Tag Archives: Footway width

LSE SUPPORT FOR NEWBATTLE TERRACE PUBLIC REALM SCHEME

Consultation Response, , , ,

Living Streets Edinburgh Group very much welcomes this scheme, which will secure a big improvement in the quality of the public realm – with particular benefits for the safety and convenience of walking, in line with the latter’s place at the top of the Scottish Government’s ‘Sustainable Travel Hierarchy’.

We are surprised that footway widths are not specified, although we understand that in the new design ‘the north footway [of Newbattle Terrace] varies from 2.25 to 3.5m, with a couple of pinch points of around 2m’ and ‘the south footway is 3.0 – 3.1m, with a pinch point of 2.9m.’ This is reasonably in line with the Council’s ‘Street Design Guidance’ (SDG) which stipulates that the footway width should be an ‘absolute minimum’ width of 2m, ‘only allowed in short sections’.

The footprint of the scheme has been extended northwards up Pitsligo Road as far as the junction with Woodcroft Road, in order to accommodate a new contraflow cycle lane. The latter is welcome in itself, but should be matched by a widening of the parallel footways on this section (currently only 1.5-1.55m wide) in order to satisfy the ‘absolute minimum’ of 2m laid down in the SDG. The Convenor of the Council’s Transport & Environment Committee emphasised at the recent launch of the ‘Cut the Pavement Clutter’ project that the SDG ‘must be applied’ to all schemes, and noted the Council’s ‘wall to wall’ approach, ie not just upgrading the road carriageway, but also enhancing the parallel footways.

The creation of a continuous footway along the north side of Newbattle Terrace at the Pitsligo Road junction is very welcome, but pedestrian passage over the continuous footway should be protected by (i) road markings warning southbound (downhill) cyclists to give way to pedestrians, and (ii) tactiles at the edge of the former footway lines (to indicate to people with visual disabilities that vehicles and cycles cross this area – vehicles northbound only, and cyclists in both directions).

We suggest that any vehicle flow displacement on to Clinton Road should be monitored, and, if necessary, further action should be taken to deal with any problems caused by displaced traffic.

 

Objection to RSO/20/01 – Redetermination – Braidburn Area

Consultation Response, Traffic Regulation Orders, , , ,

Living Streets Edinburgh would like to lodge a formal objection to RSO/20/01 – Redetermination – Braidburn Area

We fundamentally object to the creation of “Shared Facility” between cyclists and pedestrians, where cyclists share the same narrow space as vulnerable pedestrians.  We note that both of the narrow “Shared Facilities” sections are on downhill sections, meaning cyclists will be traveling at speeds, which would an unacceptable risk to pedestrians.

We note that the pavement on the north side of Braidburn terrace doesn’t meet the Street Design Guidance “Absolute minimum footway width” but nothing is being done to resolve the issue.

We note that this project fails to adhere to the Scottish Planning Policy movement hierarchy.

Segregated cycling space should be created, but not to the detriment of pavement users.

West Edinburgh Link: Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

Consultation Response, Cycle Routes, , , , , , , ,

A. 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 as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around the city.

We welcome this significant investment in active travel. We perceive the principal aim of this scheme as providing safe and attractive cycling routes to the Gyle and Edinburgh Park business areas from the north and south, taking opportunities to enhance the local pedestrian environment. We would like to see these opportunities maximised, which will benefit all people in the residential area, not only those who wish to cycle. A fundamental point is that all proposals and designs must explicitly conform to the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance for the category/categories of street. We have agreed the appended general ’walkability criteria’ to assess street design proposals, and would ask that they are also applied here.

We would suggest that the objectives of the scheme need further clarification; in particular, we note that the project website states “efforts will be made to preserve…the flow of vehicles”. While we certainly agree that the effect on traffic flows needs to be carefully considered, we think that the scheme should try to reduce some motor traffic, especially commuting by private car to the Gyle/Edinburgh Park areas.

B. General observations.

Positive aspects

We welcome many aspects of the proposed design, such as new pedestrian crossings (eg Glasgow Road, Maybury Drive, Wester Hailes Road, Clovenstone Road) and the bridge over the railway line at Gyle Park. We welcome exploiting all opportunities for pedestrian ‘short cuts’ for example potentially from S Gyle Access to S Gyle Crescent via Flasshes Yard, and Dell Road to the Water of Leith. We would like particular attention to be given to enhancing walking links (in terms of safety, accessibility and convenience) to the schools in the vicinity of the project.  However, we would like to see a number of walking improvements included, as set out below:

Footway widths

The current and proposed width of footways on the many streets included in this scheme is not generally shown on the maps provided but many are too narrow. We wish to see any footway which is currently below the minimum width as specified in the Street Design Guidance widened to meet the “absolute minimum” standard – and of course, the aim should be to exceed absolute minimum standards. As a flagship ‘walking and cycling scheme’ meeting agreed minimum standards should be an absolutely fundamental requirement the scheme.

Junction radii

The residential areas in the scheme area were designed before the ‘Designing Streets’ 2010 guidance and thinking, and long before 20mph became the norm for local streets. They often feature wide junction splays and long corner radii. These make it more difficult and unsafe for pedestrians to cross side streets, as there is further to travel and the geometry encourages higher vehicle speeds.  There are probably dozens of such junctions in the scheme area and we would like to see the maximum possible improvements to these, including at the junctions where raised tables are proposed.

Dropped kerbs

Similarly many road junctions in residential areas lack dropped kerbs (eg N Gyle Drive at N Gyle Road). These should be installed as a matter of course as part of the scheme. We understand that the Council has a full database of ‘missing’ dropped kerbs which should be used to address this. Tactile paving should be installed where required.

Traffic calming

We note (and welcome) the proposed use of raised tables at several junctions (for example Craigmount Grove). We would support wider use of traffic calming measures on streets where local communities perceive speeding and rat-running as a significant problem.

Shared Use pavements

There are several places where it is proposed to share the footway between pedestrians and cyclists (eg Westburn Avenue, S Gyle Access). We are opposed to this design in principle, which we believe builds in conflict between the two modes, although we accept that this is viable in some park/footpath settings (as opposed to pavements). We note that Sustrans has now also adopted this policy position.

Public transport interchange

Measures should be taken to improve the routes to the bus and tram stops (particularly Bankhead which has a complicated multi stage crossing to Edinburgh college / Napier campus). This needs to be simplified with more frequent and generous pedestrians phases. Ideally these should coincide with tram arrival times – an opportunity to use ‘smart’ signal technology? technology.

We have long had concerns that ‘floating bus stops’ pose a risk to pedestrians – particularly bus passengers alighting who will not expect the possibility of encountering cyclists. We agreed to support their installation on Leith Walk in 2016, on the understanding that a full and objective evaluation of this perceived risk is carried out. As this has still not been published we therefore continue to oppose the installation of further floating bus stops, including as part of this scheme.

Seats

We would like to see seats installed at suitable locations throughout the area, which will encourage less mobile pedestrians to use the streets, knowing that there are opportunities to rest at suitable locations, especially where it is hilly or there are steps. One such location would be the proposed Gyle Park bridge.

Pavement clutter

We assume that a full de-cluttering exercise will be carried out on all streets included within the scheme, removing unnecessary signage poles, inappropriately-sited cycle racks and redundant guardrail, for example.

C. Conclusion

We welcome the proposed improvements to the pedestrian environment throughout the route; however, we note that there are very many other opportunities to improve walking in local areas from Wester Hailes to East Craigs. Although this scheme has a significant budget, we appreciate that it will not be possible to fund all the walking and cycling improvements which are desirable. The extensive new development in west Edinburgh is also an opportunity to ensure that more  investment for improving pedestrian infrastructures achieved through the planning process and consents. We would ask that the prioritisation of spending between measures which principally benefit walking on the one hand and cycling on the other is done transparently and takes account of the number of people likely to benefit. There should be no presumption that ‘walking measures’ – such as widening pavements and dropping kerbs – are necessarily secondary to ‘cycling measures’.

***

Appendix: Living Streets Edinburgh ‘Walkability Criteria’

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is keen to ensure that all types of transport and public realm schemes – whether routine maintenance or new initiatives – improve the walking environment. We would like to see each scheme satisfy the following fundamental aims:

  1. compliance with the Council’s Street Design Guidance [http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/550/edinburgh_street_design_guidance] – at the very least, its minimum standards, eg on footway width and frequency of pedestrian crossings, and,
  2. compliance with the transport hierarchy set out in Scottish Planning Policy (2014) – https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/pages/8/ – including ‘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’.

LSEG does not have the resources to examine and comment in detail on every transport and public realm proposal; our view on whether a scheme design has satisfied these fundamental aims will be determined by Council answers to the following questions on ‘walkability’ criteria:

  1. How does the design contribute to the Council’s strategic objective to promote walking [as set out in the Active Travel Plan http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20087/cycling_and_walking/1791/cycling_and_walking_projects/1]?
  2. Does the scheme comply in detail with the Council’s Street Design Guidance, for example with regard to footway widths, frequency of pedestrian crossing points, decluttering, continuous footways over side street junctions, and junction corner radii (amongst many other issues)? Where does it fail to comply?
  3. Are pedestrian crossing points convenient in terms of proximity, waiting times, directness and time to cross, especially for less able users?
  4. Does the scheme as a whole improve road safety, especially in terms of vehicle speeds at junctions and crossing points?
  5. Has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out? If so, what are the chief impacts on disabled or elderly pedestrians?
  6. Which walking elements of the scheme represent a quantitative / qualitative enhancement or deterioration of current walking facilities, eg footway widths?
  7. In what ways does it avoid pedestrian conflicts with other road users (including motor vehicles and cyclists), eg by providing dedicated and well-defined space for pedestrians and avoiding ‘shared spaces’?

Picardy Place Decision ‘Embarrassing For Councillors’

Council Policy, Picardy, Press Release, , , , , , , , ,

The City Council decision to back the controversial Picardy Place gyratory roundabout will be a ‘continuing embarrassment’ to those Councillors who approved the plan, say local walking campaigners. Living Streets Edinburgh [1] criticised the decision of Transport & Environment Councillors from the Conservative, Labour and SNP groups for giving the green light to what the walking campaigners describe as ‘a 1960s’ solution to a 21st century problem’ Living Streets Edinburgh Convenor, David Spaven, commented:

‘Councillors – other than the visionary Greens – have backed a fundamentally flawed plan, which runs completely counter to the Council’s own transport policies. We now face the deplorable prospect that the Council’s design will make the Picardy Place and Leith Street even worse for pedestrians than it is at present. This will surely be a continuing embarrassment to these councillors, unless big changes are made to the detail of the design in the months ahead.

‘We will be pressing strongly for design improvements by Council officers to reduce the negative impact of more circuitous road crossings, narrower pavements and cycling /walking conflicts where new cycleways bisect pavements.’

 

NOTES FOR EDITORS

[1]  Living Streets Edinburgh Group is the local volunteer arm of the national charity campaigning for ‘everyday’ walking. See: http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/END OF RELEASE

Picardy Place Position Statement – November 2017 (Updated)

Consultation Response, Picardy, , ,

Introduction

Picardy Place is a crucial part of Edinburgh’s UNESCO World Heritage site. The area is already traffic dominated and will become worse if proposals for a three-lane gyratory go ahead. If the City of Edinburgh Council does not apply its own policies – prioritising walking and cycling – to its big projects, it clearly sends out the wrong signal on transport priorities.

Our position

A gyratory traffic system (major roundabout) is totally inappropriate in a modern city centre, due to the impact of multiple traffic lanes. This type of infrastructure is being ripped up in London to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Building one in Edinburgh would be a backward step for the city because:

    • The design is outdated and has not been subject to modern standards of consultation which focus on ‘place making’ in the public realm.
    • It does not comply with Scottish Government or the Council’s own policies, especially in terms of prioritising ‘movement over place’ and a sustainable transport hierarchy.
    • Footways are not wide enough – failing to meet the Council’s own Street design Guidance in places.
    • There will be a loss of important areas of public realm / cultural / green space.
    • There are potential conflict points between pedestrians and cyclists in a busy part of the city.
    • It fails to provide a proper bus interchange with the tram stop which is easy to walk to and encourages people to arrive by public transport and not by car.

What needs to happen?

    • The council need to take a place-based approach to this important area of the City, putting pedestrians at the heart of their transport policy. This means a T-Junction, not a roundabout.
    • This approach should make it easier for people to cross roads using direct routes and desire lines, without diversions and multiple staged crossings.
    • Pedestrians and cyclists need their own dedicated space to avoid frustration, conflict and safety concerns.
    • Footways need to be wide enough, especially beside the Cathedral, and important areas of public space and art should be retained.
    • Design in space and convenient crossings to a tram / bus interchange which is easily accessible for people with disabilities.

Conclusions

There is a significant opportunity here to create a great new public space, transport interchange and gateway to the city centre: by reviewing the current proposals and applying modern approaches to public consultation and place-based design. The Council must realise this opportunity by working with citizens and key stakeholders, including Living Streets Edinburgh, through a meaningful consultation process over the coming months.

Take action now

 

You can have your say by responding to the official Council consultation on https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/picardy-place

Update 22 November

Amended plans announced by the Council on 17 November involve some modest improvements, including more public space in front of the cathedral, but adding circuitous multi-stage pedestrian crossings, plus a range of potential walking / cycling conflicts. And the massive, 1960s-style, gyratory road system remains in place – this is just not good enough when the Council’s own plans envisage the car’s share of city transport dropping from 42% in 2010 to 29% in 2020.