Princes Street Future

The opportunity to transform Scotland’s premier street, now being investigated by Edinburgh City Council, must not be squandered. Whilst cars were banned by the Council (against much opposition and dire warnings!) some years ago, and there has been some footway widening and cyclist blackspot remediation, conditions for pedestrians and cyclists are still far from optimal.

World class walking and cycling provision would help rejuvenate Princes Street, as well as underlining Edinburgh’s commitment to a people-friendly and climate-aware future … that’s what other major cities such as Paris and London are demonstrating, and what world-renowned urban designer Jan Gehl proposed back in 2010 [see links below]. Gehl identified “cycle and pedestrian priority” as “essential” for Princes Street to achieve its “huge potential.”

Earlier this year the Council consulted on a draft strategy for the future of Princes Street and the Waverley Valley. Although the consultation included a Princes Street cycle lane option, its design was far from ideal. Our submission said, “Spokes does not agree that the approach shown is the only or best way to introduce a segregated cycle lane.”

The Council’s draft strategy suggests that George Street is a suitable alternative to Princes Street for cyclists. George Street is certainly important for many west<–>east cycle journeys, depending on ones origin and destination, and needs to play its central part in CCWEL; but for many journeys it is not a sensible alternative.

Indeed (impressionistically) more cyclists use Princes Street than George Street, even despite being on the same carriageway as the tramlines. In particular, cyclists travelling east to west (e.g. from Waverley Bridge to Shandwick Place) would have to cross double-tramlines twice in order to access George Street and then return. Even west to east cycling would entail junctions which are sometimes heavily trafficked, rather than a direct route.

Quite apart from the cycling aspect, the draft strategy as a whole has been widely criticised for being unimaginative, including by local community councils and internationally respected Richard Murphy architects.

Murphy argues strongly for reduced traffic domination, with wider footways and a segregated bike path. However, he also proposed major changes to the interface between street and gardens. Many considered his design for this latter aspect to be inappropriate in various respects, notably being rather garish, which led to various politicians publicly dismissing Murphy’s ideas. Unfortunately, this distracted attention from his imaginative outline traffic plan, which suggests how more pedestrian space, a bike lane, tram and bus could work well together, with fewer traffic lanes.

In summary, the Council needs to rethink its approach to Princes Street and take onboard wider advice, as from the Jan Gehl reports and Richard Murphy Architects, rather than its current approach which some call little more than tinkering, and is unlikely to fully unlock the potential of one of the world’s best known streets.

Resources

• Princes Street & Waverley Valley – consultation
• Spokes response to the above
• Richard Murphy architects proposal + Urban Realm report
• Jan Gehl central Edinburgh proposals [see section 1102 here]
• Architects’ Journal article on the Jan Gehl proposals
• Spokes Princes Street articles, with many useful links .. Dec 2011 Jan 2013 June 2013
• After 2013, Council interest in Princes Street declined, with attention turning to the supposedly less contentious proposal of redeveloping George Street (where discussion has continued for over 10 years, to the present day!) Spokes has throughout continued to emphasise the importance of Princes Street, regardless of what happens (or does not happen!) on George Street
• Spokes City Centre web page of links from 2009 to the present.

• Bluesky post of this article – please repost!