Tag Archives: Active Travel

Comments received from the public on Pedestrian Crossings, April 2026

News, , ,

The following table records feedback which we received through emails and social media on the experiences of pedestrians at ‘stand-alone’ crossings (‘Pelicans’, ‘Puffins’ etc.) This follows reports to the Transport and Environment Committee on 2 April that 24 pedestrian crossings were to be changed, having been found to have excessive ‘wait times’ for people wanting to cross the road (Item 8.3 https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7659.)

We are asking Council staff to investigate the crossings listed below, many of which still don’t seem to meet council standards. In particular, they should:

  • conform to the maximum 20 seconds wait time for  pedestrians, and;
  • the green man should come on ‘on demand’ So long as speed limits are 30mph or less).

This feedback is reported verbatim as received. Some of these reported problems appear to relate to traffic signalled junctions, which operate differently. Where possible, we have tried to match the reported locations of the crossings with the Site ID as recorded in Appendix 1 of the Committee report to help council staff investigate issues, although these should be checked.

In addition, we received a lot of general positive feedback (“well done”, “good start; lots more to do”, etc.) and also several requests for a ‘countdown’ system at lights.

IDVerbatim comments from the public
313Broughton Road pedestrian crossing outside Tesco is very slow. 
 St Johns Rd Corstorphine outside the Post Office. Take sandwiches and a flask !!!
631Toucan crossing outside St Mary’s Cathedral – it was mentioned by a few people when you first asked about this because there’s almost no point pressing the button. It only turns red for traffic once all the traffic has gone, and the council have never replied to any of my queries about it.
 It is 70 seconds on Slateford Road. Sometimes longer if you happen to push the button just after the change of lights on Robertson Avenue.
 Who’s testing these? The one further down Comiston Road at the parade of shops only goes green when no cars are coming
 Thats a bit weird. My experience with the ones on Craigentinny Road is that when you press the button its just a few seconds before the green man comes on so ive never ever encountered a problem.
 Good start, Next, Queensferry Road at Clermiston Road Queensferry Road at Quality Street/Craigcrook Road
 How about Princes Street and Tollcross? The wait times are terrible, never mind that there’s not enough time to cross.
 Princes Street is particularly bad
353?Crewe Road south one feels more like 20mins just now so it’s good to see it being included in this plan. Currently it encourages pedestrians to take risks to catch buses stopping opposite.
300?Never waited more than 20 seconds at Whitehill street the old traffic lights or new ones installed towards the end of last year
 Princes Street at South St David Street is ridiculously slow with large numbers of people having to wait to cross.
 Still 4 mins (2x 2 min crossings to cross the whole carriageway) at Queensferry Road at Braehead Avenue
333Green man is not “on demand” and 30 seconds wait at Holyrood Road (Paterson’s Land)
 The Morrisons one on Ferry Road isn’t slow in the slightest
 Maybe sort out the crossing at Hope Park Crescent at it operates a green man without a pedestrian there causing a gridlock!
 We’ve got one in Stockbridge that doesn’t beep and there’s no high up green man. its amazing how many people don’t realise the green man is on. Absolutely useless for the hard of hearing.
 St John’s Road outside the White Lady and the Post Office are shockingly bad. Over a minute wait at both!
 Next Queensferry Rd at Blackhall library. Press Button, waits minutes until road is empty, then goes red. You’ve crossed when the road is empty. Drivers then annoyed that no-one crosses on red light. Nonsense!
 Bonnington Toll (Bonnington Rd, Pirig St/Newhaven Road)! That one’s an absolute joke. You don’t just wait more than 20 seconds, you can wait a good few minutes!
370?The green man on Colinton Road at the Tennis Centre does not operate ‘on demand’

LSEG

April 2026

“Barnton Connections’: comments by LSE

Consultation Response, , , , ,

This is the formal response by Living Streets Edinburgh (LSEG) to the consultation on the ‘Barnton Connections’ active travel proposals closing on 9 February 2026.

We agree with the aim of connecting Maybury Road to NCN 1, and also improving the ability to cross Queensferry Road by walking and wheeling, especially in view of the massive increase in housing in the Cammo/West Craigs areas and consequent need to promote sustainable travel options in the area. We recognise that this is a very challenging brief given the amount of traffic using Barnton junction.

We provisionally support the proposals, with one specific exception regarding bus stops (see below). We say “provisionally” for three reasons: firstly because we understand that no modelling of pedestrian movement has been undertaken; without understanding how pedestrian movement is affected, for better or worse, we can’t provide definitive comment on the plans. This modelling should be an essential exercise in any major junction change.

Secondly, the proposals do not seem to include any new bus priority measures. In view of the importance of the A90 as the principal road link between Fife and Edinburgh, the focus on cycling, walking and wheeling on a north/south axis seems narrow: a wider brief which includes general traffic and especially public transport as well as pedestrian and cycle links would seem appropriate.

Finally we wonder, in view of all these complexities as well as expense and disruption, whether Maybury Road-Whitehouse Road directly across the Barnton Junction is the most sensible route to link cyclists from the south of the A 90 to NCN1. We note that the Cramond Barnton and Cammo Community Council suggest that a number of alternative routes may be more appropriate to connect key cycle links. We do not feel in a position to support or oppose this suggestion but believe that it should be looked at carefully.

Turning to specific aspects of the presented design, we would make the following comments:

We especially welcome the cycle/pedestrian route over Queensferry Road at the west side of the Barnton junction changing from a 4-phase to a 2-phase crossing, which we expect should enhance pedestrian movement significantly. We would ideally like to see improved crossing opportunities to the east of the junction as well.

Other welcome aspects include the new signalised crossing on Maybury Road at Cammo Gardens, particularly given the amount of new housing development in the area and the volume of traffic on Maybury Road. We are pleased to see some pedestrian build-outs which improve side road junctions, for example at Barnton Avenue West/Brae Park, Barnton Grove and Queensferry Road itself. The removal of hatching on Whitehouse Road allows a better use of the carriageway, especially as we understand the speed limit is to rightly be reduced to 20mph. A lot of space at Barnton junction itself is unpleasant with excessive guard rails and new planting would be welcome. The walking routes and space at the shops and past the Royal Burgess Golf Society are currently poor and would be made more pedestrian-friendly by these proposals.

The switch of the cycle lane from the west to the east side of Whitehouse Road just north of the shops looks odd. Presumably this is to minimise the number of side road junctions interacting with the cycle lane: however, most northbound cyclists heading from Barnton towards South Queensferry or Cramond would surely continue to use the road rather than cross over to the cycleway (and then back again)?

On the negative side, there appears to be little if any, general footway widening except at some junction build-outs. Indeed there seems to be a slight reduction in many footway widths. The ‘criss-crossing’ of the pavements by cycle ways at junctions (including Barnton Junction) should be avoided: many pedestrians, especially those who are older, less mobile or have sensory impairments, value pavements as spaces where they feel safe from potential conflict with any vehicle, including bicycles.

We are disappointed to see two new ‘floating’ bus stops installed on Whitehouse Road; we receive regular feedback that these are a problem for older and disabled people, especially visually impaired. The northern-most bus stop has no footway at all, so requires pedestrians to cross the cycleway twice to move along the pavement, even if they aren’t catching a bus. This is a clear breach of council ESDG standards; we would therefore like to see conventional bus stops retained.

February 2026

Response from LSE regarding Improving Charlotte Square Project.

City Centre Transformation, City Mobility Plan, Consultation Response, , ,

While we recognise that the plans for Charlotte Square will have benefits for pedestrians including improved accessibility, we believe that the latest designs do not fully consider the needs of pedestrians and their safety.

In particular, we consider that the following issues require further consideration:

  1. The location of the pedestrian crossings from George Street to Charlotte Square do not meet desire lines and therefore there is a risk that pedestrians will use other means to cross Charlotte Street.  How have the locations for the planned pedestrian crossings been selected?

  2. These crossings are across three lanes of traffic and a cycle path. Clearly the time available for pedestrians to cross this busy road needs to be adequate for all walkers and wheelers including those with impaired mobility. Do these crossings meet the latest national design guidance for such infrastructure? Has any modelling of pedestrian footfall been undertaken to confirm that the crossing space is adequate? 

  3. From our monitoring of the pedestrian crossings at the junction of Charlotte Street and Princes Street we have observed vehicles “jumping the red lights” at these crossings. We are concerned that due to the significant traffic on Charlotte Street and the potential for congestion that drivers may be tempted to do the same at the new crossings. The design and signage of these crossings need to reflect the expected volume of vehicles and pedestrians.
  • We understand that it is currently planned to install a non-signalised crossing on the south side of Charlotte Square. Given the traffic volumes, the proximity to the junction with Hope Street and the width of the road we strongly believe that this decision should be revisited on the grounds of pedestrian safety. A signalised crossing would provide a much safer option for pedestrians.

We are also concerned that this project is being progressed at the expense of other projects in the City Mobility Plan and question whether the maximum score for impact on walkers and wheelers is justified. This is not a high footfall area nor are there known road safety concerns in contrast to the Cowgate where we have strongly advocated for changes to improve road safety. Given the limited funds available it is critical that they are spent on the areas which will deliver the greatest benefit in line with the Council’s published travel hierarchy.

Put pedestrians first in active travel schemes, say walking campaigners

Consultation Response, Press Release, , , , , , , ,

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

Deputation to TEC on Road Safety, November 2025

20mph, Council Policy, News, Road Safety, , , , ,

Deputation by Living Streets Edinburgh Group regarding TEC Item 7.6, 13 November 2025 (Road Safety Plan Update)

This report includes a number of important topics particularly school travel plans and pedestrian crossings as well as road safety. We would like to make the following brief comments on some key aspects.

Resources

All these crucial activities are hampered by lack of both capital budget and staff resources. We were disappointed that these themes were not included in the list of programmes for capital funding when this committee carried out its prioritisation exercise in May. We hope that at there will be explicit programmes for these items when TEC next reviews capital priorities. For example, funding for the ‘Action for Better Crossings’ initiative, which is a central part of the CMP’s active travel plan, would enable a much more strategic approach to investing in traffic signals and pedestrian crossings. This would not only help people to cross the road safely and easily, but also enhance bus and cycle priority through better use of smart technology. Capital funding needs to be matched by appropriate levels of staff capacity.

School travel plans

We understand that the onus on completing and publishing school travel plans is increasingly shifting from transport staff to schools. We think this is a mistake and will only weaken efforts to encourage safe and sustainable travel to school, given that schools and their head teachers have so many other responsibilities and priorities. Committee has previously observed that only nine school travel plans are currently published on the Council’s website https://www.streetsaheadedinburgh.org.uk/school-streets-1.

Communication and coordination between plans for school travel on the one hand, and active travel on the other, need to be improved. This is illustrated by the recent proposal for three zebra crossings in the Shandon area as part of the Dundee Street active travel scheme. The proposed crossing on Ashley Terrace linking with a new cycleway is more than 50 metres away from the location where the community has wanted for 10 years or more: Craiglockhart Primary School,

Pedestrian crossings

We are disappointed to see continued (partial) reliance on the so-called PV2 method to assess the need for pedestrian crossings which we consider to be obsolete. We would welcome discussion with officers on the methodology, in line with the suggestions which we made in 2022: https://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2022/07/19/lseg-suggestions-on-a-new-approach-to-pedestrian-crossings-july-2022/

Enforcement of speeding and other traffic offences

We have actively supported the Council’s introduction of 20mph speed limits for more than 10 years, and continue to support measures to reduce speed which have undoubtedly saved many injuries and prevented some deaths. However, we are surprised at the absence of any mention in the report of speed and red light cameras, which are a crucial tool to encourage responsible driving. This is especially true for roads which are engineered for higher speeds than 20mph, where compliance with speed limits will be low. Our Freedom of Information request in August revealed that one third of cameras in the city are currently ‘bagged’ and no fewer than 8 were taken out of action this summer alone: bit.ly/47Vjm2W. We recognise that it is the Safety Camera Partnership led by Police Scotland which is responsible for these cameras, not the Council; but as a key partner, we urge the City of Edinburgh Council to press for more use of safety cameras.

We have also written to both Scottish and UK ministers calling for the revenues from these cameras to be retained by the enforcement agency, Police Scotland bit.ly/4mEjR5B. This is necessary because Police Scotland bears the cost of maintaining and replacing cameras which generate no income to them from penalties. This provides an unhelpful financial incentive to withdraw cameras, rather than to extend their deployment as needed.

Living Streets Edinburgh Group

November 2025