Tag Archives: Cycleways

Dundee Street Fountainbridge Active Travel Project: briefing by LSEG

News, Road Safety, Spaces for People, , , , ,

https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/dundee-street-fountainbridge-active-travel/

Overview

The chief overall objective is to provide an attractive east-west route for cyclists as an alternative to the increasingly-congested Union Canal towpath. The proposals are in two parts: the main section is on Dundee Street/Fountainbridge from Ardmillan Place in the west (‘Diggers’) to Ponton Street in the east, past Fountain Park, Boroughmuir High School and Tollcross Primary School. The central feature is a new continuous cycleway on both sides of the street with separated kerbs. There are ‘continuous pavements’ installed on side roads, some additional pedestrian crossings, some restrictions to traffic movements and nine ‘floating’ bus stops.  A second section consists of a ‘quiet cycle route’ from from Ashley Drive, Shandon to Fowler Terrace. Polwarth.

Dundee Street/Fountainbridge

Pavements (footways)

Some sections of the carriageway (road) are re-designated as footway: there are continuous pavements across side roads to enhance pedestrian priority; the cycle kerb separators; floating bus stop ‘islands’. There are footway build-outs at some junctions.

There appears to be little if any general widening of the footway along the main road (Dundee Street/Fountainbridge), including  at some of the narrowest sections heavily used by schildren at Boroughmuir High and Tollcross Primary schools.

Some sections of footway will remain less than 2 metres wide – the “absolute minimum” considered acceptable by the Council’s Street Design Guidance (for example, 1.5 metres at Edinburgh Printmakers). There appear to be at least 10 sections of footway which are actually being reduced in width – by as much as 2.4 metres (north side, east of Gilmore Park) – in order to accommodate the cycleway.

Pedestrian /cycle crossings

New or upgraded signalled crossings for both pedestrians and cyclists are proposed at the junctions with Henderson Terrace/West Approach Road, Yeaman Place, Gardners Crescent and Grove Street. A zebra is proposed over Drysdale Road. Continuous footways will affirm and assist pedestrian priority at side roads.

Cycleways

The cycleway mostly operates one way in each direction and is 1.5 meters wide. A hard kerb separator (technically designated as footway) separates it from motor traffic. Cyclops-style crossings (“Cycle Optimised Protected Signals”) which give cyclists priority are introduced at major junctions (Gardners Crescent, Grove Street). The cycleway crosses sections of footway at these junctions and at Lochrin Basin.

Buses

The nine bus stops on the route are being retained, but often moved. They will all have cycle bypasses (‘floating bus stops’) so that the cycle lane passes between the pavement and the bus stop. Shelters are not marked drawings. There appear to be no specific bus priority measures.

Traffic management

Some restrictions to motor vehicle movement are proposed: general traffic (except buses and cyclists) on Dundee Street will not be permitted to turn into Ardmillan Place, Henderson Terrace or Fowler Terrace. The right turn lane eastbound into Viewforth is removed, with Dundee Street becoming a single lane in each direction.

Ashley Drive to Fowler Terrace

This second part of the project proposes a cycle ‘quiet route’ (mostly without segregated cycleways) from the Union Canal at Ashley Drive near the boathouse to Dundee Street via North Merchiston streets.  Some restrictions to motor traffic are proposed, for example a ‘filter’ on Harrison Gardens will stop general through-traffic; there will be no vehicle access to/from Dundee Street from Fowler Terrace). Three zebra crossings are proposed (on Ashley Terrace, Harrison Gardens and Harrison Road) along with several pavement build-outs. Local footways, which are mostly between 1.5 and 2.5 metres wide at present, will not generally be changed.

Key Issues

The most welcome features for pedestrians are additional crossing opportunities, including at the notorious Henderson Terrace (Diggers) junction, and narrowed side roads with continuous footways which calm traffic and enhance walking. The overall volume of motor traffic may be reduced by the traffic management measures.

The chief design concern is the lack of footway widening on Dundee St/Fountainbridge, including several sections which are heavily used by children fromBoroughmuir HS and Tollcross PS school children. Indeed, there are several sections of footway made significantly narrower.*

Pedestrians/passengers will have to cross a cycle lane at every (’floating’) bus stop, a known problem especially for blind and disabled people, and in sections of footway where cycle lanes go through footway areas (like Lochrin Basin).

The scheme is very heavily engineered and expensive at £10million. The main objectives – for both cyclists and pedestrians – could surely be met by a much simpler, cheaper design?

Construction is estimated during 2026-28 but this seems unlikely given that there is no funding in place and the current public consultation on the concept design continues into 2026.

A presentation was held via Zoom on 3rd November to discuss the changes. You can see the recording here – https://youtu.be/5uz__Os0vZs

* The City of Edinburgh Council consultants have provided a table summarising changes in footway widths

Dundee-Street-Fountainbridge-Active-Travel-Project-consultants-summary-of-changes-to-footway-widthsDownload

Two-way cycling on Rose Street: Objection to TRO24/27

Consultation Response, Council Policy, Cycle Routes, , ,

We object to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO/24/27 bit.ly/3IFOQQ6) allowing two-way cycling on Rose Street. The idea of promoting two-way cycling on the street was raised in a report to the Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) on 30 January 2025, as a means to facilitate cycling across the city while the CCWEL route through George Street is not yet in place.  We made our objection to this proposal at that time.

The Council’s own report recognised that “integrating cyclists into a space primarily designed for pedestrians presents challenges. The narrow width of Rose Street, combined with the high footfall at certain times, could lead to safety concerns between cycling and walking/wheeling. With no dedicated cycling infrastructure, conflict could be created between users.”

It is not appropriate in our view to encourage Rose Street – the closest thing Edinburgh currently has to a pedestrianised street – as a major cycle route. The proposal does not respect the Council’s agreed travel hierarchy which places walking and wheeling first. The TRO is especially inappropriate given that the TEC recently decided that two way cycle access should be maintained on George Street itself during any redevelopment works. 

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.

Minute of Living Streets Edinburgh Annual General Meeting

News, Public Event, , , , ,

Quaker Meeting House, November 14, 2022
Approximately 25 people were present.

  1. A number of apologies were recorded
  2. The Minute of LSEG AGM 2021 was approved and adopted. There were no matters arising.
  3. David Hunter noted LSEG’S significant activity of the previous year.
  4. Isobel Leckie noted that financial activity this year was minimal. The bank account balance with Bank of Scotland is £1144.36.
  5. DH outlined the current structure of the Living Streets Edinburgh Group having no formal committee structure but individuals taking responsibility for particular aspects. A requirement of Living Streets is that local groups have two named office holders. It was agreed that David Hunter and Isobel Leckie continue in respective posts as Convenor and Treasurer.
  6. Guest speaker Cllr. Arthur made the point that personal transport is about having choices and that these should focus on sustainability. Although walking is the main mode for a third of the population it arouses least public comment. He wanted to get away from an ongoing battle between cyclists and motorists. and to focus more on walking and public transport.
  7. A number of questions were raised from the floor which Cllr Arthur responded to.
  8. DH spoke to a paper indicating LSEG proposed priorities for 2023:
    – Campaign for increased budgets for the pedestrian environment (capital and staffing)
    – Secure better enforcement of controls on parking
    – Support specific local campaigns for placemaking and traffic reduction – LTNs, 20 min – Neighbourhood plans
    – Develop walk friendly- environments at and around schools
    – Influence planning policy and practice to aid walking and wheeling and reduce motor traffic
    – Grow number of our supporters and range of our campaigns.
    – DH described ways in which individuals could become involved with LSEG campaigning and encouraged anyone interested to get in touch.
  1. There was no further business and the meeting was closed.

Making Spaces for People permanent? Response by LSEG

Consultation Response, , , , , ,
Available as a downloadable PDF hereDownload

Note by Living Streets Edinburgh and Spokes Lothian, March 2021 to Transport Scotland, requesting funding to make successful Spaces for People schemes permanent through the Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 – http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2103-STPR2-letter-from-Spokes-and-Living-Streets.pdf 

Introduction

  1. Living Streets Edinburgh Group supports the principle of ‘Spaces for People’ schemes continuing in the future. Better facilities to encourage walking, wheeling and cycling are essential in order to achieve the objectives in the City Mobility Plan and to contribute to making Edinburgh the great walkable city that it should be.
  2. We have been disappointed that more priority was not given to promoting walking, especially in the first months of the programme, not only in view of the agreed ‘sustainable travel hierarchy’ but also given that the emergency measures were passed in order to ensure public health and promote physical distancing. Nevertheless, we recognise that many of the measures have been helpful for people to walk and cycle, and we appreciate the very significant efforts of staff and councillors to introduce these extensive measures during the pandemic.

Process

  1. Before commenting on the retention of particular schemes, or types of schemes, we want to make some general observations about ‘process’. Firstly, many schemes need very detailed consideration – for example on whether particular loading bays are in the right place? – before they can be made permanent. The current consultation exercise isn’t adequate to enable this detailed assessment to take place. There needs to be further opportunities for stakeholders (and especially local communities) to consider retention, alteration or removal.
  2. We would also like to see data published on the use of temporary measures (both walking and cycling). We note from the report to Transport and Environment Committee in August 2020 that £256,000 was budgeted for surveys and monitoring. While we agree that we should look to the future and accept that some schemes may be more used in the years ahead than they have been during the pandemic, evidence on the actual use of measures should help inform decision-making on retention or removal. This will also be important for local communities to understand and accept the decision making process. It also important to acknowledge that some schemes which benefit one type of road user may have negative effects on other road users, so the benefits and negative impacts therefore need to be assessed as transparently and objectively as possible. We must also accept that there is a significant degree of uncertainty over to what extent travel patterns will, or won’t, return to pre-pandemic patterns.
  3. We would have preferred for the City Mobility Plan to include targets for modal share, which would have provided a strategic context for the relative importance attached to investments to support different modes – especially walking/wheeling, cycling and bus. If the CMP had aimed to increase cycling rates threefold for example, then there would be a much stronger case for investing in cycling infrastructure. If the aim is to encourage walking or bus, then measures to support walking or bus should get more priority, etc. But because targets haven’t been set, there is no strategic rationale for making the SfP decisions.

Retention, Removal or Adaptation?

  1. Many measures introduced under Spaces for People can and should be retained and made permanent. In many cases, this can be done at relatively little cost: in particular, cycle lanes, road closures and school measures. We cannot comment on each of the dozens of measures which have been introduced, but we support a presumption in favour of keeping them.
  2. For LSEG, the most important benefit which SfP has brought is the ‘footway widening’ in town centres. Generally, these have brought significant benefits to pedestrians, especially to enable ‘physical distancing’. They have also proven beyond doubt that there is insufficient pedestrian space in many town centres, perhaps noting Morningside, Corstorphine and Stockbridge as particular examples. Wider pavements have not caused traffic to grind to a halt as some predicted.
  3. These wider pavements must therefore generally be retained; there may be some exceptions (eg the eastern side of Earl Grey Street?) where the current pavement is sufficient, and taking more carriageway space for walking is not a priority. However, the temporary measures understandably introduced at short notice are not of sufficient quality for the longer term; they are too ‘stop/start’, they are inaccessible to many disabled people, in places ambiguous (so that for example cyclists use them) and introduce trip hazards.
  4. Once the pandemic is over, ‘proper’ wider pavements are therefore needed, with level surfaces, proper kerbs and the necessary changes to drainage. We appreciate that this will be expensive and we have written to the Scottish Government (jointly with Spokes Lothian) asking that funding is provided to enable councils to make successful Spaces for People schemes permanent as a priority for investment through the STPR2 . Our particular concern is the significant cost of converting temporary footways into permanent quality spaces.
  5. We are pleased that the amount of time which pedestrians have to cross the road at crossings is finally being investigated, with £100,000 approved in January for this purpose. We want to see shorter wait times for people to cross the road at signalled junctions and pedestrian crossings, and we want to see longer ‘green man times’ across the city. There needs to be a permanent change to give pedestrians priority, in line with the modal hierarchy agreed in the City Mobility Plan. The automatic pedestrian phases (that remove the need to press the button) will no longer be needed following the pandemic.
  6. The need to remove unnecessary pavement clutter is only now being addressed at scale within the SfP scheme; we assume (and hope) that changes to clear obstructions from pavements will be made permanent.
  7. As noted earlier, we strongly support measures at schools to encourage children to walk, cycle, scoot, etc. to school. According to the latest (2019) Transport and Travel in Scotland statistics, 61% of Edinburgh’s schoolchildren currently walk to school – a fantastic platform of active travel which needs to be protected, prioritised and built on. We would encourage more – and more ambitious – permanent measures to remove traffic in the vicinity of school gates, to widen pavements, ban dangerous turning manoeuvres, make crossings safer, etc.
  8. The limited closure of some city centre streets to motor traffic (eg Cockburn Street) is generally welcomed, especially where they contribute to the vision of the City Centre Transformation. We therefore support making all these closures permanent, with proper management and enforcement. They should use quality materials and street furniture, instead of temporary and ugly barriers, signs on yellow 1,000kg blocks, etc.
  9. We also strongly support the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in principle, to reduce the dominance of motor traffic in residential areas. However, there needs to be a sufficient degree of public support for them to operate effectively in local communities, and we need to understand the impacts of any displaced traffic on adjacent streets and neighbourhoods. We are pleased to have representation in the three areas currently being considered as an LTN (East Craigs, South Corstorphine and Leith). Similarly, where there is local support, significant benefits for cycling or walking and no unacceptable other impacts, we would support the closure to motor traffic of suburban/residential roads (such as Silverknowes Road, Braid Road etc).
  10. We support the retention and enhancement of segregated cycle ways where they have demonstrated success, or potential for success. Success measures should include how safe they are (for cyclists as well as other road users), how well they are used, the impact on other road users (especially buses and disabled motorists and passengers), and the contribution they make to a joined-up strategic cycle network. There are some places (perhaps Ferry Road and the Mound are examples), where the pavement adjacent to the cycle lanes is too narrow and should be made wider. If making a cycle way permanent reduced the likelihood of addressing inadequate pavements, then this would be a concern to us.
  11. We are unhappy with some impacts of SfP measures on bus services and do not support their retention as currently implemented. For example, on George IV Bridge, while we support the continuation of the wider footways and cycleways in principle, the removal of busy bus stops (eg southbound near Chambers Street) and shelters, and the dysfunctional bus boarders are all regrettable. We also oppose the loss of important bus lanes, eg northbound on Bruntsfield Place and Leven Street, where the space has been used for new walking / cycling lanes despite most of the footway already being of reasonable width. Assuming that Edinburgh streets once again become busy with locals and visitors, bus services will resume their central role in keeping the city moving.

Summary

  1. In summary:

• We support the principle of retaining Spaces for people schemes and reducing the dominance of motor traffic on city streets (both when moving and when parked).

• We especially want to see:

  • permanent, ‘proper’ wider pavements on busy streets (especially ‘town centres’)
  • traffic signals and pedestrian crossings changed to give pedestrians more priority
  • streets at schools improved to encourage active travel and especially walking
  • city centre traffic management schemes retained and enforced.

• We generally support retention of:

  • cycle lanes
  • residential street closures
  • Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

(subject to understanding local community views, any negative impacts on other road users/areas and the extent of their use/potential use).

• We don’t support:

  • measures which adversely affect bus passengers, unless there are compelling reasons why these are necessary to achieve other important objectives
  • making ‘automatic phases’ on pedestrian crossings permanent.

15.3.21