Tag Archives: street Design Guidance

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.

Pedestrian crossing reports: Blackhall and Gardners Crescent

Council Policy, Street Audit, , , , ,

We have two new reports on our observations from the pedestrian’s point of view on two more road junctions. As so often, people walking have to wait too long to cross – this not only discourages walking but also encourages people to cross unsafely. Especially worrying is the lack of any ‘green man’ phase at Blackhall (a problem until recently at Gardners Crescent too). We’re encouraging the City of Edinburgh Council to invest much more in traffic signals so that they better reflect the ‘sustainable travel hierarchy’ (which has walking and wheeling firmly at the top).

Blackhall Junction

Blackhall

LSEG-Blackhall-Sep-2024-1Download

Morrison Street

LSEG-Morrison-Street-2024Download

Our Future Streets – A discussion on the future of Edinburgh’s streets

City Mobility Plan, , , ,

Thank you for attending our webinar with Daisy Narayanan, head of placemaking and mobility at Edinburgh Council, and Cllr Scott Arthur, convener of the Transport and Environment Committee, who discussed changes to central Edinburgh i.e. the North / South Bridges, Canongate, Cowgate, the Mound and more.

Missed the event? Here is the video on YouTube

Here are the headlines:

  • Edinburgh is very congested and that’s something we have to tackle to hit net zero, as well as accommodate growth: land has been set aside for around 37,000 new houses in and around the city over the next few years.
  • How and when these changes are happening are yet to be outlined in detail. But expecting some / most of it within a year.
  • Traffic modelling shows an expected 10% traffic evaporation once these new proposals go through – the Council has a 30% reduction target in car kilometres by 2030.
  • The proposals to restrict traffic on the bridges etc partly depend on letting traffic flow (partially) through Holyrood Park – Historic Environment Scotland (HES) owns Holyrood Park and is currently consulting on the park’s future – the Council and HES will have to work together.
  • Scott Arthur said he does not foresee any changes to Lothian Bus routes through the city centre, but of course Lothian Buses makes up its own routes, not the Council.
  • This is not a car ‘ban’. Residents and businesses will retain access to areas like Cowgate [editor: unanswered questions if any of proposed areas will actually be pedestrianised].
  • The new proposals mean re-examining plans to make Lothian Road a ‘boulevard’.There is an opportunity to widen pavements on the bridges as well as restrict through-traffic.
  • The Council is considering restricting vehicle access to Calton Road from Leith Street i.e. where the back of Waverley Station is.
  • Any changes to Picardy Place will be incremental e.g. possibly again allowing vehicles to turn onto London Road.
  • The fundamental challenge is the volume of traffic in the city. However, the plans aim to make it easier for people who really need to drive. The tram network is planned to double and bus journey times are planned to decrease by 25% within a decade.
  • The Council and Network Rail are talking about opening certain sections of the South Suburban Railway i.e. Slateford to Portobello, but not the entire loop. Timescale? 2035. Ultimate permission will come from Network Rail.Please email us if you’d like to be sent the slide deck / Zoom chat.

Further reading:

City Mobility Plan – First Review – February 2024

What are The City of Edinburgh Council plans for city centre traffic?

City Centre Transformation, Public Event, ,

What are The City of Edinburgh Council plans for city centre traffic?

What will they mean for everyday walking and wheeling?

Join us online at 12.00 on 1 March to hear a short presentation from Daisy Narayanan and join the Q&A!

Register you place here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAsc-ugrjwpEtRfWiZMru0iH5nbbZlNLzXF#/registration