Tag Archives: Active Travel

Strategic Transport Projects Review/ STPR2 – Comments by LSE

Consultation Response, News, , , , , ,

Living Streets Edinburgh Group is the local voluntary branch of the national campaign for everyday walking and wheeling. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Government’s draft proposals for capital investment in transport over the next 20 years (STPR2).  https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/strategy/strategic-transport-projects-review-2/

Walking and Wheeling

The draft STPR2 proposals completely fail to recognise the importance, or scale of the task, of improving pedestrian spaces in Scotland. With ‘walking and wheeling’ top of the Scottish Government’s own sustainable travel hierarchy, the lack of any coherent programme to improve the everyday pedestrian experience is a serious omission which, unless rectified, would greatly undermine the opportunity to achieve the Government’s social, economic and environmental objectives.

There is a wealth of evidence on the negative effects of, and inequalities caused by, poor walking environments. Given the emphasis in STPR2 on ‘evidence-based’ decision-making, it is essential that an ambitious programme to improve the legacy of inaccessible, inadequate and poor quality infrastructure is adopted as a strategic priority.

In particular, we call for:

  • the inclusion of local roads in the scope of the STPR2. This is vital for the achievement of many of the recommendations, including ‘Connected Neighbourhoods’ (#1) and ‘Increasing Active Travel to Schools’ (#8).
  • a specific theme on improving pavements – both widening them and improving the surface quality. The wider pavements introduced by the City of Edinburgh Council in local town centres as part of ‘Spaces for People’ have almost all been removed. We wrote to Ministers in 2021 (jointly with Spokes Lothian) asking that capital funding is made available to councils to ensure that infrastructure is introduced to replace temporary schemes which is fit for purpose in the long term: The STPR2 is the opportunity to address this.
  • investment in walk-friendly junctions. Scotland (like the rest of the UK) has a massive legacy of street design which favours vehicles, not people. Junction splays in many residential areas are wide, favouring 30+ mph speeds even where those limits have been reduced to 20 mph. There is a huge job to redesign junctions with a tighter radius and shorter crossing route for pedestrians.
  • investment in traffic signals and pedestrian crossings. Much signalling infrastructure is out of date and cannot easily be adapted to give priority to travel modes which we need to put first – public transport, cycling and especially of course, walking.  We have documented pedestrian wait times at dozens of signalled crossings in Edinburgh and found many to be quite unacceptable: . On a positive note, there is a massive opportunity to improve them at relatively modest investment.
  • a national programme of investment in dropped kerbs and continuous footways. In Edinburgh, we have been told that 17,000 out of 22,000 junctions have no, or substandard, kerb arrangements. These make pavements dangerous – or simply unusable – for many pedestrians, especially disabled people.
  • a national effort to reduce pavement clutter (and to stop adding to it). This includes management of temporary obstructions such as hedges and bins, and removal of unnecessary fixed structures such as signage poles and guard rails, many of which persist despite changes in legislation (TSRGD 2016) and recognised best practice. New threats to pavements such as telecoms cabinets and EV chargers must be avoided. See our reports and video resources for further information here: .
  • an initiative to encourage the provision of seats and toilets, especially in high footfall areas. Both of these simple, modest measures are important to many pedestrians – and especially for older people, children, disabled people and women. A national programme which increased such provision would make many areas more attractive and inclusive at modest cost.

Cycling

We support investment in cycling infrastructure, especially in routes which will encourage more people to commute into Edinburgh by bike, rather than by car. However, the recommendations under the ‘Active Travel’ theme do not have the right balance between walking/wheeling on the one hand, and cycling on the other, and this section does not properly reflect the agreed ‘sustainable travel hierarchy’.

Influencing Travel Choices

We strongly support the wider rollout of 20 mph speed limits in residential and shopping areas. However, they need to be accompanied by both engineering and enforcement measures. Many streets are designed for 30mph+ travel and driver compliance is known to be lower in such circumstances. There is enormous scope for imaginative use of new technology to assist with compliance, education and enforcement.

Measures to encourage active travel to school are very important. Our comments under the first active travel theme are relevant here. Official data (TaTiS 2019) shows that 52% of children currently walk to school in Scotland, which is an encouraging basis to build on. Only 2% of children cycle and while there is certainly scope to increase this figure, this data underlines again the need for active travel efforts to focus much more on safe walking environments.

Public transport

We support investment in the public transport measures with two qualifications. It is vital that good quality public transport is available if car reduction targets are to be achieved. However, we don’t support the recommendations on ‘DRT and MaaS’ (#20) or ‘mobility hubs’ (#22) as they stand.  We consider these initiatives to be over-hyped and lacking an evidence base that they will make a significant contribution to improved public mobility. We suggest instead that investment in DRT focuses on exploring opportunities there may be to develop existing DRT services such as community transport (which is under-funded), taxis and private hire cars. ‘Mobility hubs’ should be seen simply as one aspect of better transport interchanges (#21) rather than as a separate recommendation in its own right.

Increasing …resilience

The STPR2 has far too many ‘get out clauses’ which could be used to justify further significant investment in trunk roads and motorways, especially under the ‘Increasing safety and resilience’ theme.  For example, “Junction improvements, carriageway widening, route realignment and provision of overtaking opportunities” (#30) are not the priorities Scotland needs. These recommendations are not consistent with the ambitious national targets to reduce motor traffic, and would have an enormous opportunity cost in reducing the scope for investment in everyday walking and wheeling.

Planning policy

Investment in infrastructure needs to be accompanied by complementary planning policy. The ‘Infrastructure First’ principle, advocated in the draft NPF4, is essential so that new developments do not proceed until suitable sustainable transport options are in place. This is especially important around Edinburgh; for example the housing developments around West Craigs and Winchburgh where it appears that the essential new railway station may be in doubt despite massive housing expansion.

This document can be downloaded as a pdf here

LivingStreets Edinburgh Group: our manifesto for Council elections May 2022

City Centre Transformation, Council Policy, News, , , ,

Please see our manifesto for the 2022 council elections. We hope that all parties and all candidates will adopt these policies, to make Edinburgh the wonderfully walkable city it should be. Please help get walking and wheeling given the priority it needs by asking your councillor and candidates for their support!

Living Streets Edinburgh is the local group of the national charity that campaigns for everyday walking and wheeling. Edinburgh is essentially a wonderful city for walking, thanks to its size, history and geography. However, the pedestrian environment is often substandard and overlooked by policy makers. We want everyday walking to be accessible, attractive, convenient and quick.

All parties in the current council agreed in August 2020 that walking is “top of the sustainable movement hierarchy”. But in practice walking is often given inadequate priority and funding, despite it being the greenest and most universal way that people travel.  We ask all candidates and political parties standing for election in May 2022 to support the following actions for the next council term:

Reduce motor traffic

  • Reduce road space for motor vehicles, including supporting low traffic zones and reducing on-street parking spaces;
  • provide better alternatives for people to travel by walking, cycling and public transport;
  • adopt a tougher approach to enforcement of antisocial parking – including at bus stops, schools and in bus and cycle lanes;
  • early and ‘zero tolerance’ enforcement of the pavement parking ban when it is introduced.

Improve pavements

  • Introduce proper wider pavements in all ‘town centre’ locations, replacing the temporary ‘spaces for people’ measures;
  • make pavements smooth and trip-free with a 20% increase in footway maintenance budgets;
  • set a new budget to remove pavement clutter, and stop adding to it (for example through EV chargers);
  • introduce at least 100 dropped kerbs (or continuous pavements) a year where they are missing.

Improve pedestrian crossings

  • Review every signalled pedestrian crossing to reduce the time people have to wait to cross;
  • increase the ‘green man time’ for pedestrians to a minimum of 10 seconds;
  • increase the pedestrian crossing budget by 20% and support the widespread introduction of low cost crossings such as ‘informal zebras’.

Make roads safer

  • Renew the council’s road safety plan with a vision zero approach – there should be no deaths or serious injuries from traffic collisions by 2030;
  • increase enforcement of road traffic offences such as speeding and red light jumping, with a big increase in the use of speed cameras;
  • introduce a safe travel plan for every school in the city which either removes traffic from the school gates or (where not possible) makes the pavement wider.

Use planning controls effectively

  • Encourage car-free housing on brownfield sites;
  • reject car-dependent applications including commercial ventures such as ‘drive through’s;
  • ensure developers pay a fair contribution to improving pedestrian spaces through voluntary or ‘Section 75’ payments.

https://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk

November 2021

A Wrong Step at East Craigs

Low Traffic Neighbourhood, , , ,

Reflections on the Low Traffic Neighbourhood from an East Craigs resident

You always have a sense of unease when walking or cycling around Edinburgh West. Residents here are very aware of the proximity of strategic road transport networks in all directions, commercial districts popping up and huge developmental pressure on the green belt. 

On the arterial routes that encase the East Craigs community, you feel one wrong step, a mis-timed mirror check or mis-placed pedal could, at any point, lead immediately to fatal collision. Everyone in the area has a story regarding their own near miss. For parents of young children, the sense of dread is amplified. 

So is it any wonder that, as a resident, I should speak in favour of any traffic-calming or traffic-reducing proposals that protect residents from the development pressures in every direction? While such proposals were once firmly placed on the table by the Council, now, following a legislative back and forth on statutory consultation, we are back to square one, with nothing to show. There is currently no available option to move away from the status quo of increasing the neighbourhood’s exposure to congestion and the risk of pedestrian fatality. All plans have been dropped.

How we arrived at this point is explained by the fact that such measures were not initially proposals at all, but concrete plans brought forward by the Council under emergency legislation. The council mis-read the signs of what was being vocalised by the community, on what was deemed to be insufficient consultation. This was likely the spark that lit the powder keg of objections, led by voicesacross social media who would rather see nothing happen at all. 

Make no mistake, that there will be a place in society for car transport for years to come, and we at Living Streets Edinburgh and many advocates of active travel, recognise fully the importance of car transport for those with specific mobility issues. However, what must be considered is that our community is part of a wider city and in the regional crossroads of a country recovering from a pandemic and subject to significant developmental pressures. Having a choice of transport options available to get around is therefore essential, not least for those in the area that can’t afford to buy and run a car.

Inaction is not an option. To achieve the national and local objectives of mitigating climate change, local air pollution, congestion and adverse health consequences of our collective transport choices, meanwhile fostering community,  we have to see some degree of intervention from our local authorities. Interventions that prioritise pedestrians and active travel is essentially a ‘buy one, get five free’.

The common ground is that we all seek solutions to our local transport problems, so we have to have faith in any sort of process that challenges the status quo. Living Streets Edinburgh looks forward to the continued progress of the West Edinburgh Link, permanency of the SfP measures introduced thus far, and future proposals within East Craigs that encourage a modal shift to active travel and links with public transport. Placemaking and improvement should be at the heart of these proposals to encourage less everyday car use. Linking the community to other parts of the area is also sought, and the Council should consider safer and direct pedestrian crossings across all the busy arterial routes for more everyday access to the amenity in the wider area.

John Kennedy

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

Consultation Response, Cycle Routes, , , , , ,

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

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

Pedestrian improvements

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

Floating Bus stops

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

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

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

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

Choices for City Plan 2030 – LSE Comments

Consultation Response, Council Policy, , , , , , ,

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 (including “wheeling” (on wheelchairs) and similar pedestrian mobility) as a safe, easy and enjoyable way of getting around the city.

For LSEG the focus for City Plan 2030 has to be delivering for people.  The purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest, which is commonly accepted as being the welfare or well-being of the general public.  In other words, to provide for people, a species designed to walk on 2 legs, it is our default mode of transport.  Walking is by far the most common and universal travel mode, forming an essential part of many journey chains by bus, train, car, bike etc, as well as ‘walk-only’ journeys.

Yet we have a planning system that for too long has bent over backwards to prioritise and accommodate motorized transport, principally the private car.  Finally, this is now widely accepted as not being in the long-term public interest.    So there is an opportunity for City Plan 2030 to press the reset button and actually plan for the long-term public interest, putting people first.

As well as reversing a longstanding failure of planning as a discipline, this will actually result in a local development plan that complies with Scottish Government policy.   Walking is unambiguously top of both the ‘movement hierarchy’ as laid down in Scottish Planning Policy i and the ‘Sustainable Travel Hierarchy’ in the new National Transport Strategy 2ii. However, while lip service is often paid to the theoretical primacy of walking, it is rarely put into practice and when there is mention, walking is often conflated with cycling.

Despite being Scottish Government policy, Choices for City Plan 2030 regrettably makes no mention whatsoever of the movement hierarchy or the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy – this is an unforgiveable omission, which, unless addressed, must bring into question the Council’s commitment to everyday walking and adherence to national policy.

City Plan 2030 must work in tandem with the City Mobility Plan and deliver the principles of the movement hierarchy across the whole city applying them to established streets and places as well as new developments.  Successful places are those which work for people, not just vehicles, so comprehensive delivery is required across the city to get an integrated package working for the whole community, not only those in new developments.  This is critical in order to address the past failure of the planning system.

The consultation started before the current emergency, so in preparing City Plan 2030 it would be an abdication of responsibility for the Council not to take account of relevant lessons learnt.  It has been demonstrated that many jobs can be carried out from home, it is therefore perfectly feasible that employers may build on this experience and change working patterns as there will be cost savings, enhanced efficiency and, as a by-product, less pressure on transport infrastructure.  It is abundantly obvious to all that current traffic reduction has meant the streets have been more pleasant places to inhabit and this, combined with the likelihood of long term social distancing requirements, means that more space is needed for walking.  It is therefore beholden on the Council to grasp reality, to actively encourage far more home working, to reconsider where new housing should be located, to seriously restrict private vehicle movements and to invest much more in walking and public transport infrastructure.  There may also be reduced demand for new office space and the possibility that some existing office space could be converted to housing or other suitable community uses.  All of this has to be carefully considered and assumptions re-evaluated.  Living Streets Edinburgh Group would like to be part of this process.

 

Detailed Comments

Introduction

p3 – Support the 4 aims for 2030, particularly “a sustainable city” and “a city where you don’t need a car to move around”, but this obviously requires the services, infrastructure, development locations and quality of environment to allow it to happen.  The Choices for City Plan 2030

p5  – Generally support the choices under the aims, but need to go much further:

  • 1 should be revised to “Making Edinburgh a sustainable, active and connected city based firmly on the movement hierarchy as set out in para 273 of Scottish Planning Policy”.
  • 2 should be revised to “Improving the quality, density and accessibility of development and ensuring that all new development in the city centre is car free apart from essential parking provision for disabled, visitors and car clubs. This policy shall apply across the whole city by the end of the plan period.”
  • 6 should be revised to “Creating places and enhancing existing streets and places to focus on people not cars”.
  • 7 should be revised to “Supporting the reduction in car use in Edinburgh to those which are essential”.
  • 8 should be revised to “Delivering new walking and cycling routes and enhancing existing streets and paths to ensure that walking has priority”.
  • 12 should be revised to “Building our new homes and infrastructure in locations and with layouts where walking is the most viable means of movement, including good routes to a variety of public transport options.”

 

Choice 2 – Improving the quality, density and accessibility of development

p9  – Support the thrust of the changes, strongly agree with increased density objective in “B”, but “A” should include specific reference to car free developments and “C” should refer to the movement hierarchy in para 273 of Scottish Planning Policy as well as the six qualities of successful places.

A city where you don’t need to own a car to move around

p13 – Strongly support the objective, but if it is intended that you don’t need a car to move around, then there should be specific reference that new developments will be car free and no provision made for parking other than disabled, servicing and essential visitors.

Choice 5 – Delivering Community Infrastructure

p15/16 – Transport Infrastructure section should make it clear that infrastructure will be provided in line with the movement hierarchy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy.  Whilst specific walking routes are welcome, there also has to be reference to improvements to the fabric and management of all streets in the city, new and existing, to accommodate walking as the priority means of movement.  Within this context “A” should have specific reference to walking infrastructure.

Choice 6 – Creating places that focus on people, not cars

p18 – Strongly support Choice 6 Creating places that focus on people, not cars.  In the supporting text there has to be specific reference to the movement hierarchy in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy, with the movement hierarchy set out in the correct order of priority with walking first.  There should also be reference to enhancing established places across the city to reflect the same priorities so that benefits will be enjoyed by the entire community, not just those in new developments.  The target referred to in “A” should be zero car use other than provision for disabled, servicing and essential visitors.  If new development cannot deliver this, then it should not be permitted. Within this context “B” needs to be reworded to delete reference to appropriate parking levels, you must not use phrases that allow wriggle room for either developers or decision makers.

Choice 7 – Supporting the reduction in car use in Edinburgh

p19 – Support Choice 7 but it has to be strengthened so suggest rewording it to read “Help to deliver significant reduction in car use in Edinburgh”.  Proposed changes “A”, “B” and “C” require revision to make it clear that there will be no provision in any development for car parking other than for disabled, servicing and essential visitors. This must be in tandem with phasing out of on street parking across the city.  A start should be made by defining a central area car-free zone, within which no new residential parking permits wold be issued.

Choice 8 – Delivering new walking and cycling routes

p21 – Support Choice 8, but it has to be strengthened so suggest rewording it to read “Delivering new walking and cycling routes and enhancing existing provision for walking throughout the city”.  The Plan needs to recognise that for most people on foot, their “walking network” consists of the pavements around their home, place of work or education.  The emphasis on new cycle routes is disproportionate and “delivering new walking and cycle routes” is much less important than improving existing ones: this means improving pavements, widening them, more road crossings, traffic calming, etc. S75 opportunities.  In recognition of the importance of everyday walking this should be reflected in the proposed changes and there should be specific reference to the movement hierarchy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy.

It is appreciated that the provision and enhancement of walking infrastructure has a cost attached.  This should be secured via revisions to the Council’s policy and guidance on developer contributions.  The existing supplementary guidance ignores walking, contrary to the Scottish Government hierarchy.  Delivery of Choices 6, 7 and 8 will require significant investment which must come from developers as part of individual developments and/or via developer contributions in Section 75 Planning Obligations.  Higher density developments with less car parking and fewer contributions towards traditional road schemes will assist with delivery for walking.

Choice 10 – Creating sustainable communities

p26 – Revise para 3 in text box to read “reduce the amount and type of student housing…”

Choice 12 – Building our new homes and infrastructure

p28 – Point “C” in the text box under Choice 12 should be revised to read “Where we will deliver the homes in the most sustainable way to conform with the movement hierarchy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy”.

p30– Strongly support the Council in preferring Option1 Delivery within the Urban Area as it is the only option that can provide for walking in accordance with the movement hierarchy as well as helping to deliver on wider sustainability objectives.

p31 – Having set out its preferred Option, it is disappointing that the Council chooses to focus on the difficulties in delivering it, rather than the benefits that will accrue if it is delivered.  Delivery in accordance with the movement hierarchy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy is only possible with this Option.  Any other option will fail to comply with Scottish Planning Policy.  The Council must embrace the same spirit that lies behind the City Centre Transformation project, and be resolute, bold and focused beyond the short term.

p32 – If the Council pursues car free developments and is imaginative with design, layout and density, the available space will generate more than the 17600 new housing units quoted.

p35-46 – The options set out in Maps 9-14 and supporting text will fail to deliver in accordance with the movement hierarchy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy, and most certainly lead to an increase in car use which is contrary to national planning policy and the stated thrust of the City Plan process.

Choice 15 – Protecting our City Centre, Town and Local Centres

p54 – Fully support Choice 15 and note reference to active travel and walking distance with regard to new shops outwith centres.  However, the best way of protecting our existing centres is to acknowledge that they are primarily places for people, so policy has to be led by the movement hierarchy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy and the National Transport Strategy.  Is there evidence to support the new hotel provision proposed in “E” given the identified need for more permanent housing?  There is a need for more city centre homes as well as more housing across the city and the increased density proposals will help to deliver this, but it has to be prioritised over hotel and Air BnB type provision.  The proposed changes need to be reworded to reflect this and introduce proposals for established centres to prioritise people and walking.

Choice 16 – Delivering Office, Business and Industry Floorspace

p56 & 59 – Choice 16 should make it clear that office, business and industry floorspace will only be provided in locations where it can be easily accessed by public transport and where there is good infrastructure for walking and cycling.  It should be made clear that onsite parking will be restricted to that required for disabled, servicing and essential visitors.  In addition to minimising vehicle movements, this will allow more efficient use of land and free up space for enhanced green infrastructure.  As stated in our initial comments, there also has to be recognition that more provision should be made for homeworking, in new and existing housing – perhaps one positive to come out of the current COVID-19 crisis.

The plan should make provision for developing a new role for out of town retail and parking, through conversion to higher density, mixed used (especially residential) focused around public transport interchange hubs.

 

Living Streets Edinburgh Group

April 2020

 

Notes/references

i Paragraph 273 of Scottish Planning Policy (2014) states: ‘The spatial strategies set out in plans should support development in locations that allow walkable access to local amenities and are also accessible by cycling and public transport. 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. The aim is to promote development which maximises the extent to which its travel demands are met first through walking, then cycling, then public transport and finally through use of private cars. Plans should facilitate integration between transport modes.’ https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning- policy/

ii The 2020 National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) places walking at the top of the ’Sustainable Travel Hierarchy’, followed by cycling, public transport, taxis and shared transport and the private car. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/47052/national-transport-strategy.pdf