Leith Central’s Traffic Regulation Orders: Our Response

An example of the Traffic Regulation Order proposed.

Leith Central Community Council (LCCC) has reviewed the above TROs from the Trams team and in particular the section of the route from Picardy Place to McDonald Road (covered by Sheets 12 – 14) and we comment and object as set out below.

Our headline concerns are the triggering of rat runs through narrow streets and the narrowing of several pavements.

We refer to TRO/20/24A (“on-street conditions that will allow for the safe and efficient operation of Trams”), TRO/20/24B (waiting, loading and unloading restrictions) and sheets 9-14 in this set of TRO drawings.

our refTRO drawingIssueLCCC comment/objection
1Dwg 14 (25-03-21We are concerned that the absence of a left turn from Leith Walk into London Road will trigger “rat runs” through nearby narrower and residential streets, and/or extra traffic from a detour around the Picardy Place gyratory, contrary to neighbourhood traffic and environmental policies.Object. Suggested alternative: a short left filter lane is introduced to accommodate waiting left turn traffic. This could be achieved by moving bike lanes east, thus straightening the proposed “bike slalom” closer to the desire line.
2Dwg 14 (25-03-21We are concerned that the absence of a right turn from London Road into Leith Walk will trigger “rat runs” through nearby narrower residential streets and/or extra traffic from a detour around the Picardy Place gyratory, contrary to neighbourhood traffic and environmental policies.Object. Suggested alternative: an outside right hand filter lane is introduced
3Dwg 11 (08-04-21)We are concerned that the introduction of unidirectional traffic from the Arthur Street “extra dog leg” to Leith Walk (opposite to the status quo ante) will trigger “rat runs” from Pilrig Street traffic heading north on Leith Walk wishing to avoid traffic lights at junction Pilrig Street/Leith Walk, where it will cross a busy pavement near a tram stop with poor sightlines, contrary to neighbourhood traffic policies.Object. Suggested alternative: the “extra dog leg” (which has no residential frontages) is turned into a cul-de-sac accessed only from the “main leg” of Arthur Street, perhaps with loading bays serving Leith Walk shops and ample pedestrian space, as practiced currently under TTRO measures.
4Dwg 11 (08-04-21)We are concerned about the extremely narrow pavement at the floating bus stop outside 344 Leith Walk, next to a much wider downhill cycle path. This is contrary to design guidance and has a number of serious safety implicationsObject. Suggested alternative: the bike lane is narrowed to absolute minimum width (as shown near Pilrig St junction).
5Dwg 11 (08-04-21)We are concerned about the extreme narrowing of the pavement on Pilrig Street by Pilrig Church Hall’s entrance. This is contrary to design guidance and impacts negatively on the setting of an A-listed building in a ConservationObject.
6Dwg 10
(07-04-21)
We are concerned about the extremely narrow floating bus stop platform outside 238 Leith Walk, next to a much wider downhill cycle path. This is contrary to design guidance and has a number of serious safety implicationsObject.
7Dwg 10
(07-04-21)
We note the stop line for the left hand turn from Smith’s Place and question if this allows for safe egress onto Leith Walk.Object.
8Dwg 9
(30-03-21)
While outside our area, we note the absence of a north bound bus stop at the Foot of the Walk. Is this a mistake? If they are to be nearby in Duke and Great Junction Street, we would expect them to be shown as part of the tram TROs.Comment.