NTBCC Submits Objection to Experimental Traffic Regulation Order

The New Town and Broughton Community Council has submitted the following objection to ETRO 21/28A and in particular the continuation of the changes introduced on London Road in 2020 under the Spaces for People initiative during the pandemic.

Should you wish to object to or indeed support the ETRO, you should write to the Traffic Orders team using the contact information provided on the Council website. Please note the closing date for comments and/or objections is Monday 28 October 2024. 

The New Town and Broughton Community Council objects to the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (21/28A) and in particular the changes introduced on London Road between its junctions with Easter Road and Blenheim Place. In summary, the NTBCC considers that the temporary cycle path does not meet its objectives to enhance safety for cyclists, has a number of adverse consequences for traffic management in adjoining streets and does not meet the expected standards of public realm in the World Heritage Site.

We objected to the temporary cycle path when it was introduced as it is not continuous (due to the presence of four bus stops along this side of the road) requiring cyclists to move in and out of the segregated space several times. This manoeuvre is regarded by cyclists as increasing the risk to them of being struck by other traffic. As a result, many cyclists do not use the segregated cycle lane which is also not being well maintained creating an uneven surface for anyone using it. We therefore object to the ETRO on the basis of the poor design and fragmented nature of the temporary cycle path resulting in increased risks to the safety of cyclists.

At the time it was introduced, the NTBCC suggested that Montrose Terrace and Regent Road would provide a better and safer route for cyclists wanting to access the city centre area rather than having to negotiate Picardy Place. Although this was a particular issue when the Trams project was ongoing, there remain concerns regarding this particular solution for facilitating cyclists to access the city centre and beyond. Also, the cycle path is not connected to any other cycle infrastructure therefore limiting its benefit to cyclists. We therefore object to the ETRO on the basis that the temporary cycle path is not providing a safe route for cyclists.

By observation and discussion with cyclists it does not appear that the temporary cycle path is being well used. No information has been provided on current levels of usage of the cycle path nor are there any specific plans to monitor future usage to determine whether this is a good investment of the limited active travel budget. We therefore object to the ETRO on the basis that its low usage does not justify the adverse impact on other road users and residents living in adjacent streets.

As a result of the introduction of a temporary segregated cycle path for west bound cyclists along the south side of this section of London Road, long term parking places were removed resulting in displacement of parking on to adjacent residential streets. This has been a particular issue for coaches dropping off passengers at the Playhouse Theatre and hotels on Baxter’s Place. As there is less parking available on London Road, many of these coaches are now waiting on Baxter’s Place resulting in increased congestion around the Picardy Place gyratory system for other traffic and thus increased atmospheric pollution. This also results in passengers having to cross the two-way cycle path to embark/disembark the coaches creating additional hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. We therefore object to the ETRO on the basis that the temporary measures have had and continue to have a detrimental impact on traffic management in surrounding streets as well as increasing the risks to cyclists and pedestrians.

The NTBCC is further concerned that the wands and other markings of the cycle path are unsuitable for use in the Edinburgh World Heritage Site and New Town Conservation Area. Continuing these “temporary” measures in place under the pretext of the need to further assess their impact after over three years is allowing the Council to circumvent the normal traffic management and public realm design processes. If they need to be retained, the Council should make them permanent and address the serious shortfalls with the current design and infrastructure.