‘Trams to Newhaven’ : Response to Traffic Regulation Orders for new Tram route

Following a review of the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders for the new Tram route to Newhaven, the New Town and Broughton Community Council has submitted objections highlighting a number of concerns regarding
  • Access;
  • Displaced traffic;
  • Congestion and;
  • Lack of adequate segregation between pedestrians and cyclists.
The relevant Traffic Regulation Orders  are TRO/20/24A and TRO/20/24B.  The New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC)  reviewed the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders at their recent meeting on 10 May – in particular for the section of the ‘Trams to Newhaven’ route from Picardy Place to McDonald Road (covered by Sheets 12 – 14) and have submitted objections  to them for the reasons set out below :

Continue reading

Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting, 01 October 2020

Minutes of the Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting
(Construction Phase) via Google Meet on Thursday 1 October 2020 at 5:30pm Continue reading

NTBCC minutes – Monday 10 December

Minutes of New Town & Broughton Community Council’s ordinary meeting, held in the Drummond Room, Broughton St Mary’s Church, Bellevue Crescent on Monday 10 December 2018 at 7:30pm Continue reading

Second ‘trams to Newhaven’ consultation: NTBCC’s response

(The following is the text of NTBBC’s submission to CEC’s second ‘trams to Newhaven’ consultation, submitted 7 November 2018)

Trams to Newhaven consultation
Response by New Town & Broughton Community Council

Main points

  • We welcome the progress that has been made but feel the vision for public realm at Elm Row could be more ambitious.
  • We would welcome more detail on the anticipated future of bus services on Leith Walk.
  • There should be comprehensive consultation on traffic management during the construction phase.
  • There are some concerns about the plans for junctions at London Road and Leith Walk.
  • We consider that no use should be made of the ‘triangle’ at Picardy Place which would prevent the possibility of its eventual incorporation into the public space in front of the Cathedral.

We welcome this further engagement by the Council; evidence of a degree of responsiveness to feedback; and the greater transparency with which the engagement has been conducted. We also welcome the postponement of a final decision to allow for more rigorous scrutiny and clarification of bids received.

The proposals for Elm Row show some signs of progress however the revised plans could, in our view, do more to reflect some of the possibilities discussed at the design workshop held in June. Continue reading