LCCC DRAFT minutes: April 2018

Please note that these are draft minutes, and may not be take as authoritative unless approved at LCCC’s next meeting.

Actions and decisions are red italic underlined. nem con means that no-one spoke or voted against a decision.

1          Attendance, apologies, declarations of interest

1.a        Attendance

Jack Caldwell LCCC Harald Tobermann LCCC vicechair
Roberto Colasuonno LCCC Bruce Ryan minutes secretary
Jeremy Darot LCCC Alan McIntosh Broughton Spurtle
Charlotte Encombe LCCC chair Sgt George Nisbet Police Scotland
Nick Gardner LCCC PC Lauren Mitchell Police Scotland
John Hein LCCC Rory Garriock, CEC Community Engagement Manager
(Anturas Consulting – civil engineering consultants)
Sheila Kennedy LCCC secretary Steven Jackson Associate Director, Turner & Townsend
(project & cost managers)
Iona McLeod LCCC  
Lorraine Moore LCCC treasurer Darren Wraight CEC Civil Engineer, senior interface manager
Julian Siann LCCC 17 residents and visitors  

1.b        Apologies

Damian Sefton LCCC Ben Macpherson MSP Edinburgh Northern & Leith (SNP)
Cllr Amy McNeese-Mechan Leith Walk ward (SNP) Deidre Brock MP Edinburgh North & Leith (SNP)

1.c        Declarations of interest


2          Approval of minutes of 19 March 2018meeting

Approved subject to clarification of item 6 a point 4  (proposed J Caldwell, seconded J Hein, nem con)

3          Matters arising

  • Items 6d (154 McDonald Road) and 8b (treasurer’s report and FY 2018-19 proposals) held over to May
  • Item 8c point 4 (advertising drums) delegated to LCCC planning committee
  • Item 8e (cllr Ritchie) C Encombe read out LCCC’s letter to him. CEC’s response was that he is leave until 7 January, and that his Leith Walk business is being handled by Cllr McNeese-Mechan.

4         Community Police Officer’s Report

Sgt Nisbet and PC Mitchell reported

  • Sgt Nisbet was in the Leith response tram before taking up this role, so he knows the area well.
  • PC Clark has been patrolling around issues on Jane St, leading to some offenders being charged.
  • Operation Agora started in April, tackling theft of cycles, and leading to a number of warrants and recoveries of bikes.

4.a        Questions

A resident reported that a window had been left open in the Shaws colonies, leading to theft of a TV. The CPOs responded that thefts of TVs are unusual (because they have little value) but will follow up this crime.

5          Proposed tram extension: Q&A with tram team on Traffic Management and Landscape Proposals (papers)

NB questions to the tram tram are in bold below. Answers are in normal type. LCCC’s unasked questions are in an appendix.

5.a        Introduction

R Garriock, S Jackson and D Wraight outlined their roles in the tram project. (See attendance table above.) The tram project is led by Hannah Ross (CEC principle solicitor, senior accountable officer) and Rob Leech (of Anturas), who managed the first Edinburgh tram project’ stretch from Haymarket to York Place.

5.b        Summary of salient tram extension facts from LCCC point of view

H Tobermann reminded the meeting that

  • The team members present have no role in deciding whether to proceed with the extension, but are to deliver it if CEC decides in favour of it.
  • 10 years ago, Leith Walk was a ‘lovely’ but somewhat ‘quirky’ pedestrian-friendly boulevard. Then 3 years of botched tram-works were followed by 7 years of painfully slow reinstatement (‘the Leith Programme’) by CEC. This has not yet fixed everything from Bernard Road to London Road, but has caused much uncertainty over what would be achieved, and much disruption.
  • The St James Quarter, the now-expiring Tram Act and the debt-burden (£170 over budget) of the existing trams have now created pressure for an early tram extension. This in turn has caused the ‘Leith Programme’ to come to a halt at McDonald Rd. The section from here to Annandale will see normality for the first time again in 2021 (assuming the extension completes on time and on budget).
  • Hence LCCC insists that if the extension goes ahead, the construction phase and the outcome must be of the highest specified quality and quality control at every step…
  • LCCC’s fear is that the impact of another failure – however unlikely – will result in an increased financial burden for all Edinburgh council tax payers, but extract a very high physical price for the long-suffering residents of Leith Walk and its hinterland.
  • This meeting will help LCCC formulate its response to the current consultation ending 29 April.
  • CEC will issue tender documents to the four short-listed contractors at the end of this week.
  • There will be 2 contracts:
    • ‘swept path’ (clearing underground utilities, using a ‘one-dig’ method). This price of this contract depends on the actual tasks discovered.
    • ‘infrastructure and systems’ – installing the tracks, overhead wires, trams stops and public realm.
  • There will then be tender negotiations, followed by more consultation.
  • Tenders will be finalised in October 2018, to enable a final business case for CEC and hence CEC’s final decision.
  • If CEC votes to proceed, work would start in May 2019.

The tram team confirmed that HT had summarised the process very well, and with no gaps, apart from clarifying the small detail that the proposed ‘one-dig’ method of diverting utilities would involve only one contractor, in contrast to the previous piecemeal ‘MUDFA’ method which used several contractors. However, both MUDFA and one-dig would achieve the same outcome – movement of utilities. The team offered to come out and meet individuals looking at the sections considered below.

5.c        London Rd/Gayfield Square to McDonald Road

5.c.i       Construction phase

See also Albert Street to Elm Row

How will the present bus interchange at Elm Row be replicated during construction?

All city-bound services/number of stops will be maintained. North-bound services will be diverted, probably via Easter Road and Broughton Street/Bonnington Road. Lothian Buses are still working on plans – further discussions will take place, and a traffic management plan will be created. There may be temporary traffic lights to enable buses to get to the diversion routes. There will be modelling to optimise diversions.

  • HT stated that the team should provide its answer very soon.

How many communal bins are in this section at the moment? How many bins, and where, will there be during construction?

We’ll have to get back to you about that. We’re in dialogue with Waste Team.

  • HT stated that the team should provide its answer very soon.

5.c.ii      Final layout

See also landscape proposals (McDonald Rd to Gayfield Sq and Gayfield Sq to Picardy Pl) and traffic regulation order proposals (McDonald Road to Gayfield Square and Gayfield Square to Picardy Place)

With the majority of Elm Row shops (north of Montgomery) on the east side, why are the parking and loading bays on the west side (Haddington Place), forcing shoppers and suppliers to cross the central reservation?

The aim was to protect the traffic filter lane, but this is by no means finalised, and can be reconsidered.

Cycle lanes are drawn at sharp and inconsistent angles around bins, some bus stops and at Montgomery Street. Is this deliberate or was this overlooked when preparing tender drawings?

This was an error – we can’t expect cyclists to make [such sharp] 90° turns. The tender document will be corrected.

Why are the existing trees on Elm Row to be cut down and replaced?

It’s necessary because their current position does not fit with the proposed new public realm. They will be replaced like for like. The size and proportion of tree pits will stay the same. The new trees will be planted, not potted. The maintenance regime for new trees will become the responsibility of City of Edinburgh Council.

(A resident) Where will the tram terminate when construction under way?

The final piece of [layout] work will be linking the extension to York Place. There will be a temporary crossing between Elder St and North St Andrews St. For about 9 months during construction, trams will terminate at St Andrews Square.

5.d        McDonald Road to Pilrig St

5.d.i      Construction phase

See also Albert Street to Elm Row and Steads Place to Albert Street

Where are the loading bays for the three supermarkets during construction? How will smaller grocers who require daily restocking be served?

Four logistics hubs are planned [generally just within Leith Walk side streets]. Deliveries will be dropped off at these hubs, then taken to final destinations by tram team-members using trolleys.

Will the Shrub Place site contractor, whose site is shown as vacant on your plans, be required access from Leith Walk during tram construction? How exactly will this be managed? Who will be responsible for any delays that may arise from potential conflicts between tram and site contractor’s priorities?

We will be in discussion with all developers during the entire project, to understand the interfaces between the tram project and the other developments. Developers are obliged to maintain access.

In the event of conflict, will you use the Tram Act to prioritise the tram works?

I’ve not seen the Tram Act used in that way before. We might be best placed to put utilities in, so that developers only need to turn on valves. Nor do we want to finish the public realm, only for it to be dug up very soon. There has already been much discussion with developers and utility companies, and there will be soon discussion with Drum (Stead’s Place). During the tram work, there would be embargoes such that only emergency gas work could be done during embargoes.

(J SIann) Please advise about road closures, e.g. to Pilrig St

McDonald Road and Pilrig St will not both be closed at the same time. Pilrig St would be closed for about 2 months.

5.d.ii     Final layout

See also landscape proposals (Middlefield to McDonald Rd and Pilrig St to Middlefieldand traffic regulation order proposals (Middlefield to McDonald Road and Pilrig Street to Middlefield)

There are no pedestrian crossings at Albert St and Middlefield? Can this be described as pedestrian friendly? How will bicycles travelling west from Easter Rd along Albert Street get into Pilrig Street?

Consultations have shown a strong community view that there is a distinct lack of crossing points, particularly in this section. This will be reviewed but we can’t specify just now what will change.

The advanced bike stop line at McDonald Rd is shown across tram tracks? Is this deliberate or was this overlooked when preparing tender drawings? Is there evidence on the safety of <60° turns, e.g. from the existing route?

The current two-stage turn will be retained. We are following the patterns used in the existing route. The angle across tram tracks for more confident riders (less than 60º) will be addressed. Tram Team will listen if members of the public, or the Active Planning Team, have a better solution.

Where are the communal bins at Scotmid and Middlefield? How will Scotmid logistics be managed?

We have to take views from Scotmid and the public. We don’t have a [finished] design solution tonight. These plans are proposals designed to get feedback, analyse it and report back on lessons learnt.

  • HT suggested that the tram team are qualified professionals, while LCCC members and citizens are amateurs. Mr Wraight implied that he welcomed public concerns, stating it his the tram team’s role to come up with solutions – and to be open to solutions suggested by others.

Can changing the cycle-path so that blind people are safer be integrated into the plans?

We are happy to take in any community views. We’re meeting with RNIB next week, and would like to be meet with LCCC’s blind member.

5.e        Pilrig St to Stead’s Place

5.e.i       Construction phase

See also Steads Place to Albert Street

How will traffic from/to Balfour and Arthur Street exiting onto Pilrig Street be managed?

There are no plans to change Cambridge Avenue, Cambridge Gardens etc. The flow from Leith Walk to Arthur St will be maintained. We’ve given principles – the contractor will develop detailed traffic management drawings, then the team will come back to the CC with these. It appears that access to Arthur St has been omitted from [the current version of] the relevant plan.

What measures will be taken to minimise noise and air pollution arising from queuing traffic?

Red hatching on plans is where no construction vehicles will be allowed. We will meet with our scientific services colleagues to understand environmental concerns in the area, and do traffic modelling to see if extra air-quality monitoring is needed. If monitoring shows high pollution, suitable be changes will be made, e.g. to signalised junctions.

What are the loading arrangements for Scotmid?

We are currently talking to local businesses. Deliveries will be offloaded at hub, then trolleys will be used to deliver goods to their destinations. The current plans for hubs may change. Plans include also taking goods from shops.

(A resident) There are 862 house on Balfour St, who will have access issues during and after construction.

We are already looking at this.

 (Same resident) From 162 Leith Walk to Manderson St, there is a poured concrete slab (about 110m long, 17m wide, at least 0·5m deep). This is already transmitting vibrations from buses, causing damage to nearby houses. Buses and trucks travelling nearer to houses, as shown in the current plans, are likely to exacerbate this, as are the eventual trams. How will the trams be bedded into this slab, and who will be legally responsible for extra damage?

(There will be a meeting about this soon.)

(Another resident) Can the proposed platform be moved south, to get signalised junction on Balfour St?

This could well be done – there has been much feedback about this.

5.e.ii      Final layout

See also landscape proposals (Steads Place to Pilrig St)and traffic regulation order proposals (Steads Place to Pilrig Street)

Why will be the trees on Balfour Street and north of Smith Place be removed?

There are changes in footway width. New trees will be introduced, along with additional trees elsewhere.

Why is the pedestrian crossing at Smith Place being removed? Where will be the nearest crossing point?

There has been much feedback about this during the consultation. We are looking at what we can do.

Whose priority will it be on the pavement at the exit between Springfield Street and Steads Place?  Whose priority will it be on the pavement at Orchardfield Lane?

Pedestrians, to enable continuous ‘walkway’ along Leith Walk

Why are the loading and parking bays in Dalmeny Street (serving Leith Walk) not systematically replicated in all side streets?

During peak hours there will be a designated public transport way (PTW). During off-peak hours, traffic can pull onto the PTW. The team are working on solutions to make the plans safer for cyclists – they have had much feedback about this. Almost everything can be changed as a result of public feedback, so parking could be moved from LW onto side-streets. Parking is not recessed (as bins are), possibly due to street narrowness/pinch-points.

5.f         Stead’s Place to Foot of the Walk/Constitution St

5.f.i       Construction phase

See also Constitution_Street to Steads_Place

During phase 1, the area between Crown Place and the entrance Constitution Street appears to be managed differently from the rest of Leith Walk. Please explain how construction will be managed here. (And why was the relevant drawing missing from the website?)

This section between Manderson St and Foot of the Walk is being undertaken as a secondary phase, to give some parking and loading facilities for local businesses, sot here will be diversions along Manderson St.

5.f.ii      Final layout

See also landscape proposals (Foot of Walk to Steads Pl) and traffic regulation order proposals (Foot of Walk to Steads Place)

We calculate the distance between stops at Balfour St and Constitution St to be 1km. Why are there only pedestrian crossings at the Foot of the Walk junction and nothing in between?

This has come up a lot during consultations.

How will cyclists be prevented from entering Constitution St from Leith Walk? What is the alternative route for cyclist?

There will be signage but no other preventative measures. We are working with Active Travel to design alternative routes.

With most of the route having a central ‘barrier’, will this not promote two-way cycling on both cycle-lanes, for which there isn’t room?

We will consider how breaks can be made in the barrier. This ‘permeability’ issue has come up a lot in consultations.

(C Encombe) 3 years ago, we were trying to (re-)make a pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly boulevard. Has this not been swept away in the current plans? (J Hein) How high will the deterrent be?

Many consultees have suggested we are splitting Leith walk into two halves. This will be considered. The current proposal is to mimic Princes St. The name ‘pedestrian detterent’ is the unfortunate industry standard.

5.g        Design philosophy and project governance

5.g.i       Construction phase

How many bus stops are there currently on Leith Walk (Duke St to London Rd)? How many will there be during construction south bound?How will north-bound buses be routed? Where will the stops be? Will existing bus stops be upgraded to cope with the increased traffic?

We need to report back on this – we realise its importance, but we are not yet at that level of detail with Lothian buses. They want to try to retain as much as possible existing services during construction. We appreciate that the quicker we can [arrange this], the better.

How will increased pollution and noise on north-bound diversion routes (and side streets) be ameliorated?

This will be worked out with our scientific services team.

5.g.ii      Final layout

What is the average distance between on-street tram stops (Haymarket to Bernard Street)? What is the distance between Picardy, McDonald, Balfour, Constitution Street stops? How does this compare to existing bus stop distances?

Standard tram stops are 500m to 700m apart, similar to the existing route. (Bus stops are generally 300m apart.) Positions of stops are up for consultation.

Given the damage done to conventional gully grates by buses and other heavy vehicles and the poor drainage around down-hill build-outs, will kerb drainsbe used on Leith Walk? (And how can we be sure the contractor will used kerb drains, which may be more expensive than gully drains?)

This is up to the contractor’s detailed designs. The existing route at Haymarket, for example, has used kerb drains. We also need to consider the whole life of any [drain] product. It is difficult to keep kerb drains from blocking – many cities are hence getting rid of them – and so will consult with local expertise to choose the best [drain] materials for each point. The contract will state that the contractor must meet quality requirements, not simply the cheapest solution.

How is design quality monitored: are the tram stops situated at the densest population points? Are there schedules showing populations within 100/200/500m from each bus and tram stop? Are there schedules showing distances between pedestrian crossings and predicted use?

The tram stops have been chosen according to best fit with a number of things, e.g. likely ‘footfall’, where they would fit.

Does the business case assume the trams traveling at 20mph?


Are the greenways staying?

(S Kennedy pointed out that TRO maintains them.)

(A resident) Is it possible to (re)move the Duke St stop.

This depends on the consultation results.

(H Tobermann) The swept path (clear of utilities) is 11m wide, but the trams only need 7·7m, so could the tracks not be in the exact centre of the road?

Most utilities have already been moved out of the way. So moving them again would add much extra cost.

(A resident) Because the tram team here can’t answer most questions, is this a waste of time? Won’t the scheme just go ahead anyway, because the responsible people are in the thrall of optimism bias?

We’ve engaged, we will report back on the consultation results. Everything is up for discussion just now, so please judge us on what we do with the information resulting from the consultation.

  • C Encombe reminded the meeting that CEC will take the ‘yes/no’ decision, so people should lobby their councillors about this. The tram team members at this meeting can only talk about [possible changes to] the current plans. H Tobermann added that LCCC has many more questions (see appendix) and expects written answers to all of its questions before the consultation ends. A tram team member stated he would welcomed opportunities to engage 1-to-1 with people.

(A resident) But you cancelled at very short notice the presentation at New Town & Broughton CC. More importantly, you are consulting on detail, not on the whole project.

6          Transport & clean streets

6.a        Discussion of tram extension proposals

H Tobermann asked for input based on the information now available, to help LCCC formulate its opinion. He felt that just 7 months before work would start, much remains to be investigated and decided – possibly too much for the time and other resources available. Failing to plan is in fact planning to fail, and Leith Walk cannot cope with another failure.

  • (A resident) Why not take longer to get the plans right?
  • (A resident) We couldn’t hear most of the answers because the tram team had their backs to us. (C Encombe apologised for this.)
  • (H Tobermann) LCCC’s next meeting is after the consultation closes, so residents should take up the tram-team’s offer of 1-to-1s. The tender will go out on the 20thApril, 9 days before the end of this consultation, thus diminishing the tram-team’s time to engage.
  • (A resident) Most people outside the immediate area of the proposed extension don’t know about the consultation.
  • (Another resident) I concur with taking more time to get it right.
  • (B Ryan) Can we arrange for the tram team to report to LCCC after the consultation on what thy have found?

6.b        LCCC tram taskforce to submit consultation comments based on today’s discussion

This was agreed nem con.

6.c        Update on ‘Leith Programme’ Phase 4 snagging and remediation works

H Tobermann has emailed CEC’s Director of Place, but received no substantive reply apart from a promise that something will happen this month. HT stated that if this snagging has not been completed 6 months after ‘completion’, this does not augur well for the tram proposals.

6.d        Update on Parking Working Group

I McLeod reported that the online petition now has 331 signatures. It will go to CEC’s transport and environment committee on 17 May. LCCC should push for more signatures. Stead’s Place residents and business might be interested in this issue due to the proposed tram works. IM also asked for other group members to also attend the TEC. Action: IM to look into costs of posters

7          Parks & green spaces

No parks representatives present, so no reports.

8          Planning

8.a        Update on 18/01015/PAN: 156, 158B, 160, 162 Leith Walk; applicant: Drum (Steads Place) Ltd.

H Toberman reported that LCCC has set up a taskforce. They will meet soon to formulate and approach to the presentation at LCCC’s May meeting. The developers will hold another exhibition on 1stMay at Barnardo’s in the evening, and will create a ‘community liaison group’.

L Moore reported that the Drum group is meeting with the community campaign group this week.

8.b        Any other planning matters

J Siann reported that he has submitted LCCC’s views on the proposed Pitt St development, but has received no reply.

S Kennedy had circulated an email about proposed advertising drums. She suggested that the community can notrefuse them outright but can be consulted on final locations.

  • H Tobermann stated that developers cannot insist on them – only CEC can permit them.
  • Action: this matter to be handled by LCCC planning committee once more information becomes available.

9          LCCC Office Bearers’ Reports

9.a        AGM arrangements

  • This is in May. Office-bearers will demit office, and so someone else must chair office-bearer elections.
  • LCCC has a vacancy, so would like to co-opt a voting member. It is also happy to take in representatives of local community groups as voting members.

9.b        Activities and plans of Communications group

J Caldwell reported that the group is working how to implement CEC’s instructions on GDPR compliance.

9.c        Treasurer’s Report

Current balance is £1752·74

9.d        Chair’s report

  • Decision: LCCC supports Leith Harbour & Newhaven CC’s work to get the 21 bus route to go to the Western General Hospital
  • Many paths are being currently being resurfaced. This involves some path closures and diversions.

9.d.i      Update on NE Locality Committee and LCCC representation

No CEC cllrs present, hence no update

9.d.ii     Update on Leith Neighbourhood Partnership

No CEC cllrs present, hence no update

10      Councillors’ reports, MSPs’ reports, MP’s report

No CEC cllrs, MSP or MP present, hence no reports.

11      Open forum

J Caldwell reported that there are on-going discussions over editing the video of LCCC’s March meeting, so it has not yet been released. It will go on LCC’s website when it has been released.

12      Bulletin

Action: LCCC members to read the following sources

12.a      CEC’s plans for Powderhall (City Strategic Investment Fund – Powderhall Stables)

12.b     CEC’s Planning Enforcement Charter(December 2017)

13      AOCB

J Caldwell ntoed tht Leithers don’t Litter will be litter-picking on 22 April in Dalmeny St Park and the colonies.

14      Future Meetings

See also agenda

Action: S Kennedy to book current venue for meetings on the 3rd Monday of each month, apart from July and December.

15      Appendix

The following questions were not asked during the meeting, but sent (along with the questions that had been asked) to the tram team.

15.a      London Rd/Gayfield Square to McDonald Road

  • Is the wide and long central reservation necessary? Can it be removed to allow for parking and loading on east side? Can the pavement width be reduced on either side to allow for parking on east side?
  • The area where the proposed clock sculpture is to go (where the pigeons used to be) is marked as a shared space for bikes and pedestrians as far as I can see. This may be an issue for short sighted pedestrians or blind people. What detail are they proposing here for all users considering this will be a very busy crossing point for all traffic?
  • The cycle lanes look to me, as if they will become loading bays during loading bay times. I feel that cyclists will be in and out of parked vans/cars.
  • Is there another option for cyclists at all? This will be a very busy route (could the cyclists not have lanes either side of the trams – in the middle of the road?) – a thought?
  • Also could the planners clarify traffic direction at the end of Montgomery street? It looks like the road is to be narrowed a great deal so what is going to happen here for car users?

15.b     McDonald Road to Pilrig St

  • There is insufficient pavement widths around some communal bins – is this pedestrian friendly design?
  • Bicycle turns across tracks at < 60 degrees? (sheet 11, 12); why not trial corner islands at junctions (prevents left hooks, slows down turning traffic and bikes, improves visibility)? (sheet 11, 12); 90 degree cycle tracks bends around parking bays and communal bins? (sheet 11, 12)
  • Why bike lane instead of bike track across T junction? (sheet 11)
  • Parking bay and loading bays and bus stops on bike lane? (sheet 11, 12)
  • Why are cycle-paths intermittent? How is cycle traffic to negotiate parking, loading bays and bus stops in this section?
  • Will Iona Street be open to (two-way) cycle traffic?

15.c      Pilrig St to Stead’s Place

  • There are 4 communal bins between Iona and Dalmeny Street – is this deemed to be over-provision, as in other comparable sections there are fewer?
  • Parking bay and loading bays and bus stop on bike lane? (sheet 10)
  • Why are cycle-paths intermittent?

15.d     Stead’s Place to Foot of the Walk/Constitution St

  • The position of the track ‘crossover’ at Manderston invites cyclists (and others?) to cross dangerously; can it be moved?
  • Cyclists should have a safe way of turning right out of east side streets that gets them onto the west side of Leith Walk safely. How can this be achieved?
  • Will there be surface markings (better still, a clearly marked lane) guiding cyclists turning right from Gt Junction St to Leith Walk, and for cyclists carrying on from Gt Junction St into Duke St?
  • Will there be clearly marked cycle filter-lanes both for turning right from Leith Walk into Duke St (currently planned), and for turning left from Leith Walk into Gt Junction St (not currently planned)?

15.e     Governance and design philosophy

15.e.i    These questions were not asked during the meeting due to lack of time

  • What are the pollution and noise levels now? What are the predicted outcomes after completion? How was this modelled?
  • [not asked at meeting]
  • In Oxford Street, London, loading bays are part of the pavement. They were clearly labelled as such and have a different surface (cobbles) and function as pavement when not used as loading bays. Where could this be used on Leith Walk?
  • [not asked at meeting]
  • Will the contracts and quality control schedules be published so citizens can see that quality is monitored and enforced? How (long) will post-contract quality be enforced?
  • [not asked at meeting]
  • Has consideration been given to alternate entry and exit only on side streets (New York style) to achieve a simpler, easier to read and use design?
  • [not asked at meeting]
  • Given that there is a an 11m wide corridor for the ‘swept path’, has consideration been given to an asymmetric street layout, e.g. trams and a bi-directional cycle lane on one side, motor traffic on the other side?
  • [not asked at meeting]
  • The tram enquiry will almost certainly recommend the involvement of Transport Scotland’s skills in infrastructure projects of this scale. Have they been asked to join the Project Board?

15.e.ii   Other questions – construction phase

  • Plans 2, 4,5 9 are missing from consultation hub. Is this a quality control issue?

15.e.iii  Other questions – final layout

  • Has consideration been given to a ‘down-hill’ cycle-lane (west side of road) on the carriageway (so cyclists will not speed into pedestrians), while the ‘up-hill’ (east) cycle-lane is on-pavement, so motor vehicles will not be ‘inconvenienced’ by cyclists?
  • Will there be proper Integrated and ‘through’ ticketing?
  • Nature of the trees. In the ground? In pots? It seems like many current trees (in the ground) will be removed and replaced by trees in planters – that is not acceptable.
  • Bus stops are difficult to see unless using a big screen. They are currently marked in yellow. We would like to see them clearer on the plans.
  • Pedestrian deterrent paving – unacceptable. 3 years ago Leith Walk was supposed to become a boulevard.  A road that is easy to cross is good for local businesses.
  • Pedestrian deterrent paving – Impact on disabled.
  • (both items even more important as several pedestrian crossing have been removed)
  • Why are they only inviting comments on the individual stops?
  • Cycle-lanes should be compulsory when on road (indicated with solid lines), not advisory (indicated with dashed lines)
  • Due to lack of enforcement business currently have problems with using loading bays, will there be enough enforcement to make the new design work?
  • The design has been developed with through movement as the priority not in developing a street that is a destination – was there any input from the Leith Walk area in this decision?
  • Picardy Place and Leith Walk cycle lanes do not connect sensibly, did the Tram project have any input into the Picardy Place plans?
  • Why are tram and motor traffic are prioritised over more vulnerable road users?
  • Has there been any investigation into the safety implications of bringing cycle traffic onto the road, then off the road then on again, and how does this meet with the councils ambitions for an East-West cycle corridor?
  • Could a two lane only design be considered?This would allow plenty of space (all along Leith Walk) for pedestrians, cycling path, parking, bus pull-in and landscaping. Traffic would need to follow tram. This would keep all traffic speeds low and enable loading/unloading/visitors/shoppers all to have easy access.
  • Portland, Oregon, USA has done considerable work with bicycle and pedestrian route design and implementation. Could some of their ideas be relevant to Edinburgh?
  • Consultation issues
    • All maps should be on consultation, as well as on ‘trams to newhaven’ website
    • Why does consultation only ask about landscaping around proposed tram stops, not the whole proposed route?
    • Why not consult on what the route should be, or better still, use a co-design process that may instil trust in both the proposals and the way they will be implemented?
    • Traffic management proposal maps are at too small a resolution (legend illegible)