Tag Archives: Leith

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.

Street Audits (Leith, Lochend, Niddrie)

Street Audit,

Our colleagues at Living Streets Scotland completed a number of street audits for housing associations across Scotland in 2021.

These look at cycling and walking facilities in a number of neighbourhoods; please see links to the Edinburgh studies below:

Assessment of Walking and Cycling Conditions at Argyll Street, Leith (Port of Leith Housing Association)
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/5676/auditreport_41740_portleithargyllst.pdf

Assessment of Walking and Cycling Conditions at Pitt Street, Leith (Port of Leith Housing Association)
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/5675/auditreport_41740_pofleith_pittst.pdf

Assessment of Walking and Cycling Conditions Lochend Rd South, Edinburgh (Port of Leith Housing Association)
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/5753/auditreport_41740_pofleith_lochend.pdf

Assessment of Walking and Cycling Conditions at Gulliver Street, Niddrie, Edinburgh (Link Group)
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/5752/auditreport_41736_niddrielinkgroup.pdf

Assessment of Walking and Cycling Conditions at Albert Street, Edinburgh (Port of Leith Housing Assoc)
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/5655/auditreport_41707_pofleith_albertst.pdf

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.

Tram Extension to Newhaven: Further Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

Consultation Response, Trams, , , , , , , , , ,

 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. This note supplements the responses we made to the initial public consultation in April (http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2018/04/27/commentary-on-taking-trams-to-newhaven-consultation/) and July 2018.

In general, we remain supportive of the tram extension and further investment to improve public transport in Edinburgh. This is essential if the city is to become less car-dependent while at the same time growing by at least an expected 100,000 people in the next 20 years.

Positive aspects

We are encouraged by a number of new elements in the proposed tram design, as shared with us on 11 October 2018. Together, these will represent significant improvements as part of the process of making Edinburgh a truly ‘walkable city’:

  • General adherence to the Council’s Street Design Guidance (SDG), with many tightened junctions, continuous pavements, etc.
  • Three or four locations where roundabouts are being replaced by traffic lights with signalised crossings, which are easier for pedestrians to cross.
  • Major improvement of Elm Row and the awful London Road junction.
  • New ‘public realm in several few areas, eg Bernard Street, Ocean Terminal rouddabout.
  • Many more crossings (signalled and informal) across Leith Walk (north end).
  • On Leith Walk, all lamp-posts will be relocated to the (1.8m wide) central reservation, aiding comprehensive pavement decluttering.

Remaining areas of concern:

  • Some pavements are very narrow, especially at three bus stops at the north end of Leith Walk (one on the west side, two on the east); here the pavement is approximately 2m wide (with bus stop ‘floating’). This is inadequate and fails to meet SDG standards; we support the tram team’s suggestion that pavements are widened to 2.4m, by ‘pinching’ the one-way cycle path further at these bus stops.
  • We continue to have concerns regarding widespread use of ‘floating bus stops’ throughout the scheme, at a time where the promised evaluation of the first such bus stops in the Pilrig to McDonald Rd area remains outstanding. We also understand that there is insufficient room for this type of bus stop design to comply with SDG standards at these three bus stops. A lack of space could create conflicts for cyclists and pedestrians, especially if there isn’t grade separation – as per the Pilrig to McDonald Rd section design.
  • We are concerned that New Kirkgate is still an ‘option’ for a cycle route. Although we understand why northbound cyclists will be banned from entering Constitution St (because cycling will not be permitted through a tram stop) the Kirkgate is not a suitable place for commuter cyclists, or any other non-walking through-traffic.
  • Pavements in the central part of Constitution St at North Leith church must be maintained at 2 metres wide or more. Any provision of loading facilities which reduced either pavement below this would be unacceptable.
  • There is some shared cycle/pedestrian space proposed at Newhaven (extending an already shared space). We support investigation of options to provide separate cycle and walk spaces.

Next steps:

  • We welcome the proposed setting up of an ‘Active Travel Group’ to look at detailed designs, involving stakeholders such as Spokes, Sustrans, Edinburgh Access Panel and LSEG. We will contribute to this as far as possible; however, our default position is that designs must adhere to SDG standards.
  • We understand that consultants will prepare a report identifying exceptions to the standards in the SDG, which will be shared with the Active Travel Group.
  • Funding has been secured to consider cycle route options from Foot o’ the Walk to Ocean Terminal. Again we will participate as necessary with this, but we query the proposition that Ocean Terminal is necessarily where most cyclists want to head to from Leith Walk at all? We expect that there will be a range of destinations for cyclists leaving Leith Walk northwards (to east and west as well as north) and these may be more important desire lines for cyclists than Ocean Terminal.
  • We ask the Council to report on the evaluation of the Floating Bus Stop designs on Leith Walk.
  • While we welcome the greatly-improved design of Elm Row, including the stopping-up of Montgomery Street, we suggest that a modelling exercise is undertaken in order to understand the effects of any traffic displacement on other streets in the vicinity.
  • We welcome a number of potential opportunities to secure other street improvements which are beyond the immediate scope of the tram project such as: improved public realm at Ocean Terminal; traffic management of streets between Easter Road and Leith Walk; removal of the roundabout at foot of Easter Road at Leith Links; and re-instatement of historic ‘Boardwalk’ along the coast.

 

The full response can be downloaded as a pdf file here – Tram Extension to Newhaven Further Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh