Edinburgh Council have announced the final layouts for the new Controlled Parking Zones across Leith Walk (including the area surrounding Lorne Street), Pilrig and Abbeyhill (including the area just east of Easter Road).
The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) has just been released, and residents can feedback on the plans and maps until December 5th (this was originally pupblished as November 12th but the consultation has been extended);
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 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.
Dwg 14 (25-03-21
We 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
Dwg 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.
Dwg 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 implications
Object.Suggested alternative: the bike lane is narrowed to absolute minimum width (as shown near Pilrig St junction).
Dwg 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 anA-listed building in a Conservation
Dwg 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 implications
Dwg 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.
Dwg 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.
Leith Central residents, visitors and businesses might want to be aware of the TRO proposals to do with the tram-works. LCCC understands that formal consultations are likely to start in early September (lasting 28 days).
TRO drawings for the full route are available on the Trams Project website, but for convenience here are the ones covering Leith Central’s area. Click any thumbnail to access the full-size PDF.
Please note that these are draft – while LCCC’s minutes secretary has tried to ensure they are accurate, they are provided for information only and do not represent LCCC’s decision until ratified (possibly with changes) at a subsequent meeting.
LCCC received the email below on 8 June 2020 along with drawings for Forrest Road, The Mound, George IV Bridge, South Bridge (a fifth drawing for North Bridge was obtained separately from NTBCC’s website), inviting us to respond within five business days to the proposals.
Given that five days are insufficient to allow for a considered response to complex proposals, even at the best of times, we wrote back (see below) stating that LCCC is not in a position to respond formally and substantially while much of public and democratic life is curtailed under emergency powers and LCCC is not able to hold public, properly constituted meetings.
LCCC regrets that the procedural shortcomings of a foreshortened consultation process may impinge on the quality of the proposed measures and undermine public trust and support.