(download the original PDF here: LCCC response to tram extension consultation)
LEITH WALK
the most densely populated area in Scotland
a place for people, not a transport corridor
Leith Central Community Council’s response to City of Edinburgh’s consultation on the Tram Extension to Newhaven
(Unless otherwise noted all comments below refer to Leith Walk only, from London Road north.)
Summary
Leith Central Community Council (LCCC) has serious concerns about the design philosophy and the readiness of the tram extension project. However, we are – in principle – not against an extension from York Place to Newhaven, and, indeed, to other key destinations (the universities, hospitals, city-edge park-and-ride interchanges), with two provisos: (i) that there is evidence that lessons have been learned and will be acted on, especially the lesson that very careful and detailed advance planning is crucial, and (ii) that Leith Walk’s existing essential qualities are not compromised by a a single-minded focus on transport requirements.
Having failed Leith Walk so spectacularly during the 2007-2010 effort to build a tram route and the subsequent painfully slow remediation efforts, we insist that any further attempt to insert major infrastructure into one of Edinburgh’s premiere streets is focussed on the highest possible quality of planning, execution and final outcome. We acknowledge that CEC has secured impressive engineering and project management competence, but there is no room for complacency so long as other, equally, or arguably more important, aspects of this project remain uncertain or unresolved. For example, it is not clear that the current design will really work for all current and future operators of important services, and not just the tram operator, let alone create a living, breathing place. Equally, traffic management and logistic solutions must maintain an acceptable minimum of Leith Walk’s current livability during a construction period that is as short as possible and – crucially – without surprises.
We appreciate that not all answers can be available at this stage. But it is very unfortunate that the focus on an efficient engineering-driven solution has left so little time to consider properly the project’s impact on the lives of residents and the viability of businesses of the most densely populated area in Scotland. Given that ‘we have been here before’ and suffered for it, this is – in Oscar Wilde’s famous phrase – careless.
The very tight timeline that has been laid down for this project has already had a number of negative impacts:
- Drawings which were described to us as tender documents contained errors and omissions; liaison with Lothian Buses, CEC Waste services and major developments along the route is still to come; as is traffic-modelling and estimated changes to noise and air pollution during and after the works.
- The consultation design and TRO drawings for Leith Walk seem to have been solely focussed on delivering a tram-line extension rather than a pedestrian-friendly boulevard. There seems to have been no time for a design statement showing awareness of Leith Walk’s extraordinary existing vitality and livability (still recovering from 10 years of on-off roadworks and disruption), nor evidence that the current proposals are embedded in wider public realm, transport and environmental strategies (‘what are we trying to achieve beyond the construction of a tram line?’).
- Despite the tram team’s best efforts to attend meetings of the four community councils along the route, there was clearly insufficient time to do so: at least two scheduled meetings were cancelled at short notice; LCCC’s admittedly extensive questions catalogue was answered only days before the consultation deadline; and a request by the community councils to extend the consultation deadline was answered with the response that ‘the project team are working to incredibly tight timescales and any delay to producing the amended designs would put the timeline for the workshop process at risk which would in turn have an impact on the timescales for the rest of the project.’ (Councillor Lesley Macinnes).
We are very concerned – with the tender documents already issued to shortlisted bidders (before the end of the consultation!) – that important design decisions have effectively been made and room for manoeuvre on the big issues is inevitably limited.
A large number of unanswered questions (at least 24 of the 39 questions in LCCC’s catalogue put to the tram team – see appendix – received replies of ‘this will be sorted out later’, or words to that effect). It will take time to come up with answers that work for the project and local residents; it will also take time to address the many unresolved issues, we detail below and inevitable errors and omissions. It may be standard engineering project practice to say ‘we will resolve all this by the time the contractor goes on site’, but after the fiasco of the original tram works on Leith Walk and 10 years of subsequent on-off remedial works (which in turn require their own remediation), this is not good enough: we were badly burnt the last time round – this time the mantra must be nothing is resolved until (almost) everything is resolved.
We therefore call on the tram team, the project board and all City of Edinburgh Councillors to make time. We want every single one of our points considered and addressed by the tram team and then translated into actionable design without undue time pressure. The tram team have to deliver the most ambitious infrastructure project in Edinburgh since, well, the last tram project. Given that the Tram Act allows for commencement of works as late as May 2021, we cannot see any reason for rushing into construction before the vital questions raised by our submission have been reasonably fully answered.
A future borne from disregarding the past, or the present, has consequences – and those who ignore the warnings bear responsibility for the future to come.
The list of issues we raise below is non-exhaustive; given the time limits of the consultation we present – under each of the three headings – merely a representative sample of the many issues that we have identified.
Design philosophy and concept
The facts on the ground that will be created by a tram line down Leith Walk and associated TROs will have long term consequences. If the finally agreed design concept gets it wrong, people who live and work in the Leith Walk area will pay a very high price for a long time to come.
For people who live and work here, Leith Walk is not a transport corridor, but an essential part of daily life. The present proposal – which fails to articulate its own explicit design philosophy – is in serious danger of undermining an ecosystem made up of a rich mix of communities, businesses, cultural spaces, cafes, pubs and restaurants together with plenty of spontaneous meeting spaces supporting a very densely packed population that is by any measure a highly successful and sustainable example of 21st century city living. We are particularly concerned about the following unresolved issues:
- Noise/pollution assessment
We understand that the tram team is ‘in dialogue with the Council’s scientific services team in regards to appropriate monitoring’. This is surprising, as we would expect reductions of noise and air pollution to be major outputs of this project. What if the ‘green gain’ from the trams is low or even negative for Leith Walk, as was suggested at the Tram Inquiry by the former head of Transport Scotland?
Clearly, an up-to-date Environmental Impact Assessment with realistic baseline figures is urgently needed. Ownership of this should be at the heart of the project, not subcontracted to CEC’s underfunded and overstretched scientific service. - Raised central reservation housing OLE and lighting with ‘pedestrian deterrent’ paving
We strongly oppose this divisive design. While we appreciate the elegance of such an approach from an traffic engineering point of view (bundling a number of services and functions), it falls short of our vision for a pedestrian friendly place:- A central reservation is dead space.
- A raised reservation hinders easy transverse circulation, especially for mobility-restricted citizens and small retailers’ delivery logistics for the ‘last 100 yards’. (We note that this works in Shandwick Place and Maitland Street.)
- The proposed ‘pedestrian deterrent’ paving is wholly unacceptable.
Kerb-line lighting columns could easily double as carrier of the tram’s OLE and signalling equipment (not unlike the original trams).
- Insufficient and ‘illegible’ crossing points
As D Wraight has acknowledged, there are many ‘permeability’ issues with the current plans. We advocate many more crossing opportunities – signalled, formal and informal – than currently envisaged.
To maximise connectivity, these should be where people expect them: at junctions and near tram and bus stops (with the location of the latter two matched to crossing points, not the other way around) and should follow an easy to understand design and location pattern:- signalled: at all major junctions – Annandale, McDonald, Pilrig, Foot of the Walk
- formal: at all intermediate side streets – Albert, Dalmeny, Balfour, Lorne, Stead’s Place, Jane/Manderston
- formal: just behind all (most) bus stops (build-outs are insufficient) and at both ends of tram platforms
- informal: anywhere, by eliminating the central reservation.
- Parking/loading solutions
If, as has been claimed, there is insufficient space on Leith Walk – one of Edinburgh’s widest streets and one of the few that is truly a boulevard – we advocate replication of the the proposed layout at Dalmeny Street (set-side loading bay and/or short term parking bays for Leith Walk retailers and their customers in all other side-streets, wherever possible (Annandale/Montgomery, McDonald/Brunswick, Arthur Street, Pilrig/Iona, Dalmeny/Balfour, Lorne, Stead’s/Smith’s Place, Manderston, Crown/Casselbank). This would free space for a continuous cycle route and make for a consistent design along the lengths of Leith Walk.
- Communal waste bins, litter bins; commercial bins
The placing of the former two and the logistics of access for users and waste operatives for emptying and servicing/cleaning have not been considered in the current design.- We advocate placing litter bins near junctions and at all tram and bus stops.
- We advocate locating communal bins consistently, eg near junctions and on the street – not on the pavement and not in the way of the cycle path. In addition, consideration should be given to mandating bin collection at certain times only (as in Westminster City Council area).
- We wish to see written confirmation from Edinburgh’s major waste operators that proposed locations and access methods are workable.
- Bus stop design
- Replicating the current mix-and–match approach would not be good enough: bus stops must be optimised for dimension, shape, queuing buses and location to minimise bus-dwelling time.
- For the same reason, we advocate tapered approaches to and exits from bus stops.
- Bus shelters should maximise passenger comfort and completely fulfill passengers’ information requirements. At the moment, bus shelter and bus tracker services have been separately outsourced – there is an urgent need to get the relevant parties involved.
- Locations for bus and tram stops should be near transverse pedestrian desire-lines (i.e. near junctions – see above) and at regular intervals commensurate with the population density of the area. Other locational considerations should be secondary.
- We would like to see evidence of planning work (traffic modelling and provisional timetables) that quantifies the public transport gain for Leith Walk residents from the introduction of trams and, separately, from optimised bus stops.
- Intermodal travel should be assisted by providing cycle racks near all bus/tram stops (c. 10m away) and shared tram-platform use (see below).
Consideration should be given to the following overall design concepts for Leith Walk which depart from the current concept:
- Two lanes each way: one in each direction shared by trams and buses 24/7
Expanding on the current proposal, and to prioritise public transport while minimising space needs for bus stops, the two central lanes should be used 24/7 by both buses and trams.- Buses should use tram stops on Leith Walk – this means Lothian Buses will need to introduce buses with doors on both sides; this could be done gradually over a number of years, as the fleet is updated.
- Access to remaining intermediate kerbside bus stops should be protected by cross-hatching and enhanced peak-time enforcement scheduled for a period after completion (partly paid for by bus operators).
- Asymmetric street layout
It is our understanding that the ‘swept path’ is at least 11m wide, while the requirement for two tram tracks, even with central reservation, is 7·4m. This would allow for a radical asymmetric layout: slightly offset tram tracks and motor traffic (possibly including loading/parking) and pavement on one side; green separation space, two-directional cycle path and pavement on the other.
We would love to hear that there is time to explore and consult on such a people-friendly layout. - Innovative TROs and bylaws
The opportunity should be used to pursue the following. Where necessary, parliamentary support should be obtained in time for the completion of the tram line.- Complete ban on articulated lorries; restriction on the the size and emissions of all delivery vehicles.
- Mandate lane rental for future road and utility works.
Traffic management, logistics and compensation during construction

Tram construction is – by its nature – disruptive to the daily lives of the people who live and work in the area. (photo © Lothian Buses plc)
While we see merit in the ‘one dig’ approach which probably necessitates the 18 months closure of all but one southbound lane – to benefit a tight project timetable and as a way to keep disruption as brief as possible – we remain concerned that many traffic management, logistics and compensation questions have not been addressed yet and have in effect been laid off to other council budgets and third parties. Will these relevant council departments and third parties step up to the plate?
To be clear: even in the most optimistic scenario where construction completes as timetabled and faultless logistics and compensatory measures are in place, the people and businesses of Leith Walk will pay a second time within 10 years for a tram line by once again enduring 18 months of disruption, noise and delays. This is why most, if not all, traffic management, logistics and compensation issues must be ironed out in advance: the risk of prolonging the construction period through insufficient preparation or poorly thought-through traffic diversion measures, inadequate logistics or compensation measures would be unacceptable. We are particularly concerned about the following unresolved issues:
- We understand that to date there has been no input from CEC’s waste services on the logistics of emptying communal bins during the construction phase. This is a vital service that needs to be maintained at the same, if not higher, service level as at the moment and we seek urgent information on the proposed logistics and cost implications.
- We understand that to date there has been little or no input from Lothian Buses on the timetabling and routing including bus stops during construction or the maintenance of existing bus stops on the southbound leg. This is a vital service for this area (lowest car ownership per household in Edinburgh) that needs to be maintained at the same, if not higher service level as at the moment and we seek urgent information on the options under consideration and cost implications.
- We seek urgent clarification on how increased pollution and noise on northbound diversion routes (and side streets) will be monitored and ameliorated, eg Easter Road, Broughton/Bonnington Road.
- From which budget will enabling works on the diversionary routes be paid for?
- To minimise the construction period, we would want the contractors – especially the Swept Path contractor – committed to a full 5 day working week for 50 weeks pa; working times should be restricted to 8-6pm; Saturday and Sunday working only in clearly defined exceptional or emergency circumstances.
- We are very disappointed that the current plans contain no information on post-contract tidying and defects remediation. Leith Walk residents will pay for any problems arising from these with extended or repeated disruption, even if the financial costs are contained in the tender price. We have had recent poor experiences in this department and are not prepared to countenance ad hoc management of these issues just after an 18 months construction period that has disrupted our lives.
-
We want to see the contractors fully committed to a code of practice on street works. Throughout the construction period the answer to the question ‘Will someone using the road or footway from any direction understand exactly what is happening and what is expected of them?’ must be in the affirmative; signage should be minimal, clear, uniform, uptodate and authoritative and well maintained. It must not create additional barriers.
- Since rates rebates will not reach smaller shops, we seek urgent clarification on plans for compensation schemes for smaller, independent businesses. Has a list of (small) retailers and other businesses been compiled?
- Where access from side streets during construction is curtailed (or even blocked), we seek clarification how the will the traffic thus displaced, forced to queue or take a longer route be managed and monitored. For example, given that we have been told that the Cambridges will not egress onto Pilrig Street, how can you be sure that traffic from/to Balfour Street exiting onto Leith Walk will not lead to congestion and increased noise and air pollution?
- We want to be sure that the logistics hubs – a concept we support in principle – are adequately located and staffed planned. They should not lead to additional congestion. How have the hubs in the current proposals been chosen, sized and located? We are not sure that every retailer been allocated to a hub (eg Scotmid at Pilrig Street – as per written answers provided by tram team).
Governance and legal issues

Once a project is underway, arguments about who is in charge and the risk of litigation becomes very costly. (photo © Lothian Buses plc)
We have been told that ‘lessons have been learned’ from the previous tram project. It seems to us that such a statement may well be premature prior to Lord Hardie’s final report and recommendations. While we are aware of the substantial transformation process that CEC is going through, we are not convinced that all the objectives of this transformation have been achieved yet.
Why is this important? Should the project get delayed or even fail catastrophically mid-construction (as experienced last time) because of weak governance, or because contractual and legal problems have not been nailed down prior to project start, or because of gaps in the interface to services provided outside the contract – i.e. pre-contract enabling works, waste removal, street cleaning and lighting issues during construction, post-contract performance-monitoring and remedial works – Leith Walk residents and businesses would pay – for the second time – a very price.
Having been briefed by the tram team about current governance and contractual arrangements, we remain concerned about the following issues and are anxious to see them resolved at the earliest opportunity by publishing the relevant information:
- The project governance organogram as outlined to us discloses a plethora of relationships, without revealing the nature of the relationships, nor the remit and powers of the various groups. We understand that the Project Board with its heterogenous membership will be the key decision making group once the project is underway, we would be particularly keen to understand whether it will operate by consensus or majority decision.
- Risk management
- What contingencies exist for unexpected changes to the membership of the various groups involved in the project governance, especially the Project Board and and the Project Team.
- We note that the Independent Advisor is a member of the Project Board. Please confirm that he is merely an observer to the Board and his advisory responsibility is solely to the All Party Oversight Group.
- What would happen if substantial problems that have not been factored into the project are unearthed e.g. the large concrete slab in Leith Walk (discussed by D Wraight)?
- Clear and fair conflict-resolution and compensation regimes (for example for damage to properties caused by the project) must be designed ahead of starting work so that the project is not held up by drawn out disputes.
- The tram enquiry will almost certainly recommend the involvement of Transport Scotland to drawing on their institutional skills and experience with infrastructure projects of this scale. Have they been asked to join the Project Board?
- Lack of enforcement of loading bays currently causes problems to local business and has knock-on effects on bus punctuality, traffic flow and cycle safety. It is vital that an efficient, enforceable and adequately resource enforcement regime is in place during construction.
Appendix
The following question catalogue was submitted by LCCC and answered in writing by the tram team on 24 April 2018 (NB: a number of questions were answered differently when asked during the LCCC meeting on 16 April 2018).
LCCC Tram Questions for written response by CEC tram team
Sections
- LCCC Section 1: London Rd/Gayfield Sq – McDonald Road
- LCCC Section 2: McDonald Road – Middlefield & Middlefield – Pilrig St
- LCCC Section 3: Pilrig St – Steads Place
- LCCC Section 4: Steads Place – Foot o’ The Walk/Constitution Street
- General: governance/design philosophy
LCCC Section 1: London Rd/Gayfield Sq – McDonald Road |
Questions about construction phasePhase_1___Albert_Street___Elm_Row
|
Questions about final layout plansLandscape Proposals: Landscape_Proposals_13_McDonald_Rd_to_Gayfield_Sq and Landscape_Proposals_14_Gayfield_Sq_to_Picardy_Pl Traffic regulation order proposals: 13._McDonald_Road___Gayfield_Square and 14._Gayfield_Square___Picardy_Place
|
LCCC Section 2: McDonald Road – Middlefield & Middlefield – Pilrig St |
Questions about construction phasePhase_1___Albert_Street___Elm_Row and Phase_1___Steads_Place___Albert_Street
|
Questions about final layout plansLandscape Proposals: Landscape_Proposals_12_Middlefield_to_McDonald_Rd and Landscape_Proposals_11_Pilrig_St_to_Middlefield Traffic regulation order proposals: 12._Middlefield___McDonald_Road and 11._Pilrig_Street___Middlefield
|
LCCC Section 3: Pilrig St – Steads Place |
Questions about construction phasePhase_1___Steads_Place___Albert_Street
|
Questions about final layout plansLandscape Proposals: Landscape_Proposals_10_Steads_Place_to_Pilrig_St Traffic regulation order proposals: 10._Steads_Place___Pilrig_Street
|
LCCC Section 4: Steads Place – Foot o’ The Walk/Constitution Street |
Questions about construction phasePhase_1___Constitution_Street___Steads_Place
|
Questions about final layout plansLandscape proposals: Landscape_Proposals_9_Foot_of_Walk_to_Steads_Pl Traffic Regulation Order Proposals: 9._Foot_of_the_Walk___Steads_Place
|
General: governance/design philosophy |
Questions about construction phase
|
Questions about final layout plans
|