Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting, 12 December 2022

Minutes of the Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting on Thursday 12 December 2022 at 5pm, at Trams project compound (165 Leith Walk)

Actions and decisions are red italic. ‘TT’ means ‘Trams Team’. Names are mostly abbreviated to initials.

[text in square brackets] is glosses, i.e. implications unspoken at this point but drawn from other spoken items.

0 Summary of actions

1.3a HT to add systematic action-checking to future agendas
1.3b RA to chase CEC street lighting team about continued lack of lights on Ocean Drive
1.3c RA to pursue vandalism to Rennie’s Isle bridge fencing
1.3d RA to chase/monitor water-filling of barriers
2.1a RA to respond in detail to CCTT’s concerns from the walk and talks by Christmas, separating out defects, and identifying whether TT or CEC is responsible for any fixes or changes in each case
2.1a CCTT is not to share TT’s responses outwith the CCTT/TT set-up, but may share the issues it has raised
2.1b RA to share TT’s high-level response to road-safety audit with MB as CCTT’s representative, mostly to see if it picks up similar issues as the Walks and talks did
2.1c RA to check whether the actual audit can be shared with CCTT [and presumably to do so if this is permitted]
2.1d RA to share with MB detailed landscape plans for Blenheim Place and its step
2.2a TT to look into options for temporary bus shelters
2.2b RA to supply plan of proposed bus-shelter locations
3.1a HT/CCTT to devise a more apposite name for the CCTT register.
3.1b HT to summarise the discussion in meeting that discussed defects management, commitments register, CCTT register
3.1c TT to share its list of commitments so far with CCTT (via HT)
3.1d TT to advise ballpark costs for items on CCTT’S register
5.2 TT to review reporting of hard landscaping, then report this to CCTT.
6.5 TT senior management to raise lack of change to bus diversions in the weekly meeting with Lothian Buses.

1 Prelims

1.1 Present

Robert Armstrong* TT/CEC Andrew Mackenzie* CCTT/LLCC
Mike Birch* CCTT/NTBCC Jennifer Marlborough* CCTT/LHNCC
Angus Hardie* CCTT/LLCC Bruce Ryan* CCTT minutes secretary
Steve Jackson† TT Harald Tobermann* CCTT/LCCC
Rob Leech* TT Chris Wilson* TT/CEC

* = in person, † = via MS Teams

1.2 Apologies

Carol Nimmo CCTT/NTBCC

1.3 Draft minutes of November 2022 meeting

  • It was noted that completion of previous actions has not been checked systematically.
    • Action: HT to add this to future agendas
  • All of the October actions were noted as complete or as covered in other December agenda items, except
    • 5.1: there is still no lighting on Ocean Drive.
      • Action: RA to chase CEC street-lighting team about this.
    • 5.2: RA to pursue vandalism to Rennie’s Isle bridge fencing
    • 5.4: barriers are still not water-filled, according to HT. This should be done by Class 1.
      • Action: RA to chase/monitor

<2>2 Walk & Talk

See summary of CCTT’s concerns at https://leithcentralcc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/02-cctt-site-walks.xlsx.

2.1 Initial feedback

  • RA: many of the issues raised are similar to those already raised by CCs, e.g. pedestrian flows, pedestrian space, crossing-points. Many of the issues raised are not defects. (TT decides whether anything is a defect, i.e. has not been built to plan, and hence will be fixed.) For example, crossings have been built to plan, which follows Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (ESDG, currently being reviewed), so they are staggered to enable waiting between crossing the two carriageways.
    • Action: RA to respond in detail by Christmas, separating out defects, and identifying whether TT or CEC is responsible for any fixes or changes in each case.
      • This is to enable CCTT to publicise which issues are defects (and so will be fixed) and which other issues have been brought to TT and CEC’s attention, without making it appear that TT and CEC have made commitments which have not actually been made.
    • RA: the response will concentrate on ‘user experience’, e.g. pedestrian and public-realm space, footpath widths, accessibility for vulnerable users, accessibility of cycle-paths and loading bays, father than cracked track-slabs. That is, people want high-quality [implementation of] design.
      • Inaction: CCTT is not to share TT’s responses outwith the CCTT/TT set-up, but may share the issues it has raised
    • RA: the response will concentrate on ‘user experience’, e.g. pedestrian and public-realm space, footpath widths, accessibility for vulnerable users, accessibility of cycle-paths and loading bays, father than cracked track-slabs. That is, people want high-quality [implementation of] design.
  • RA: TT has just received a road safety audit, so has a little work to respond to it.
    • Action: RA to share TT’s high-level response with MB as CCTT’s representative, mostly to see if it picks up similar issues as the Walks and talks did.
    • Action: RA to check whether the actual audit can be shared with CCTT [and presumably to do so if this is permitted]
  • RL: floating bus-stops are out of TTs hands – such designs are a city-wide issue. TT’s task was to fit the tram-route, cycle-paths, pavements and roads into sometimes very narrow spaces.
    • MB: CCTT understands this, but asks how cyclists’ speeds can be controlled: signage, rumble-strips? (Some of this may be CEC’s responsibility.)
  • RL: Blenheim Place has a step because the height-difference would cause a slope that would cause pedestrians to slip.
    • MB: there is no warning signage about the step. This issue should have been resolved in public-realm discussions. The step is unsafe, so how can it be made safer, e.g. by installing planters.
    • RA: there will be tactile paving all along the top and bottom. TT is considering where to install planters. The step is not quite on the main crossing point, and is installing appropriate public realm.
    • Action: RA to share with MB detailed landscape plans

2.2 Edinburgh Bus Users Group’s Leith Walk comments

  • HT: EBUG supplied this report to TT.
  • RA: TT took it as ‘for information’ rather than ‘for comment’. While information is always useful, many of the issues raised in this report are already known to TT. However, while EBUG report mentions the ‘Commitments Register’, it should not be assumed that every issue raised will automatically led to a commitment by CEC.
  • RA: one difficulty is that CEC has a contract with JC Decaux, so it is difficult for CEC to install non-JCD bus shelters. CEC can steer where bus-stops should be, but JCD controls which shelters have advertising. The majority of Leith Walk will not have advertising shelters because it’s not wide enough.
  • RA: removal of bus stops and CEC public transport team controls removal of bus stops, not TT.
  • HT: behaviour is strongly influenced by environment, so it is important that the right features are in the right place.
  • RA: an advertising shelter could not be put outside the Central Bar (foot of the walk) due to lack of space. There has been a 12-month delay in delivery of shelters.
    • HT: can temporary shelters ben installed while waiting for the permanent ones?
    • RL: this still requires a lot of work, e.g. to install proper foundations.
    • RA: Leith Walk was due to have only 2 shelters but working with JCD has led to more
    • Action: TT to look into options for temporary shelters
    • RA/RL: The Elm Row, Gay field, Shrubhill and Iona St bus shelters will be delivered in January 2023, under a city-wide contract. TT does not have control of this.
    • MB: Please supply plan of proposed bus-shelter locations, so CCTT can comment.
    • Action: RR to supply this

3 Defects management, commitments register and CCTT register

3.1 Update on progress

  • HT/RA/RL: I have met with TT to thrash out the differences between defects, commitments and the CCTT register. Commitments are actions TT has promised, in addition to ensuring all defects are fixed. Examples include improvements to the design of Elm Row, and restoring a place for a certain snack-van. The CCTT register is CCTT’s requests for further changes. (Some of these may be defects, in which case they will be fixed as part of normal defects-fixing.)
    • Action: HT/CCTT to devise a more apposite name for the CCTT register.
    • Action: HT to summarise the discussion in this meeting
  • RL: another commitment is to undertake a lessons learned review with CCTT, and review the items on CCTT’s register.
    • Action: TT to share its list of commitments so far with CCTT (via HT).
    • Action: TT to advise ballpark costs for items on CCTT’s register

3.2 Brief overview of paving (and kerb) specifications at different locations along the tram route

  • HT: it appears that different materials and design-styles have been used along the route, e.g. the cycle-path at Gayfield is recessed quite deeply, and there is high-quality paving from the frontage to the kerb.
    • RA: these areas are part of the World Heritage site. Most of Leith Walk, so it has pre-cast concrete kerbs and paving slabs. Constitution St is in a conservation area, so it has Caithness granite slabs. TT has not set out to discriminate against Leith Walk, but to respect EWH and conservation area requirements. In many areas, TT has not done anything to paving-slabs or relayed paving.
    • RL: in the original tram construction, Princes St and Shandwick Place public realms were not improved but St Andrews Square and York Place (which are part of the World Heritage area) received full reinstatement of public realm area, building to building.
    • HT: please explain ‘special’ relaying of slabs in Gayfield Square, which is not in the WH area.
    • AH: many new slabs are currently rocking
    • RL: those are defects – they will be fixed.
    • HT: hence I will report places where new slabs do not safely segue into existing slabs as likely defects.
    • JM: in LHNCC’s area, pavement laying has not been started. Should this not take priority? It appears that Leith’s heritage is not being respected.
  • MB: in some areas, kerbs have drainage holes; in others, drains are cut into buffer areas. This discrepancy is strange.
    • RA/RL: bus-stops can’t have gullies, but the preference is for gullies.
    • MB: gullies are potential trip-hazards
  • HT: there seems to be a mix of new and re-used kerb-stones – this can be unsightly, so why is it happening?
    • RA: some kerb-stones and slabs have been reused in the WH area. It is much harder to work with large stone sabs than with smaller pre-cast concrete paving slabs.
    • AH: the overall impression is a ‘ragbag’ of inconsistent finishes.
    • HT: the presence of the tram all along Leith Walk implies it is one street, so the different finishes are jarring.

4 Lessons learned

4.1 Outline plans and timeline

  • RL: TT would like to ‘unpack’ the whole set of engagements, to help if CEC decides to extend its tram network. The set consisted of (1) the initial design consultation, in which TT received around 8000 responses and a strong kickback; (2) the consultation on the revised design; (3) the charettes; (4) the CCTT/TT meetings. Hence TT would like CCTT’s views on what went well and what could be improved.
    • RL: it is possible that, because non-engineers may well not understand design drawings, improvements to ways of communicating designs may come out of this review process.
    • RL: TT suggests doing this review in February. It would probably take around 3 hours.
    • HT: please can it be at a weekend, in view of this likely duration.
  • RL: it would be a ‘proper’ workshop, with an independent facilitator.
    • RL: CCTT would be enabled to review the draft output(s).
    • MB/RL: it will be important to come up with concise sets of items that worked well or could be improved.

5 TT reports and updates

5.1 Map of completed sectional completion (SC2) and timeline for remainder

  • RL: slide 6 (top left) shows the current numbers of individual defects awaiting fixes. Under 150 are to do with hard landscaping (i.e. public realm); under 50 are to do with track-slab. There are smaller numbers of defects in soft landscaping, track, drainage, chambers, overhead line equipment, tram-stops, structures, ducting and street furniture.
    • RL: Three defects are currently in ‘escalated’ status, i.e. needing attention by the senior management team. All are close to resolution.
    • RA: the process for adding items to the defects list is that issues are reported by one of RA’s direct reports, TurnerTownsend staff and section managers, SFN quality-control inspectors, then added to TT’s and SFN’s systems.
    • RA: there is also a process for gleaning potential defects from communications by the public to TT’s contact-centre.
    • AH/MB: could TT crowdsource reports of potential defects? This may lead to a PR win by engaging the community, rather than leaving people to moan on social media.
    • CW: if TT is tagged on social media posts, reports of potential defects are taken into TT’s processes.
    • HT: it would help if people can pinpoint issues on an online map, adding relevant text and photos.
  • AH/MB: please also show the numbers of resolved defects. This could also add to PR wins by showing good progress.
    • RA: the overall number of defects is relatively small for a project of this size.
    • SJ: if an issue recurs within a drawing, it counts as one defect.
    • RA: 5 sectional completions (out of 19) are now complete

5.2 Latest (November/December 22) progress dashboard with period lookahead (visual section-by-section format), progress metrics and other key metrics (including visualisations of quality/non-conformance data)

See slide 5 of the dashboard.

  • MB: please can this slide show the overall project stage, to show positives around progress?
    • Action: TT to review reporting of hard landscaping, then report this to CCTT.

5.3 Latest (November/December 22) H&S metrics

5.4 Latest (November/December 22) route progress map

5.5 Latest (November/December 22) construction phasing map

5.6 Latest (November/December 22) map showing all current temporary pedestrian crossing points along the route and distances, location of temporary bus stops, and diverted or narrowed (below 1.2m) footpaths

5.7 Maps or lists of traffic management measures (locations and brief description, dates) agreed and coming into force in the coming 5 weeks: road traffic diversions and lane closures, bus route diversions inside and outside the main area of TTN works anticipated diversions of bus routes and general traffic.

5.8 Ongoing ‘business health’ indicators

  • HT: Ordnance Survey publishes ‘points of interest’. In this, it takes together shopping areas in Leith Walk, Albert Place, Jane St, Easter Rd, Duke St, Newkirkgate, Elm Row, Great Junction St, Montrose terrace, Broughton St. OS reports changes since 2020: there has been an 11% increase in beauty services, 15% increase in cafés, 4% decrease in clothes shops, 4% increase in fast-food outlets, 10% increase in pubs and bars, no change in restaurants.
    • CW: these data are similar to those in my presentation in October. Food and drink is driving things all over the UK. Out of town shopping areas are doing well, while in-town shopping centres such as Ocean terminal are struggling.

5.9 Latest (December 22) comms dashboard and latest geographical breakdown of incoming comms

5.10 Call centre stats and Support for Business Update

5.11 Summary of the most recent Tram Project Board (and sub-groups) meeting/s on a confidential basis

5.12 Summary of TT meetings with Active Travel and Business Groups

6 Queries and issues identified by CCTT

6.1 Update on walk-and-talks to date

See item 2 above.

6.2 LHNCC

  • JM: there are traffic queues right across Lindsay Rd because Ocean Drive is now one-way and very busy, and filter-lights are only working intermittently.
    • RA: Ocean Drive seems to have become a destination. CEC will adjust traffic management and traffic-light sequences.

6.3 LLCC

  • AM: it is welcome that the Queen Charlotte St/Constitution St junction is now open, but buses are not yet using QCS.
    • RA: Lothian Buses has stated that it is not yet using QCS because some work by TT is still needed here. Originally, LB was not going to use QCS, so the traffic signals team is now working on a permanent solution.

6.4 LCCC

  • RA: Bins will be put in place until after Leith Walk is open to 2-way traffic, i.e. January to February.
  • RA: the delayed removal of old lighting poles is down to Scottish Power. The majority should be done before Christmas. There may be some temporary fixes to the resulting pavement holes – this will be sorted via the normal defects process.
  • RA: we are still waiting for BT to remove old phone boxes. CCTT should not engage with BT on this sensitive situation

6.5 NTBCC

  • RA bans on left turns from Leith Walk now have legal validity and are in operation. Signage and markings are in place.
    • MB: there are challenges being raised to this decision. CCTT was told initially that these decisions were based on ongoing traffic modelling. Is this modelling now complete? If so, can CCTT see this?
    • RA: it is complete. The decision was also based on safety concerns.
    • RL: TT has received a strongly-worded letter about this.
    • MB: the issues that have come to light were predicted by CCTT.
    • RA: the current installations are not the final design. That is, only Dalmeny St is currently open, but Manderston St, Lorne St, Albert St and Brunswick St will be reopened. Some drivers are avoiding the Foot of the Walk because it currently is only open one way at a time. Hence there is currently much traffic management preventing people from driving where they wish.
    • MB: can this be mitigated by allowing left turns onto London Rd until the others are open?
    • RA: TT cannot change the configuration of the permanent traffic lights, and temporary lights do not work the same.
  • MB: Why is CCWEL breaking the embargo on work in the trams area but working in York Place?
  • MB: Lothian Buses says it cannot change diversion-use until 19 December. Can TT explain this?
    • RA: this may be because 2-way traffic is due to start on Leith walk on 19th. However, this should. Not affect East London St. There is now no traffic management from York Place to Pilrig St that would hinder buses.
    • MB: Councillors and the MSP have not been able to change LB’s position that the trams project is causing problems.
    • Action: TT senior management to raise this in the weekly meeting with LB.
    • HT: the whole of Leith Walk should have been closed during the whole construction period, so people (including bus drivers) knew what diversions were and got used to them. Frequent changes cause more frustration.
  • MB: why are the bus stops at the top of Easter Road still closed?
    • RA: TT is engaging with LB about this.

7 AOB

  • HT: I met with the CEC official in charge of Edinburgh’s circulation plan, who talked about ‘rational reallocation of road-space’. This is based on the numbers of people using different transport modes (including walking) on any street. The data imply that walking is more important than cycling.
  • HT: the Edinburgh MSPs have agreed to work together on legislation against pavement-parking.
    • CW: while legislation is pending, CEC is preparing stronger enforcement.
    • MB: the change will be that tickets are issued immediately, instead of waiting until such parking has lasted 5 minutes.

8 Date of next meeting and guests

9 February