Tag Archives: Cycleways

Additional Comments to the Public Hearing on the Meadows to George Street plans by Living Streets Edinburgh

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

Introduction

Living Streets Edinburgh Group would like to supplement our objection to the TRO with
the following brief comments. The key issue is the failure of the Council to give adequate
priority to the needs of pedestrians, in conflict with both national and local (Council)
policy.

These comments assume that the strategic case for the scheme is essentially sound, with
regard to, for example the viability of bus routes, traffic management etc. given that we
do not have information which either confirms or counters the assumptions.
We are particularly concerned at the failure to improve pavements on the Mound and
Hanover Street. In addition we understand that a significant section of high-footfall
pavement would be removed on the south of George IV Bridge adjacent to the National
Museums of Scotland. Finally, we object to the inappropriate use of ‘floating’ bus stops.

Policy

The Council’s Statement of Case is extremely selective and biased with regard to citing
both national and local policy. While the National Transport Strategy, NPF4 etc. are cited
widely in support of cycling provision, there is (astonishingly) no mention of the universally
agreed ‘sustainable travel hierarchy’ which places walking and wheeling at the top. There
are 36 references to “walking” in the Statement, with 68 for “cycling”.

In contrast, little policy is quoted in support of walking and especially the need for
accessible pedestrian environments such as for example, the introduction to the Council’s
Active Travel Implementation Plan: “We want to work towards a transformational change
in walking and wheeling in Edinburgh. Our vision is a fully accessible city, where people of
all ages and abilities can get around safely, conveniently and comfortably.”

The numerous references to policy highlighting the importance of “active travel” or
“cycling, walking and wheeling” do not adequately recognise the different and at times
conflicting, infrastructure requirement of cycling on the one hand, and walking the other.
While there are a number of references to the ‘desirable’ widths (according to guidance)
of cycleways – 2.5-3.00 metres) there are none to the desirable width of footways (3.00m).

The Mound

The inadequate consideration of walking is clearest with regard to the Mound, where the
Council proposes no general footway widening despite acknowledging that it forms part
of the “primary network for place…and for walking” (2.16). Pavements are so crowded at
times that pedestrians are frequently found to be walking in the road.

Meadows to George St.

Despite claiming that the footways meet an opaque ‘pedestrian comfort’ test, the current
Chief Executive of the Council reported in 2020 “pavements being often over-capacity
and people having to stray onto the road”.1 Under the present plans this will continue,
both in the road on the western pavement, and in the cycleway to the east –
disadvantaging all road users.

As noted above, the desirable minimum width for the Mound footways is 3.00 metres
according to the ESDG, but in places they would remain less than 2 metres wide (a
minimum standard not only for Edinburgh but also national Inclusive Mobility guidance.
The Council’s statement in paragraph 8.5 that “it has not been possible to provide
additional footway widening on the eastern footway alongside the proposed cycleway” is
patently untrue: footways could be widened if the Council was willing to compromise on its
preferred design for the cycleway. One obvious example would be to limit the cycleway to
2.5m (still meeting “desired” standards for high volume cycleways) instead of 3.00m.
Similar concerns apply to Hanover Street, where some of the city’s busiest pavements will
be criss-crossed by cycleways with floating bus stops. While we consider George IV
Bridge to be less problematic, we strongly object to the removal of a section of very busy
pavement adjacent to the National Museums of Scotland.

Floating Bus Stops

We strongly object to the inclusion of bus stop bypasses on the hilly Mound and Hanover
Street. They would build in conflict between pedestrians and cyclists and will deter
disabled people from using some of the busiest city centre bus stops. They are unlikely to
work well for cyclists either.

The Statement of Case is especially selective in citing standards and guidance in support
of the bus stop bypasses, such as ‘Cycling by Design’. However, it omits crucial
qualifications such as: “Bus stop bypasses on steep downhill gradients should be avoided,
as cycle users are likely to approach these at higher speeds, creating interactions that are
more difficult to manage.” (CbD p97).

The Statement refers extensively but again selectively to a report by Living Streets UK in
support of cycle bypasses, but omits this important section: “we recommend that those
promoting or providing bus stop bypasses should more clearly acknowledge that
continuing a cycle track at a bus stop is likely to introduce some disadvantage to blind and
partially sighted pedestrians, even if well-designed, and even if the design enhancements
described in this report are proven effective. The risks of disadvantage to a wider group of
pedestrians and other disabled people should also be acknowledged for complex
environments where cycle tracks are busy, if cycling speeds in the location are higher, and
in any case where cycling levels are very high.” (P126) 2

Meadows to George St.

The Statement ignores much other authoritative guidance such as “Creating a public realm
for all’ (CIHT 2024) and ‘Designing for Inclusion’ (UCL, 2024) which 3 4 all emphasise the
problems caused by floating bus stops for pedestrians, especially blind and disabled.
We therefore do not consider that the Statement is balanced or objective with regard to
bus stop infrastructure, or indeed consistent with the Council’s commitment to accessible
public spaces as noted at the start of this document.

Alternative options

We recognise that the connection of cycle facilities from Middle Meadow Walk to the city
centre is a legitimate and important objective; however, it must be balanced against other
priorities.

Monitoring of movement carried out by the Council 8 years ago showed starkly how many
more pedestrians used the streets compared to cyclists (see appended table). This
fundamental fact is given insufficient weight in the plans.

The data also appears to show that fewer than half the northbound cyclists using Forrest
Road went on to continue along the route though Bank Street, the Mound etc. Many
presumably dispersed along Chambers Street, Candlemaker Row, the High Street etc, or
their destination was on George IV Bridge itself. This suggests that the rationale of
assuming that Meadows to George Street is a primary route may not be justified.
We therefore suggest some alternative options to meet the need for improved cycling
facilities which would not result in unacceptable compromises to walking and wheeling:

1) no cycleway on the Mound, recognising that the cycling environment will be much
enhanced compared to the present owing to the greatly reduced volume of traffic
resulting from the bus gate, along with the 20mph speed limit. We are sceptical that
many northbound (downhill) cyclists would in any case use the segregated cycleway in
preference to the carriageway.

2) a narrower cycleway on the Mound; a 2.5 metre wide cycleway still meets minimum
standards, but would allow footways to be widened by 0.5m.

3) a one-way cycleway on the Mound (southbound) – consistent with cycle design
standards which emphasise the greater importance of segregation on uphill routes.

4) end the George IV Bridge cycleway at the Royal Mile and provide alternative signed
low-traffic routes to the east (via the High Street, Cockburn St, Bridges etc) and west
(via Victoria Street, Lawnmarket/Johnston Terrace, etc).

We are not advocating any of these alternatives, but they illustrate the need for fresh
thinking rather than pursuing a design which was conceived a decade ago, which predates
much current policy and standards and which fails to meet the needs of pedestrians.

Living Streets Edinburgh Group
May 2026

1 Report by Paul Lawrence to CEC Leadership Advisory panel, 31 March 2020, para 3.5 (available
on request)

2 https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/press-media/research-into-bus-stop-bypasses-released/

3 https://www.ciht.org.uk/knowledge-resource-centre/resources/policy-technical/creating-apublic-
realm-for-all/

4 https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/how-you-can-help/campaigning/our-current-campaigns/streetsahead/

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

Dundee Street Fountainbridge Active Travel Project: Response by LSE

Consultation Response, Cycle Routes, Press Release, , , , , , ,

Summary

We support the overall objectives to provide an attractive east-west route for cyclists as an alternative to the increasingly-congested Union Canal towpath, to enhance cycling, walking and wheeling on the corridor and to make the street more accessible for everyone. There are a number of proposed improvements for pedestrians especially in the form of new opportunities to cross the road and better side road treatments.

However, the plans as a whole not only fail to prioritise pedestrian movement but in several places, space for walking and wheeling is actually significantly reduced. There are large sections of pavement which are left well below the “absolute minimum” width specified by the Council’s own guidance for the street (and indeed for any street, let alone one as busy as this). There is negligible improvement in the pedestrian space at the schools which should have been a primary consideration. Every bus stop has a cycle bypass (‘floating’ bus stop), most of which also do not conform to the council’s own minimum standards and will cause significant concern to many pedestrians, especially those who are blind or disabled.

As a result, we do not support the proposals.

Dundee Street/Fountainbridge

Pavements (footways)

With ‘walking and wheeling’ recognised by the Council and nationally as at the ‘top of the sustainable travel hierarchy’, the most basic need is adequate pavement space. Unfortunately, this isn’t provided in the proposals, a fundamental weakness of the proposals. As we saw in Leith Walk, walking space is increased only where space is left over after other considerations; where space is most contested it is walking which suffers.

There is no general widening of the footway along the main road (Dundee Street/Fountainbridge), including at some of the narrowest sections. According to the ESDG, the pavements on Dundee Street/Fountainbridge should be at least 2.5 m wide (Factsheet P3). Several sections (southern pavement at the Diggers junction, northern pavement west of the Telfer Subway, southern section at the Edinburgh Printmakers) are below the council’s “absolute minimum” permitted width of 2 metres for any street.

The extent of substandard footway widths may be greater than appears. For example the plans show the southern pavement at the western end of Dundee Street (“Diggers”) as 2.1 metres wide, rather than 1.7 metres in reality.

We have been notified of at least 12 sections of footway which are actually being reduced in width – by as much as 2.4 metres (see appendix 1).

There are positive aspects in the plan with regard to pavements too. ‘Continuous footways’ across almost all side streets give pedestrians enhanced priority and should slow down traffic. It is essential that they have appropriate tactile paving to alert visually impaired people that they are entering a space where they are likely to encounter a turning vehicle. Some side road junctions are also being narrowed which again is important to slow down traffic. Especially hostile junctions are the entrances to the Fountainpark Centre and the Western Approach Road (where we would like to see traffic calming measures through a raised carriageway).

Once the Fountainbridge developments are complete, we understand that there will be significant amounts of new pedestrian space on the south side of the street, which will be welcome. If and when this materialises, it will provide an opportunity to reconsider the balance of pavement widths between the north and south sides of the street.

We want to see a pedestrian (and ideally cycle) link from Yeaman Place to the canal. The Walker Bridge is the only bridge over the Union Canal in Edinburgh which doesn’t give access to the towpath. There is no access to the canal between Harrison Park East and Gibson Terrace, a distance of over 650 metres. This gap effectively denies the general Polwarth community access to the canal. It also reduces the sense of safety for people (especially women) using the towpath on foot, running or cycling. Our understanding is that plans for the former Dalton scrapyard on Yeaman Place could deliver this vital link.

Schools

Providing adequate pedestrian space at schools on a busy road should be a primary objective of the scheme. Sections of the street have very high footfall from children at Boroughmuir High and Tollcross Primary schools. Edinburgh Street Design Guidance Factsheet p3 states “A 3m minimum footway width is to be provided outside schools and other buildings likely to generate concentrated pedestrian flows.” (page 3)

The section of pavement immediately west of BHS is being widened by only 30 centimetres to 2 metres, despite being used by hundreds of children every day to access Sainsbury’s and other shops. This modest widening (introduced in response to our comments on an earlier draft) is achieved by reducing the width of the northern footway.

There appears to be no change to the footway dimensions at Tollcross Primary School on either side of Fountainbridge. The pavement at the school gate is currently just under 2.5 metres wide and has guardrails which narrow it further.

Immediately at the entrance to both schools, a cycle bypass/floating bus stop is proposed. This is despite the council’s own guidance cautioning that “the provision and design of floating bus stops in close proximity to schools, hospitals, sheltered housing etc. should be given careful consideration.” (Factsheet C4, page 18).

Pedestrian /cycle crossings

A number of new and amended crossings are introduced. These are mostly very welcome. Of note is the installation of pedestrian phases across the Henderson Terrace/WAR ‘Diggers’ junction. This will rectify one of the most notoriously hostile junctions for pedestrians in the whole city.  Also welcome are the signals at the Yeaman Place and Grove Street junctions and the zebra crossing over Drysdale Road, although this should be more directly on the walking desire line.

The junction at Gardners Crescent would be converted to a ‘CyclOps‘ style (Cycle-Optimised) junction which we think would be the first such junction in Edinburgh; as such it needs the most careful thought. As we understand it, pedestrians will have to cross a cycle lane before being able to cross the road but cyclists will not have to stop at a red light for many manoeuvres, being instead expected to give way to pedestrians at zebra-style markings. This has the potential to result in conflict because pedestrians who see the green man invitation to cross may encounter cyclists who do not stop. This will be especially difficult for older, disabled and blind people. We understand that in the Netherlands, such junctions have pedestrian crossings towards the outside of the cycle roundabout, with clear yielding markings and speed calming measures for cyclists.

Cyclists are expected to navigate the junction in a clockwise direction, but cyclists heading north from the canal basin will mostly instead want to cross the cobble-free eastern arm of the junction (anti-clockwise) to access the popular shared-use path at Lochrin Square. Again, this will cause conflict with pedestrians (and likely, other cyclists).

Although there is logic in the positioning of the crossings, the design introduces big new gaps in crossing opportunities across Dundee Street. There are three signalised pedestrian crossings clustered in the space of 130 metres – Yeaman Place, Telfer Subway and Gibson Terrace – while the next crossing to the west is 300 metres away at Henderson Terrace.

Removing the crossing at the centre of Fountainpark/KwikFit also creates a long gap from Gibson Terrace to the Viewforth junction. The plans remove the heavily-used pedestrian island refuge which is directly on the natural walking desire line from Boroughmuir High School to the Fountainpark centre. We do not envisage that pedestrians will take a detour from the school area to use the controlled crossing at the Viewforth junction and consider that these changes will increase danger crossing Dundee Street, especially for children.

Bus stops

Every one of the nine bus stops will have a cycle bypass (‘floating bus stop’) so that the cycle lane passes between the pavement and the bus stop. Most of these bus stops do not meet the minimum standards set out in the Council’s Street Design Guidance, which stipulates a minimum footway of at least 2.5 metres wide, in addition to the bus stop ‘island’ (Factsheet C4). The bus stop on the north of Dundee Street over the West Approach Road has no footway at all; all pedestrians therefore have to cross the cycle way twice (or simply walk in it) to move along the footway. Having to cross a cycle lane on a pavement and especially at a bus stop is recognised in all guidance (local and national) as a concern for disabled and especially blind people.

Ashley Drive to Fowler Terrace

We agree with the intention to provide quiet routes for cyclists through low traffic streets to offer attractive alternatives by bike to the congested towpath. We think it likely that most city-bound cyclists would wish to turn off the canal at Harrison Park rather than Ashley Drive and many would prefer to use the traffic-free path through the centre of Harrison Park or Harrison Road, rather than cycle down Ogilvie Terrace to Harrison Gardens and then uphill again to West Bryson Street.

If Ogilvie Terrace is to feature as a key cycle route, a principal aim should be to connect to the under-used former railway path accessed through Harrison Place, which joins Dundee Terrace. It seems strange that the designs ignore the potential to promote and enhance this traffic-free cycling and walking route (eg with improved lighting, surface and signing).

The route from Harrison Park East to Watson Crescent could be another quiet route.

There are three zebra crossing proposed in this section, which in general terms is of course welcome for pedestrians. However, they are not located where they are most needed. The priority should be installing a zebra crossing on Ashley Terrace at the primary school, as the local community has long campaigned for. Some of the short sections of segregated cycleway appear to be of little use to cyclists and build in potential conflict with pedestrians where they criss-cross the footway areas, to everyone’s disadvantage.

There is no attempt to ensure that pavements in the Shandon/North Merchiston areas generally meet 2 metre minimum width required by Council standards.

Conclusions

Until recently, there has been a general presumption that street space for segregated cycling facilities should come from motor vehicle space, not walking space. This presumption has been effectively abandoned here. As we saw in Leith Walk (and in draft proposals like Hawthornvale-Salamander Street, Meadows to George Street, etc) trying to accommodate too many competing claims for travel modes into insufficient space results in sacrificing minimum standards for walking space.

The Council should investigate the possibility of accommodating cycle lanes in Dundee Street/Fountainbridge while retaining acceptable walking space, by reducing carriageway space radically. However it is not clear whether that this is realistic given the requirement for essential motor traffic including buses, even if general traffic was significantly reduced.

The proposed cycle lane should at least be deferred until the Fountainbridge development is completed. This should clarify whether there is sufficient public realm which can better accommodate the competing claims for adequate footway, carriageway and cycle way. In the meantime, some of the less controversial aspects of the scheme (such as improved crossings) could be introduced, with a much reduced budget.

Another approach to providing cyclists with alternatives to the Union Canal towpath would be to invest more in ‘quiet route’ networks, where cyclists are routed through low traffic streets, with filters if needed. This would avoid the major loss of pedestrian space on Dundee Street and may be more useful for cyclists. It would also be far cheaper.

Either way, if the Council is really committed to a travel hierarchy which places walking and wheeling at the top, it cannot continue to design schemes which do not meet even minimum standards for pedestrians, at schools and for older and disabled people. We ask the Council to reconsider its whole approach to bidding for major active travel funding until it develops a better understanding of how to integrate walking, cycling, public transport and general traffic in a way which respects the sustainable travel hierarchy.

December 2025

***

Appendix 1: proposed reductions in pavement widths

Dundee Street/FountainbridgeReduction in footway width (metres)
North side, bridge over WAR-0.3
South side between Dundee Terr/Yeaman Place-1.2 to-1.5
North side, between Telfer Subway and Fountainpark entrance-1.3
North side, between Fountainpark entrance and Gibson Terrace-1.8
North side, between Gibson Terrace and Fountainpark centre-2.1
North side, between Fountainpark centre and Fountainpark exit-0.3
North side, between Viewforth and Drysdale Road-1.00
North side, between Drysdale Road and Gilmore Park-1.5
North side, between Gilmore Park and hotel loading bay-2.4
North side, between Grove St and Freer Gait-1.4
South side, between Freer Gait and Gardner’s Crescent-1
South side, Gardner’s Crescent-1.5

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.