Edinburgh will grow by 15%-20% in the next 20 years or so. It’s a familiar story: in 2000, Edinburgh’s population was around 450,000 – it’s now 550,000. By 2040 it could be 660,000+.
Whisper it, but in the last 20+ years, Edinburgh or the region has delivered significant enhancements to public transport:
· Expansion of Bus lanes
· Investment in a publicly owned bus fleet
· Contactless bus fare payments
· Airdrie to Bathgate, Borders Rail
· New stations: Newcraighall, Edinburgh Gateway & Brunstane
· A huge increase in Waverley capacity and wider-electrification
· £1.3bn Queensferry Crossing (reliability for public transport)
· Park & Rides such as Ferry Toll, Ingliston
· 18.5km of tram line (with plans for more).
Despite this and every government, at every level and across-parties promoting sustainable behaviour change, 25,000 more vehicles are registered in Edinburgh than there were in 2009. Car-use rises unabated. It’s the elephant in the room that squeezes out public transport capacity, constricts young lungs, causes injuries that affect our NHS and hurt families, hampers those who need more time and space to move around our city and harms business.
In short, Edinburgh has and will continue to deliver many carrots, but it’s time for sticks too: where are the filters, the congestion charge and workplace parking levy? If every new household in Edinburgh comes with a car (which is the current average) everyone will lose out. Edinburgh will be a modern tragedy of the commons.
Our feedback has several themes:
Plans are great. But get on with it.
· Consultation fatigue is real – just look at 7/7/7 bus lanes – still not delivered despite several consultations and many years since the decisions were taken.
· Many of the commitments are too vague and too numerous (see Edinburgh Bus Users Group & Living Streets comments).
· Follow the Edinburgh Street Design guidance – many schemes simply have not.
· There doesn’t appear to be an implementation plan or delivery plan - yet the Council has committed to Net Zero by 2030?
There’s too much focus on men who work:
· The public transport action plan in particular, focuses on the commute. Women tend to have shorter commutes and more trips locally. The plans sadly do not focus enough on shorter more local journeys such as trip chaining, the school run or for those who have non-9-5 caring responsibilities – particularly women.
· There is very limited mention of delivery of school streets or local trips to/from schools – which could be up to 20% of Edinburgh’s traffic.
· There’s too much focus on the City Centre and trips too/from it and not at all on winter preparedness - sadly it doesn’t focus enough on local journeys that kids do particularly in winter, key to getting cars off the road.
Going forward the council must improve the sales pitch:
· Schemes have too often been about hard traffic engineering measures. Planners should set out clearly softer measures such those planned by Lambeth – trees, places to sit & congregate, access to shared vehicles locally, clearing places to cross a street – as well as using the hard measures.
· Be clearer that these plans will mean inconvenience for drivers. Without reducing car use and parking significantly, public transport capacity cannot be delivered. This is, at best, opaque and, at worst, is missing from these documents.
· The lack of coherence between the plans is worrying. With so many documents, it’s very hard to piece together plans in so many different formats. They look, feel and sound like they aren’t integrated as well as they could be. SW20 is engaged in these matters, but if it’s hard for us to piece together, it’ll be very hard for others.
What follows are comments on each individual plan.
Circulation plan:
Overall Assessment: The scale of change required to achieve a challenging 30% traffic reduction in a growing City Region is (sadly) not matched by this plan. Identifying which streets will get priority for which method of transport is great, but it looks like everyone can still drive almost everywhere? Where are the filters, bus gates and lower traffic neighbourhoods?
What’s positive:
· This is a good start and has been welcome by almost every stakeholder group and political party. Please remember this when the inevitable populist social media backlash starts!
· The whole city approach. A single LTN will inevitably be controversial, but will only truly be successful if the 30% traffic reduction is achieved - which needs many LTNs!
· Focus on walking and wheeling in ‘Place’ areas – needs extended.
What’s disappointing:
· There’s too much focus on trying to please everyone with big ticket, heavy infrastructure schemes, rather simpler, but more effective schemes such as filters and bus gates.
· Where are the demand-led initiatives such as congestion charging and the workplace parking levy?
· These would significantly reduce traffic volume in line with targets and contribute to better conditions walking and cycling with minimal cost. Locally there could be bus gates at Colinton, Craiglockhart & Shandon with filters at Harrison Park, Yeaman Place, Russell Road, Greenbank Lane and School Streets at Nethercurrie, Longstone or Firrhill Campuses.
· There should be a principle that at every opportunity streets should be redesigned to cater for 30% less traffic (and ideally significantly increase pavement space, active travel provision or public transport capacity). There have been several examples where street resurfacing, utilities laying, significant redevelopment or maintenance works (e.g. North Bridge, sections of Lothian Road, Shandon Bridge) have missed opportunities to bank reductions in car usage. If you give it back to cars it’ll be harder to take back later.
· Why locations in SW Edinburgh were not included as “Place” areas where walking & wheeling will be prioritised (Colinton Mains, Craiglockhart, Longstone, Colinton, Juniper Green for example)?
· The primary cycle network should only be in very low traffic areas OR where it can be accommodated with segregated cycling. It is noticeable that the commitment in areas such as Comiston Road is that traffic reduction is NOT the first priority, but cyclists sharing with buses is. This will prevent children and families from cycling – increasing car use.
· Examples of “cycle network – space constraints” (e.g. Oxgangs Road or between Oxgangs and Greenbank) suggest that parking is being prioritised over cycling – there is sufficient space if parking is removed. The city is already littered with timed parking that blocks painted bike lanes (see the ‘quality bike corridor’ on Causewayside). This is very worrying.
Active Travel Action Plan:
Overall Assessment: much is positive but why’s there a blackhole in the SW of Edinburgh till 2026 in a £1.12bn plan?
What’s welcome:
· The £1.12bn ambition.
· There is some focus on the basics – better crossings, more space at junctions for pedestrians, dropped kerbs – but a worrying lack of focus on street trees.
· The engagement now: but the piecemeal and unprioritized nature of some of the list of schemes will sap Council resources and political will unless consultation processes and delivery timescales are significantly shortened or schemes grouped/made larger.
· The focus on reducing turning lanes and reallocation of space (local examples include e.g. Lanark Road, Oxgangs Road North, Colinton Road), but it’s important this is done in practice. We hope that all opportunities (e.g. utilities work) will automatically be taken for street redesign (unlike recent resurfacing on Lothian Road) to widen pavements and build bike lanes.
· The proposed development-led paths and cycle lanes through Redford Barracks – it is crucial this is delivered first to ensure car-use is not baked in.
What’s disappointing:
· The £1.12bn is unbudgeted. In a challenging public finance landscape, it is unclear how this will be funded or how it will be prioritised against the other action plans or the current Administration's unwillingness to incentivise behaviours with charging sooner rather than later (Workplace Parking Levy and Congestion Charge).
· Against this financial backdrop, cheaper filtering of traffic, school streets and revenue raising might be better delivery methods.
· Where are the larger schemes for delivery in SW Edinburgh – we’d note that the West Edinburgh Link is off street, indirect and does not connect to Colinton Village or WHEC?
· Compare the place enhancements that Lambeth is proposing – street trees, places to sit etc. Edinburgh’s plan is significantly less ambitious and visual on this front.
· There remain significant gaps in the proposed cycle network. We wouldn’t do this for buses, trams or cars.
· In a time of limited resources, should the council focus on “built it and they’ll come” - there are a lot of actions!
· Setting better metrics for the different levels of services for the walking, cycling and public transport network as part of the circulation plan is needed to baseline street design. Otherwise the Council will get tangled in the type of crowdsourced street design wrangles we’ve seen with Braid Road and Corstorphine:
o E.g. streets below c2,000 vehicles per days will be safer for walking and cycling and therefore not need floating bus stops and parking can remain. Streets may be one way, contraflow cycling and bus gates will be considered to reduce vehicle flows to this level. (e.g. Braid Road, Bridge Roa Colinton with a bus gate)
o Streets above c2,000-4000 vehicles per day, removal of parking may be considered to widen pavements, provide segregated cycling where possible.
o Streets with 6,000+ per day on a public transport corridor where vehicles cannot be removed - will need full segregated cycling likely with floating bus stops (e.g. where risk to cyclists in traffic is greater overall than to pedestrians at bus stops). To facilitate this parking is likely to be removed, loading bays located on side streets and pavements widened. (e.g. Colinton Mains, Lanark Road, Craiglockhart).
o Suggest reviewing Cycling by Design or English LTN 1/120 standards (see below for appropriate cycling protection):
ROAD SAFETY ACTION PLAN TO 2030
Overall assessment: Vision Zero by 2030 is very welcome – but where’s the school streets?
What’s welcome:
· Vision Zero by 2030. We’re hugely supportive.
· The trends are positive, but with the increasing, weight and number of vehicles, we can’t help but be worried.
What’s disappointing:
· In every other industry you start by removing the risk, not managing it. So why is this plan so silent on school streets, filtering and reducing overall traffic levels?
· The delivery: We cannot see how the Council plans to extend 20mph only to some streets but not all but the tiniest exceptions. Communities in Oxgangs, Craiglockhart, Longstone, Currie all deserve better.
Public Transport Action Plans:
Overall assessment: good intentions, much is positive but why’s there a blackhole in the SW of Edinburgh?
What’s welcome:
· The commitment to integrated ticketing and better users displays etc is welcome but too slow. Edinburgh needs to move towards a 1 hour ticket (perhaps £2 for as many journeys as needed in an hour. This should cover any bus, train or tram stop within the CEC boundary.
· The plans for and safeguarding of orbital bus services are very welcome.
· That taxi’s & private hire’s are noted as a key part of the transport infrastructure particularly for – they stand to benefit the most from reduced car use and are critical to many people without cars or who can’t drive due to disability.
What’s disappointing:
· Where are the plans for the SW of the City? Despite a “major new development area” being identified in the City Plan (Redford Barracks) there is no or limited public transport improvement to the SW of the City, already an area of high car use. STPR2, the City Plan and The City Mobility Plan misses a huge wedge for Edinburgh for public transport enhancements - the whole of the SW of the city. Part of the challenge is that if new communities are built without significant active and public transport capacity in place BEFORE homes are occupied, the sunk costs of car ownership and behavioural norms mean switching later are a significant barrier – again heightening car use and dependency.
· The elephant in the room isn’t clearly highlighted: tram and bus network capacity, frequency, profitability and attractiveness requires – in fact demands – significant reductions in private car use beyond the city centre. Many of the actions listed in the appendices are welcome, but contingent on reducing congestion or too focused on the city centre.
Parking Action Plan:
Overall Assessment: more of the same – sadly not as radical as it could be. The power of parking is overlooked.
What’s welcome:
· The detail of the plan contains many good principles, including a review of charging schemes – but does kick the can down the road for later more difficult decisions.
· Future enforcement powers (pavement parking) are welcome as is the bringing in-house of enforcement (should it be done well).
What’s disappointing:
· The foreword to the plan suggests that residents should expect to park near their homes. This is hugely disappointing given the objectives and the City Mobility Plan and sets the Council up for constant battles.
· The plan is largely silent on the Workplace Parking Levy – despite successful introduction in Nottingham leading to significant investment in public transport.
· The lack of innovation and intent from the plan. Charges for storing cars in public space should be extended. If you want to drive a small, efficient, lightweight EV it should be significantly cheaper to store than a heavy polluting SUV.
· The plan does not yet appear to future-proofed for increased vehicle weight and size or access to mass electric charging.
See also other very good consultation responses:
Spokes Lothian
End