Tag Archives: Consultation

“We are all pedestrians”: Transport convener addresses Living Streets Edinburgh AGM

Council Policy, Public Event, , , ,

Following criticism about “vanity prestige projects” being prioritised over pedestrian access, Stephen Jenkinson addressed our AGM

Edinburgh Council’s Transport Convener has sought to reassure Living Streets Edinburgh Group supporters that pedestrian access is a top priority for his committee.

“We need to ensure that we keep [pedestrians] front of our minds and decision-making when we implement projects and developments across the city,” Stephen Jenkinson, Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at Edinburgh Council, told the volunteer group.

The comments at our AGM on 29 May follow concerns that the committee has given the go-ahead to what our convener David Hunter named “vanity prestige projects”, rather than focus on less expensive but more beneficial, pedestrian-focused projects.

Jenkinson acknowledged the concerns and added: “I would challenge that in a little way. I think the City Mobility Plan, in a grand sense, is about delivering big projects. The scope of a lot of those projects will include pedestrian and public realm benefits.”

The convener said that when he took over from his predecessor, Scott Arthur, now MP for Edinburgh South West, he discovered a large list of proposed projects listed under the 10-year City Mobility Plan, and tasked council officers to prioritise them.

He explained that many schemes have to compete with other local authorities for external funding, and the funding framework has moved from multi-year to single-year.

“I want to reassure you that pedestrian priority is a priority not only for me but many members of the committee and the council. It isn’t a zero-sum game when it comes to moving people and vehicles around the city,” he added.

Helping everyone to get around the city

The need for pedestrian priority is urgent. Two disabled person’s rights advocates from the Lothian Centre for Inclusive Learning – Ashleigh and Kirin – told the AGM that floating bus stops, incorrectly placed dropped kerbs, a lack of space around disabled parking bays, and cycle lanes in the middle of pavements, all hinder those with sight and mobility issues.

Kirin, who has sight issues, praised the banning of advertising boards – a campaign led by Living Streets – but said there is still a lot of street furniture to navigate.

“I just want to get around the streets, just like you, but it’s trickier because I can’t see as well,” she said.

Kirin also joked about using her cane: “The pavement parking ban has been very helpful which has stopped us from scraping your cars!”

Positive noises from the TEC?

Jenkinson pointed out:

  • £4-6 million funding will be invested in the Granton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme, which will bring pedestrian benefits.
  • the 2025/26 budget for dropped kerbs has doubled to £400,000, thanks to Transport Scotland funding.
  • in response to concern that the council has frozen the footway budget this year, Jenkinson said the budget has increased 25% since 2022.
  • the success of the pavement parking ban means footways will generally see less wear and tear from vehicles.

Engine idling: Will the council act?

Jenkinson said he had also written to the Scottish Government to advocate for higher fixed penalty notices for engine idling, which currently stands at £20 and would not cover the cost of enforcing the fine.

In contrast, fixed penalty notices for pavement parking stand at £100 and have generated more than £244,000 in revenue for the 12 months ending February 2025 alone.

Living Streets Edinburgh convener David Hunter thanked Jenkinson for standing strong on no exemptions for pavement parking and for attempting to answer audience questions:

  • Will the Council monitor pedestrian movement, and use that data?
  • Will the Council follow other countries like the Netherlands and re-design junctions like Toll Cross before resurfacing them?
  • Will the Council re-consider removing the Braidswoods modal filters, which have successfully reduced daily vehicles from 10,000 to 6,000?
  • Will the Gorgie Liveable Neighbourhood retract its proposal to include floating bus stops?

Watch this space.

LSEG calls (again) for more investment in everyday walking

Council Policy, News, Press Release, , , ,

The Council’s Transport and Environment Committee on 22 May will consider a report recommending priorities to deliver the City Mobility Plan. We’re surprised, and very disappointed, to see no mention of some key initiatives which we were able to get included in the CMP delivery plan. Especially disappointing after the committee decided to freeze footway maintenance while increasing spending on roads, only last month. We’ve therefore sent councillors this message.

Dear Councillor

I’m writing in connection with the report on City Mobility Plan priorities, Item 7.5 on the TEC agenda for 22 May bit.ly/43ktlep  The recommendations do not adequately reflect the CMP’s ambition to effect “a transformational change in walking and wheeling in Edinburgh”.

Over two years ago, two new initiatives were introduced into the Active Travel component of the City Mobility Plan: ‘Action for Better Crossings” (ABC) and the “Edinburgh Accessible Streets Initiative” EASI). These programmes (both proposed by us) finally offered the prospect of a strategic, rather than piecemeal, approach to addressing some of the most fundamental problems with getting around the city as a pedestrian – for example:

  • the time that you have to wait for the green man at traffic lights,
  • the thousands of missing dropped kerbs on pavements,
  • narrow footways, 
  • pavement clutter, etc.

As we understand it, effectively nothing has been done yet to implement either initiative as a coherent programme. We had hoped that they would form a key part of this report. However, there is no mention whatsoever in the report of either ABC or EASI, despite Council having confirmed them as at the heart of CMP policy only last year (see attached).

Instead, some elements of ABC and EASI are simply noted as part of the ‘rolling programme’ in Appendix 4b. Paragraph 4.14 of the report states an expectation that these will be funded at “an overall level roughly equal to recent overall investment”. This isn’t good enough: there is no indication of how much money is budgeted for these schemes; certainly there has been no systematic investment at all in recent years in widening footways. Many of the other aspects like the pedestrian crossing programme and the crucial school streets reviews have huge backlogs owing to lack of resourcing.

These vital programmes need to be considered alongside, and on the same level playing field, as the active travel and public transport listed in Appendix 1. Councillors should be able to consider whether investment in school streets, road safety, ABC or EASI is more or less worthy than these projects, whether they be George Street, Hawthornvale-Salamander Street, the Lindsey Bridge or Dalry 20 Minute Neighbourhood. Otherwise the opportunity to consider where best to invest both staff time and capital funding is lost and a ‘silo’ approach is entrenched.

We also have serious concerns with the overly-complex methodology for assessing projects in Appendix 1. It gives no weighting to walking and wheeling (“top of the travel hierarchy”) and doesn’t sufficiently value schemes relatively modest but important to pedestrians such as Calton Road and the Causey. These projects fail to score highly enough only because work on them has already been “paused’ for years.

However, the fundamental weakness of the report is to take too narrow an approach to evaluating a limited set of projects. We would therefore like to see the report deferred perhaps for two cycles, and a new report brought forward with a more strategic approach to future investment, including the programmes mentioned above.

David Hunter

Convener

LSEG calls for a review of tactile paving guidance

Consultation Response, Council Policy, , ,

Written deputation from Living Streets Edinburgh Group: Tactile Paving at Continuous Footways (Motion 8.9, Cllr Caldwell)

At the January TEC, an official advised that the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (ESDG) does not currently recommend tactile paving at the edge of side-roads with continuous footways. It was suggested that this would undermine the message to drivers that they should cede priority to pedestrians (as required by the Highway Code).

However, Factsheet G7 clearly states that tactile paving is recommended at continuous pavements (screenshot below). https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/13723/edinburgh-street-design-guidance

The use of tactile paving at continuous footways in Edinburgh is highly inconsistent: it is installed on CCWEL along the A8 on Wester Coates; but absent at most of the similar continuous pavement junctions on most of Leith Walk. This inconsistency is in itself a significant problem for blind pedestrians. We recognise that this is a relatively new aspect of street design.

Our view is that it is more important for tactile paving to be present at junctions where there is continuous footway than at a conventional junction; otherwise a blind pedestrian has no way of knowing that they have left the footway and entered a space where they are likely to encounter a moving vehicle. Our view is that the presence of tactile paving won’t undermine the ‘pedestrian priority’ message to drivers, as drivers turning in or out of such a junction are highly unlikely to notice whether there is tactile paving, or not.

We therefore support the motion but also would ask that the ESDG policy is reviewed and clarified; and that new, consistent guidance is produced, after consultation with interested parties including the Edinburgh Access Panel and Living Streets.

LSEG response to Consultation on the National Speed Limit Review, March 2025

Consultation Response, Press Release, ,

Consultation Submission submitted on behalf of the Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG)

This submission is being made as a direct email rather than through your standard consultation form since the design of that form does not allow us to be able to adequately express our concerns for pedestrians. We trust that our views, as below, will nevertheless be considered seriously.

The LSEG very strongly supports the proposed lowering of the default national speed limit from 60 to 50 mph on single carriageway roads. Scotland has a very poor safety record on these roads, with a large proportion of all fatalities and serious injuries occurring on them, as evidenced in the Consultation Review report. The 60 mph limit is far too high for safe driving, other than where there are long stretches of strait road without intervening property entrances or side-road junctions. A 50mph limit will result in safer speeds on these roads and all the more so if the new limit is properly enforced. We note that an even lower, 60 kmph, national limit is now being introduced on rural roads in Ireland, many of which have similar characteristics to those in Scotland.

The benefits for pedestrians on such roads is unlikely to be great however, since traffic speeds at up to either 50 or 60 mph intimidate pedestrians, and without the protection of segregated paths, on what are mostly narrow rural roads, there is little pedestrian activity. Our principle concern therefore is that the introduction of the 50mph limit does not go nearly far enough to make conditions safe for pedestrians or to reduce the levels of suppressed pedestrian trips along these roads.

In many places there are extensive stretches of bends with the current 60mph limit but where the maximum safe speed around the bends is no more than 40, or 30, or even 20mph. All too often only ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway are in evidence. For conditions to be considered at all safe for pedestrians, with their visibility restricted by bends, speed limits need to be set at the appropriate lower levels that match the road design / conditions, not simply set to 50mph. There are also still many places, in particular on the approaches to villages or other settlements, where the prevailing speed limit needs to be reduced from 60 to well below 50mph; and, as in the Scottish Borders, 20mph in the villages themselves  We therefore call for there to be a comprehensive review following on from the introduction of the 50mph limit, with the aim to have speed limits set to appropriate levels for safe driving throughout the network, and whether or not there have been casualties in a particular location. This is a fundamental necessity if more walking is to be encouraged, in line with government policy. 

Even with the setting of the most  appropriate speed limits conditions will still be challenging for pedestrians and potentially dangerous without the provision of segregated routes. There is also a clear need in many places for the provision of pavements or off-road paths alongside rural roads. This provision could encourage many more walking trips, for example between adjacent villages or from villages to the nearest town where distances are not too great. It is also the case that more recreational walking, by visitors as well as residents, would be encouraged by the provision of more off-road footpaths in rural areas throughout Scotland. It is notable that many of the islands are very suited by size for recreational walking (and cycling) trips, yet still with very little provision of safe, segregated routes. Provision of such routes could encourage the leaving of cars behind on the mainland perhaps, or even altogether. Promoting such active travel would help increased tourism to take place without a comparable increase in car use.

Finally much intensified efforts to enforce the improved speed limits are essential in order to eliminate excessive speeding. Funding for these efforts needs to be resourced by means that are protected, otherwise grant cuts are likely when, as now, overall national and local public sector resources are under pressure. Without this the Vision Zero aim to have no serious injuries or fatalities will remain just a vision. The current enforcement system is simply not fit for purpose and needs reform, as the LSEG has argued elsewhere:   https://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2021/11/17/slower-speeds-safer-streets-for-edinburgh-an-action-plan/

We need to have a more comprehensive approach, with policies for the road safety of walkers (and cyclists) integrated with those for tourism and wider economic development.           

Leith Connections (Hawthornvale-Salamander Street): Comments from LSE on draft proposals

Consultation Response, ,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new ‘Leith Connections’ proposals from Lindsay Road in the west through Commercial Street, Bernard Street and Baltic Street to Salamander Street in the east. https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/leithconnections/  

We acknowledge that the proposals would bring some significant improvements for pedestrians – such as ‘continuous footways’ over side road junctions, a single-stage crossing over North Junction Street at the Ocean Drive junction, and a new pavement at the eastern side of North Junction Street. 

However, it is also very concerning to see some sections of pavement actually reduced, and no improvement to many pavements that are already less than 2 metres wide – the “absolute minimum” that the Council normally considers acceptable. These seem to include these streets (the number in brackets refers to the drawing sheet):

  • N Junction St 1.5m (1)
  • Lindsay Rd (S) 1.54m (2) 
  • Lindsay Rd (N) 1,67m (3)
  • Commercial St (N) 1.8m (3)
  • Salamander St  (N) 1.85m (14)
  • Salamander St  (N) 1.8m (14)
  • Salamander St  (S) 1.95m (16)
  • Salamander St  (N) 1.27m (17)
  • Salamander St  (S) 1.5m (17)

Pavements which are at least two metres wide is also the minimum recommended in national UK guidance such as Inclusive Mobility, allowing for adequate use by pedestrians using mobility aids including walking sticks and wheelchairs as well as by parents with small children, etc. bit.ly/IncMobility

There also appear to be ten ‘floating bus stops’ (which mean people getting on and off the bus have to cross a cycle lane when boarding or alighting).  We know this design is a serious concern to many disabled and blind people, as evidenced by calls from all the major visual impairment charities (RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind UK) for a halt to their use and/or removal of existing stops.  Some of the bus stops proposed do not even appear to conform to the minimum standards for footway and/or island width as defined by the Council’s own Street Design Guidance. 

The plan would also remove some bus stops altogether, as well as significant sections of bus lane on Lindsay Road and Commercial Street. Many of these changes are not highlighted on the Council’s consultation. Many were raised as concerns needing to be addressed in earlier consultations for example in the minutes of the 2021 Community Reference Group. 

The size of the cycleway itself is also limited by the constrained street space, and is not continuous owing to the Bernard Street pinch point in particular.  We understand also that some parts (especially in Salamander Street) would require additional land take which brings a significant degree of uncertainty over the viability of the whole scheme.

In view of these multiple problems, we query whether this is the best route for the cycleway at all, and whether a different east-west route would be better. For example, running behind the buildings to the north of Commercial Street, over the newly traffic-free Sandport Bridge and along Leith Links, where there is already a well established cycle route which could well be enhanced. 

This would avoid introducing unwelcome impacts on pedestrians and bus passengers by trying to accommodate too many travel modes in an insufficient space – the problem we have seen all too clearly on Leith Walk. This would also provide more traffic-free sections for the cycle route and presumably be significantly cheaper to build.