Main Public Space Improvement should include all of the Royal Mile, Calton Road, Leith Street, Cowgate, Market Street, Lauriston Place, all of Princes Street, Waterloo Place/Regent Road and the full length of Queen Street.

4.25   The concept of catalyst areas is a useful means of showing in more detail at this stage what can be achieved, but it is important that these areas do not become the sole focus and the principles of transformation are applied across the entire strategy area. Living Streets Edinburgh welcomes the commitment to develop detailed proposals in close consultation with relevant stakeholders and wishes to be part of this process.

4.26   The diagram on p48 identifies Morrison Street for public realm improvement, but not as a walking route although many people use it as a direct link to Lothian Road. It is a busy and deeply unpleasant street, totally dominated by several lanes of traffic. The public realm improvements will not change this unless accompanied by wider pavements and a reduced number of lanes carrying less vehicular traffic. The rationalization of the Haymarket junction is welcomed, it is currently a nightmare for pedestrians and the improvements must put people on foot first.

4.27   It is appreciated that Lothian Road (p56) is a challenge and the decision to instigate change is welcome. If it is truly to become a tree-lined boulevard then people have to be the focus, yet it appears from the information available that there will still be 4 lanes of traffic. This should be reduced to allow the tree planting on areas that are currently taken up by road with the pavements on both sides widened to improve the pedestrian experience. There is reference to reallocation of traffic lanes on a number of roads, including the West Approach Road, which requires clarification. Again the detail of what is proposed for this area is important and we look forward to involvement in that process.

4.28   The First New Town Strategic Plan (p64) identifies public realm improvements on Princes Street, George Street and parts of other key streets, but then excludes key streets where improvement is also required.   Given that Queen Street, Frederick Street, Hanover Street, and North/South St David Street are all also identified as key streets they should be assessed for public realm improvement, both in terms of improving the fabric (e.g. cobbles on Frederick Street) and giving pedestrians priority. (e.g. the St. David Streets being particularly poor).

4.29   As the strategy is intended to provide a high-quality pedestrian focused environment across this area, it is assumed that the specific active travel routes identified on the plan are focused on cycling. In which case, it would be better to make segregated provision on George Street and The Mound (as currently proposed) and also create similar provision on Princes Street. Rose Street could then be enhanced to create a high quality pedestrian street, surely an early priority given that there is a longstanding commitment which is now many years overdue.

4.30   Despite rationalization of bus services and stops there will still be 4 lanes of traffic/tram. This should be reviewed to identify any opportunity to widen the pavement on the south side of Princes Street that is currently too narrow for the volume of people using it.

4.32   The introduction to the section on the Old Town (p71) correctly identifies that the primary aim is to enhance the experience for pedestrians and the principle impediment is the presence of vehicles in an area that was clearly never intended to accommodate them. Within this context drastic measures are called for and there is an argument for restricting access solely to vehicles necessary for servicing and disabled people. Residency in this part of the city should not be qualification for keeping a vehicle in it, particularly on the street. Comments on other aspects of the Old Town proposals have been made earlier in this submission.

4.31   Proposals for George Street and Meadows to George Street schemes are at an advanced stage of preparation having been subject to consultation. It is assumed that they are compatible with and reflect the ambition of this Strategy.

4.33   The Waverley/Calton proposals (p78) embrace the area covered by the emerging Waverley Station Masterplan.  This strategy has a 10 year timescale and the Masterplan, covering a smaller area, is for a period of 30 years.  Ideally both projects would be implemented in the same timeframe so it may be worth exploring if the Masterplan could be condensed into 10 years, at least the significant and most disruptive elements.  Alternatively, a more realistic timeline for both projects may be 15 years, but in any case delivery has to be aligned.

4.34   Proposals to enhance the walking experience in and around the station are generally welcome, but detail is required.  For example, what does pedestrian priority mean on Waverley Bridge?  Tour buses will be removed, but it is unclear which buses if any will still be permitted, although it was understood from the Masterplan consultation that they would all be removed.

4.35   The issue of service traffic for the shopping centre and station has to be addressed as there is potential for conflict.  The possibility of servicing by rail, including short haul from other stations around the city, should be investigated.  There should be no provision for car parking other than bluebadge holders.

4.36   The eastern end of Princes Street is currently an unpleasant place for pedestrians with a combination of traffic volume, fumes, barriers, narrow footway on southern side and conflict with the large volume of people entering and leaving the station via Waverley Steps.   This Strategy and the Masterplan can address this situation.  Space should be taken from the road to widen the pavement on the southern side, traffic has to be reduced and the public realm enhanced.

4.37   The North Bridge/Princes Street/Leith Street junction is one of the worst pedestrian experiences in the city centre.  It is difficult to navigate and confusing for the unfamiliar.  The plethora of barriers should be removed, traffic reduced, and the pedestrian crossings redesigned to ease navigation and give walkers priority.

4.38   The redevelopment of Edinburgh St James had potential to transform Picardy Place and Leith Street, but that ship has sailed, the opportunity is lost and the works currently underway are the polar opposite of what this strategy intends.  There is still an opportunity to mitigate matters with public realm improvements, including significant tree planting, prioritise pedestrians at all crossings and close Calton Road to traffic.

4.39   With the intended reduction in traffic entering the centre and closure/restricted access in several streets there is likely to be some displacement.  It is possible that this may impact negatively on the Bridges/Nicolson Street, which are understood to already have the worst accident records in the city.  North Bridge is to have reallocation of traffic lanes, but it is unclear how it will be transformed for pedestrians.

4.40   It would be useful to have sight of the traffic modeling that was presumably undertaken as part the strategy to ascertain if displaced traffic would ‘evaporate’ or end up on this corridor.  The issue of displacement is part of the case for tackling transformation across the city and not only in the centre.

4.41   The Innovation Mile (p86) covers an area where walking is not subject to the same level of competition for space, but there is still scope to enhance the experience and that is welcomed. Public realm improvements to Lauriston Place are appreciated, but there are also locations (usually at junctions) where pavements should be widened to accommodate the number of pedestrians.  South Bridge/Nicolson Street requires enhancement and pavements widened.  There would appear to be an intention to remove the rather brutalist over/underpass at Bristo Square which is welcome.  There is no mention of the long standing Causey project which is a gateway to Nicolson Street and the “Innovation Mile”.  It is 10 years over due and should be included as an early priority.

  1. Conclusion

5.1      This Strategy and the actions that flow from it can transform the walking environment in the city. The Council is to be congratulated for instigating the project, now Living Streets Edinburgh is keen to work with the Council and others to realise the ambition within it.

 

 

 

 

Response to Meadows to George Street: Concept Design Consultation

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.

 

 

 

West Edinburgh Link: Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

A. Introduction

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is the local voluntary arm of the national charity, Living Streets, which campaigns for better conditions for ‘everyday walking’. In LSEG our key aim is to promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around the city.

We welcome this significant investment in active travel. We perceive the principal aim of this scheme as providing safe and attractive cycling routes to the Gyle and Edinburgh Park business areas from the north and south, taking opportunities to enhance the local pedestrian environment. We would like to see these opportunities maximised, which will benefit all people in the residential area, not only those who wish to cycle. A fundamental point is that all proposals and designs must explicitly conform to the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance for the category/categories of street. We have agreed the appended general ’walkability criteria’ to assess street design proposals, and would ask that they are also applied here.

We would suggest that the objectives of the scheme need further clarification; in particular, we note that the project website states “efforts will be made to preserve…the flow of vehicles”. While we certainly agree that the effect on traffic flows needs to be carefully considered, we think that the scheme should try to reduce some motor traffic, especially commuting by private car to the Gyle/Edinburgh Park areas.

B. General observations.

Positive aspects

We welcome many aspects of the proposed design, such as new pedestrian crossings (eg Glasgow Road, Maybury Drive, Wester Hailes Road, Clovenstone Road) and the bridge over the railway line at Gyle Park. We welcome exploiting all opportunities for pedestrian ‘short cuts’ for example potentially from S Gyle Access to S Gyle Crescent via Flasshes Yard, and Dell Road to the Water of Leith. We would like particular attention to be given to enhancing walking links (in terms of safety, accessibility and convenience) to the schools in the vicinity of the project.  However, we would like to see a number of walking improvements included, as set out below:

Footway widths

The current and proposed width of footways on the many streets included in this scheme is not generally shown on the maps provided but many are too narrow. We wish to see any footway which is currently below the minimum width as specified in the Street Design Guidance widened to meet the “absolute minimum” standard – and of course, the aim should be to exceed absolute minimum standards. As a flagship ‘walking and cycling scheme’ meeting agreed minimum standards should be an absolutely fundamental requirement the scheme.

Junction radii

The residential areas in the scheme area were designed before the ‘Designing Streets’ 2010 guidance and thinking, and long before 20mph became the norm for local streets. They often feature wide junction splays and long corner radii. These make it more difficult and unsafe for pedestrians to cross side streets, as there is further to travel and the geometry encourages higher vehicle speeds.  There are probably dozens of such junctions in the scheme area and we would like to see the maximum possible improvements to these, including at the junctions where raised tables are proposed.

Dropped kerbs

Similarly many road junctions in residential areas lack dropped kerbs (eg N Gyle Drive at N Gyle Road). These should be installed as a matter of course as part of the scheme. We understand that the Council has a full database of ‘missing’ dropped kerbs which should be used to address this. Tactile paving should be installed where required.

Traffic calming

We note (and welcome) the proposed use of raised tables at several junctions (for example Craigmount Grove). We would support wider use of traffic calming measures on streets where local communities perceive speeding and rat-running as a significant problem.

Shared Use pavements

There are several places where it is proposed to share the footway between pedestrians and cyclists (eg Westburn Avenue, S Gyle Access). We are opposed to this design in principle, which we believe builds in conflict between the two modes, although we accept that this is viable in some park/footpath settings (as opposed to pavements). We note that Sustrans has now also adopted this policy position.

Public transport interchange

Measures should be taken to improve the routes to the bus and tram stops (particularly Bankhead which has a complicated multi stage crossing to Edinburgh college / Napier campus). This needs to be simplified with more frequent and generous pedestrians phases. Ideally these should coincide with tram arrival times – an opportunity to use ‘smart’ signal technology? technology.

We have long had concerns that ‘floating bus stops’ pose a risk to pedestrians – particularly bus passengers alighting who will not expect the possibility of encountering cyclists. We agreed to support their installation on Leith Walk in 2016, on the understanding that a full and objective evaluation of this perceived risk is carried out. As this has still not been published we therefore continue to oppose the installation of further floating bus stops, including as part of this scheme.

Seats

We would like to see seats installed at suitable locations throughout the area, which will encourage less mobile pedestrians to use the streets, knowing that there are opportunities to rest at suitable locations, especially where it is hilly or there are steps. One such location would be the proposed Gyle Park bridge.

Pavement clutter

We assume that a full de-cluttering exercise will be carried out on all streets included within the scheme, removing unnecessary signage poles, inappropriately-sited cycle racks and redundant guardrail, for example.

C. Conclusion

We welcome the proposed improvements to the pedestrian environment throughout the route; however, we note that there are very many other opportunities to improve walking in local areas from Wester Hailes to East Craigs. Although this scheme has a significant budget, we appreciate that it will not be possible to fund all the walking and cycling improvements which are desirable. The extensive new development in west Edinburgh is also an opportunity to ensure that more  investment for improving pedestrian infrastructures achieved through the planning process and consents. We would ask that the prioritisation of spending between measures which principally benefit walking on the one hand and cycling on the other is done transparently and takes account of the number of people likely to benefit. There should be no presumption that ‘walking measures’ – such as widening pavements and dropping kerbs – are necessarily secondary to ‘cycling measures’.

***

Appendix: Living Streets Edinburgh ‘Walkability Criteria’

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is keen to ensure that all types of transport and public realm schemes – whether routine maintenance or new initiatives – improve the walking environment. We would like to see each scheme satisfy the following fundamental aims:

  1. compliance with the Council’s Street Design Guidance [http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/550/edinburgh_street_design_guidance] – at the very least, its minimum standards, eg on footway width and frequency of pedestrian crossings, and,
  2. compliance with the transport hierarchy set out in Scottish Planning Policy (2014) – https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/pages/8/including ‘Plans should identify active travel networks and promote opportunities for travel by more sustainable modes in the following order of priority: walking, cycling, public transport, cars’.

LSEG does not have the resources to examine and comment in detail on every transport and public realm proposal; our view on whether a scheme design has satisfied these fundamental aims will be determined by Council answers to the following questions on ‘walkability’ criteria:

  1. How does the design contribute to the Council’s strategic objective to promote walking [as set out in the Active Travel Plan http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20087/cycling_and_walking/1791/cycling_and_walking_projects/1]?
  2. Does the scheme comply in detail with the Council’s Street Design Guidance, for example with regard to footway widths, frequency of pedestrian crossing points, decluttering, continuous footways over side street junctions, and junction corner radii (amongst many other issues)? Where does it fail to comply?
  3. Are pedestrian crossing points convenient in terms of proximity, waiting times, directness and time to cross, especially for less able users?
  4. Does the scheme as a whole improve road safety, especially in terms of vehicle speeds at junctions and crossing points?
  5. Has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out? If so, what are the chief impacts on disabled or elderly pedestrians?
  6. Which walking elements of the scheme represent a quantitative / qualitative enhancement or deterioration of current walking facilities, eg footway widths?
  7. In what ways does it avoid pedestrian conflicts with other road users (including motor vehicles and cyclists), eg by providing dedicated and well-defined space for pedestrians and avoiding ‘shared spaces’?

Union Canal to Meadows Link: comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

A. Introduction

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is the local voluntary arm of the national charity, Living Streets, which campaigns for better conditions for ‘everyday walking’. In LSEG our key aim is to promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around the city.

We have a particular interest in this much-delayed scheme. The 2015 Tollcross Street Audit , which we led, involving partners Tollcross Community Council and Edinburgh Access Panel, was chosen partly in order to influence the design of this scheme. We hope that all recommendations of the audit (link) will be fully reviewed and considered in introducing this scheme.

A further fundamental point is that all proposals and designs must explicitly conform to the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (ESDG) for the category/categories of street. We have also appended our generic ’Walkability Criteria’ for the assessment of street design proposals

B. General observations.

Positive aspects:

We welcome much of the proposed design, which will significantly improve the walking experience in the busy Tollcross area. Especially welcome are the extensive use of continuous pavements, the widening of several footways, the addition of new and/or improved pedestrian crossings and the creation of a small pedestrianised zone at the west end of Tarvit Street. We very much welcome the inclusion of Tollcross Primary School as an important component of the scheme, and we support (though would want to extend) the measures proposed to improve the walking environment in its vicinity.

Traffic

We acknowledge that the scope of this scheme is limited, in aiming principally to provide a better link for cyclists between the Meadows and the Canal, along with pedestrian improvements. This scheme raises several issues about traffic management and vehicle space and the need for a wider review of traffic around Tollcross, as noted in our submission to the ‘City Centre Transformation consultation (bit.ly/2yK61sU) . However, we believe that this scheme represents a number of important immediate opportunities to further reduce the space given to motor vehicles, in addition to those included in the preliminary design. We therefore propose:

  • Gilmore Place at the Kings junction: reduce eastbound lanes from the current two to one. As traffic will generally no longer be exiting Tarvit Street, eastbound traffic from Gilmore Place will be able to turn right or left without a need for separate lanes.  This will enable the extremely narrow and congested corner footways on both sides of Gilmore Place (at the TukTuk and Trenchtown restaurants) to be widened.
  • Ponton Street: reduce this three-lane one way system outside Tollcross Primary School to two-lane. This would enable significant widening of the western pavement outside the school.
  • Home Street to the north of Lochrin Terrace: We understand that there is an alternative, updated design which retains two lanes of traffic, widened footways and no build-out at the pedestrian crossing here. We welcome the tightened radius of the Home Street/Lochrin Terrace junction, which should deter northbound traffic on Home Street turning left here at speed, as happens currently.

Continuous footways:

We generally welcome these design features and are pleased to see several examples of them in the plans. However, some of the locations where they are proposed (possibly including Lochrin Place at Home Street, for example) may have a significant amount of traffic crossing them, while others (eg access to the Valleyfield St garages) may have very little. We strongly suggest that careful thought is given to whether some tactile warning is needed to warn blind pedestrians that there is a risk that they could encounter vehicles at the potentially busiest locations and that consultation with visual impairment groups takes place.

Footway loading bays:

We note that footway loading bays are proposed in two locations: Home Street (east) and Leven Street (west). We are concerned that these features are becoming more prevalent in street design (eg on Cowgate and Fountainbridge) and in general we oppose them. They send a signal that pavements can be parked on. We see no case for the Leven Street example, where a normal loading bay can apparently be provided without unduly narrowing the pavement. Any footway loading bays should be bounded by bollards to avoid vehicle encroaching on to the footway proper.

Seats:

There is currently nowhere to sit in Home Street, or Tollcross more generally, including at the city-bound bus stops. This undoubtedly reduces the appeal of the street for older people and many people with mobility impairments. The scheme should include provision of new seating at a number of locations. The pedestrianised Tarvit Street area is one such location, but seats should also be installed on both the west and east sides of Home Street.

Footway widths:

While we recognise (and welcome) a number of footway widenings, there appear to remain several footways which fall below the ‘absolute minimum’ standard specified in the Street Design Guidance, and one where the an extremely busy pavement is actually being significantly narrowed, from 3.9m to 2.5m (Home St west). This is not acceptable in a flagship walking and cycling scheme, and it is unlikely that there will be any other opportunity in the next 10 or 20 years to rectify this inadequate legacy. Meeting minimum standards in such a densely-populated and diverse area should be an absolutely fundamental requirement of the scheme. Streets which we think will still fall short of these standards are:

  • Lochrin Place (west)
  • Lochrin Terrace
  • Ponton Street
  • Home Street (western side, between Lochrin Place and Gilmore Place)
  • Home Street (eastern side, by loading bay near Tarvit St junction)
  • Gilmore Place
  • Tarvit Street (east)
  • Drumdryan Street (whole length)
  • Valleyfield Street.

Pavement clutter:

We assume that a full de-cluttering exercise will be carried out on all streets included within the scheme. There are many signage poles which are no longer needed, inappropriately-sited cycle racks (Home Street at Lochrin Place (N) and a redundant parking display (Ponton St). We query the need for considerable sections of guardrail, for example on Lochrin Terrace (where the guardrails have quite recently been renewed).

Pedestrian/cycling conflict:

We generally oppose shared pedestrian/cyclist areas (as do Spokes) owing to the potential conflict and especially the intimidating effect this can have on vulnerable pedestrians such as older people and those with visual impairments. However, long-established shared spaces are at both ends of this project (ie in the Meadows and on the Union Capital) and we consider the proposals are generally reasonable. Detailed design, including signage and any speed-reducing measures should take into account the risk of conflict however at key locations including the Lochrin Place/Home St junction and at both ends of Tarvit Street. Signs and road markings should require cyclists to ‘Stop’ – rather than ‘Give Way’ where the cycle way crosses a footway / continuous footway.

C. Location-specific observations

These observations (broadly from west to east) relate to specific changes which we would like to see to the initial design; in general, we are therefore happy with the proposals except where stated above or below.

West Tollcross:

  • There are two incorrectly-installed tactile pavings on the south side of W Tollcross, and a continuous pavement should be installed between these to the vehicle access point.

Ponton Street:

  • We would like to see footways significantly widened on this street. The western pavement outside Tollcross PS is only 2.15m wide, and is further constrained by guardrails. We would therefore like to see the traffic lanes reduced from 3 to 2 which would enable significant widening of both pavements. The large bus stop on the east side of Ponton Street which is used for the layover of East Coast Buses should be moved (possibly just to Lochrin Terrace) to facilitate this.
  • At the northern end of Ponton Street, there is currently no ‘green man’ facility whatsoever to  allow people to walk across Fountainbridge, an inexplicable omission at a busy junction adjacent to a primary school. The signals here should therefore be replaced as part of the lane reduction measures proposed above, to include a signalled crossing of Fountainbridge on both sides of Ponton Street.

Lochrin Terrace:

  • Lochrin Terrace has a lot of wasted space and we welcome the extended footway with loading area on the south side (a suitable location for seats). At its western end (before the W Tollcross/fire station junction), the road should be narrowed to reduce the distance for pedestrians to cross the road (there is only a single lane on traffic heading into Lochrin Terrace, so there is no need for the carriageway to be so wide).
  • At its eastern end, both the north and south footways are too narrow – the southern pavement is only 1.75m wide, further reduced to 1.35 clear walking zone by the railings (compared to a footway ‘absolute minimum’ of 2m and a ‘clear walking zone absolute minimum’ of 1.5m in the ESDG).  A bin on the northern side routinely blocks adequate access to this pavement. We would like to see the guardrails removed from both sides of the street. We expect that the presence of the fire lane eastbound may be a specific reason for the rails on the northern pavement, but can see no reason for retaining the railings in the southern pavement.

Lochrin Place:

  • We welcome the widening of the northern pavement at the eastern end and the buildout on the southern side at Lochrin Autos. However, we would like to see a number of additional improvements including the installation of regular build-outs as specified by the Street Design Guidance. There are four incorrectly installed pieces of tactile paving with inappropriate crossfall on the north side of Lochrin Place (at apartment bin stores) which should be remedied. At its western end, the southern pavement should be continued towards the canal towpath; at present, the pavement does a right angled left turn away from the main desire line to the canal.

Home Street:

  • We are very disappointed to see the proposal to reduce the western footway between Lochrin Place and Gilmore Place in width from 3.9 to 2.5 metres, presumably to accommodate the segregated cycle lane, which we consider unacceptable and contrary to the spirit / letter of Council policy and the ‘movement hierarchy’ in Scottish Planning Policy.
  • We note the intention to move the signalled pedestrian crossing currently located immediately to the south of Lochrin Place to the south of Lochrin Terrace. We would like an assurance that this will be ‘green man on demand’ unlike the current ‘dumb’ crossing which is activated by the Home St / Gilmore Place junction signals.
  • We oppose the ‘footway loading bay’ on the southern part of the east side of Home Street. This leaves only 2.5 m of footway clear for pedestrians and will encourage footway parking in the vicinity outside the designated bay, unless bounded by bollards.
  • There is a need for a shelter with seating at the bus stop on the western side outside the Cameo cinema.
  • We would ask that the decluttering exercise which will be conducted extends north on both sides of Home Street to the Tollcross junction.

Gilmore Place:

  • The pavements at the junction of Gilmore Place with Home/Leven Streets are very busy and congested and need to be improved. As suggested above, we advocate reducing the eastbound lanes out of Gilmore Place from two to one in order to achieve this. The northern pavement close is currently 2.3 metres wide, with a minimum clear walking zone of 1.8 metres; wholly inadequate for a place where many people gather to cross the road. The southern pavement is only 1.6 metres wide (ESDG requires an ‘absolute minimum’ of 2m). In the longer term, the council should consider compulsory purchase and demolition of the ugly building extension occupied at present by part of the TukTuk restaurant. This would improve the corner visually, but more importantly would free-up significant road space for walking and potentially cycling.

Tarvit Street (inc. Drumdryan St):

  • We welcome the concept of closing Tarvit Street to general traffic (expect bicycles) and introducing a small pedestrian zone at its western end. We believe that this, currently unlovely, space would be much improved as a pedestrian area, and should allow the potential of the Kings Theatre to have a positive impact on its immediate area to be exploited. However we have some concerns or queries about how it will operate.
  • It is designated as a “Traffic Free Street (except for loading)”.  This raises a number of questions: Will any vehicle ‘loading’ be permitted to use the street? Are there limits intended to the times when loading is to be permitted? (The bay is marked as suggesting this is only between 22.00 and 10.00 hours). How will enforcement be carried out? (Edinburgh’s record in similar streets like Castle Street and Grassmarket is not encouraging). Presumably loading vehicles (including HGVs servicing the Kings Theatre) will have to exit Tarvit Street westbound, and that there will therefore need to be traffic signals (which will apply also to cyclists)? We note that the southern footway remains extremely narrow and below the Council’s ESDG ‘absolute minimum’ standard of 2m. This would not necessarily be a problem if part of an effectively pedestrianised street, but would not be desirable if vehicles are frequently in the loading bay.
  • East of the junction with Drumdryan Street, the pavements on both side of Tarvit Street appear to fall short of the “absolute minimum standard” specified by the Council. The pavements here and on all streets included within the scope of the project (including all of Drumdryan Street) must be improved to meet this standard at the “absolute minimum”. If this cannot be delivered in a once in a generation ‘walking and cycling scheme’, it never will. An informal crossing with dropped kerb/tactiles should be installed at the eastern side of the Drumdryan/Tarvit Street junction, to facilitate pedestrian movement from the south side of Tarvit street to the northern pavement at this junction.

Brougham Place:

  • We welcome the provision of a new Toucan crossing to the south of Tarvit Street which is on a pedestrian desire line.
  • We note that the western footway of Brougham Place between Tarvit Street and Leven Terrace is 2.3 metres wide. Currently, the width of this pavement is significantly reduced by a hedge. It is essential that there is a firm commitment by the Council to enforce the obligation of frontagers to restrict vegetation from encroaching on pavements. Otherwise, this footway will need to be widened.

Valleyfield Street:

  • Minimum footway widths must be provided; at the eastern half of the street, the northern footway is currently 1.8 metres wide, and the southern 1.75m, where there is also a Clear Walking Zone of only 1.2m at the lampposts, further reduced to 0.8 by the hedge at the eastern end. This compares to the ESDG standard of footway ‘absolute minimum’ width of 2m and a ‘clear walking zone absolute minimum’ of 1.5m.
  • Continuous footways should be provided on the south side at two garage entries.

Leven Terrace:

  • The closure of Tarvit Street to vehicles coming from Melville Drive direction is likely to increase traffic on Leven Terrace. Measures which might need to be considered include traffic calming, and changing the ‘Give Way’ at the junction with Valleyfield St, so that Leven Street traffic must pause or stop.
  • We note the intention to provide new, separate routes for walking and cycling across the section of park between Leven Terrace and the Meadows.  We would seek confirmation that this will not involve the loss of any mature trees, and also that the most direct route (which is the walking desire line) is designated for walking, rather than cycling (otherwise, people will continue to walk in the cycle lane).
  • We also note that there is no intention to add a footway to the eastern side of Leven Terrace, which is currently missing entirely. The need for this should be assessed.

D. Conclusion

We welcome the improvements to the Tollcross area which will bring many benefits to local pedestrians, children attending Tollcross Primary School and visitors to attractions such as the Kings Theatre and Cameo Cinema.

We think, however that some bolder, though incremental, measures can be included in this scheme to reduce the dominance of traffic and the space given to accommodate it (especially Ponton Street and Gilmore Place).  There are also many missed opportunities to widen inadequate footways in residential streets, and we strongly oppose the reduction in footway width in a section of Home Street which would worsen the walking experience in this important part of the Tollcross ‘town centre’.

***

Appendix: Living Streets Edinburgh ‘Walkability Criteria’

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is keen to ensure that all types of transport and public realm schemes – whether routine maintenance or new initiatives – improve the walking environment. We would like to see each scheme satisfy the following fundamental aims:

  1. compliance with the Council’s Street Design Guidance [http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/550/edinburgh_street_design_guidance] – at the very least, its minimum standards, eg on footway width and frequency of pedestrian crossings, and,
  2. compliance with the transport hierarchy set out in Scottish Planning Policy (2014) – https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/pages/8/including ‘Plans should identify active travel networks and promote opportunities for travel by more sustainable modes in the following order of priority: walking, cycling, public transport, cars’.

LSEG does not have the resources to examine and comment in detail on every transport and public realm proposal; our view on whether a scheme design has satisfied these fundamental aims will be determined by Council answers to the following questions on ‘walkability’ criteria:

  1. How does the design contribute to the Council’s strategic objective to promote walking [as set out in the Active Travel Plan http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20087/cycling_and_walking/1791/cycling_and_walking_projects/1]?
  2. Does the scheme comply in detail with the Council’s Street Design Guidance, for example with regard to footway widths, frequency of pedestrian crossing points, decluttering, continuous footways over side street junctions, and junction corner radii (amongst many other issues)? Where does it fail to comply?
  3. Are pedestrian crossing points convenient in terms of proximity, waiting times, directness and time to cross, especially for less able users?
  4. Does the scheme as a whole improve road safety, especially in terms of vehicle speeds at junctions and crossing points?
  5. Has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out? If so, what are the chief impacts on disabled or elderly pedestrians?
  6. Which walking elements of the scheme represent a quantitative / qualitative enhancement or deterioration of current walking facilities, eg footway widths?
  7. In what ways does it avoid pedestrian conflicts with other road users (including motor vehicles and cyclists), eg by providing dedicated and well-defined space for pedestrians and avoiding ‘shared spaces’?