Princes Street, Scotland’s internationally renowned premier street, is unique, but has suffered in recent years. The opportunity to transform it, now under Council consideration, must not be squandered.
New drawings by Richard Murphy architects suggest an imaginative way forward, catering for tram, bus, cycling and large numbers of pedestrians, whilst reducing vehicle dominance. This is the type of approach that the Council should be developing, rather than its current proposals – which its own report admits could be ‘more aspirational’ !
Council proposals ‘non-aspirational’
Earlier this year the Council consulted on a draft strategy for the future of Princes Street and the Waverley Valley. The Princes Street proposals were described as lacking ambition and imagination by the New Town and West End community councils. Nor did they go anywhere near the recommendations of the Council’s commissioned report by internationally-renowned urban designer Jan Gehl, way back in 2010, who identified “cycle and pedestrian priority” and reduced vehicle presence as “essential” for Princes Street to achieve its “huge potential.”
Indeed, the Council’s own consultation strategy (on page 15) admits that it could be more aspirational! Many others, Spokes included, have said that not only could it be more aspirational, but it should be!
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 already demonstrating. Indeed, back in 2009 deputy council leader, Steve Cardownie, said that having only trams, pedestrians and cyclists in Princes Street would “allow us to compete with the likes of Paris, Barcelona and Prague. It’s a fantastic street – it would be absolutely splendid.” Of course, now that George Street is to be traffic-free, buses remain vital on Princes Street (though numbers may be reduced) – but Murphy’s proposals show that many of these benefits nonetheless remain achievable.
At the 27.6.25 Transport Committee, debating George Street, convener Cllr Jenkinson rejected the ‘do minimum’ approach in favour of a solution which should serve and inspire for years, and the Committee agreed. Why should internationally-renowned Princes Street, with its dramatic setting, get the opposite treatment?
How cycling fits in the Murphy proposals
Although the abovementioned Council consultation did include a footway-based Princes Street cycle lane option, it reduced pedestrian space and seemed likely to be voted down by councillors. Our submission said, “Spokes does not agree that the approach shown is the only or best way to introduce a segregated cycle lane.”
Purely from the cycling perspective, a fully segregated onroad cycleroute [as for example at London embankment or Rotterdam Coolsingel] is the ideal solution. However in tramline-constrained Princes Street this could only be achieved by removing all bus stops in one direction, which politically is not going to happen (though bus numbers may be reduced) and would arguably conflict with our own objective to promote cycling “as part of a sustainable transport and access strategy.”
There is no ‘ideal’ solution for any one travel category, but the innovative Murphy proposals are the best solution we have seen so far. Significantly increased pedestrian space, alongside safer and more attractive cycling conditions, can be achieved with bus and tram sharing a single carriageway and with recessed bus-stop bays to avoid tram delays. The proposal includes simple on-street cycle lanes within a scheme concentrating bus stops and developing public realm space along the gardens.
The cycle lane would be segregated from vehicles by a kerb, and from pedestrians by low, narrow, planting; except at bus bays and pedestrian crossings.
Clearly buses crossing the cycle lane to enter and leave bus bays are a potential problem, but surface colour, priorities lining, trained professional bus drivers and the absence of general traffic, would mean any risks would be extremely low. A limited parallel (and with fewer safeguards) already exists in a tramlined street in Manchester. Overall the proposals would increase safety for existing cyclists and encourage more people to cycle, though would remain undesirable for some categories such as unaccompanied children.
Thus cycling conditions, whilst not perfect, would hugely improve on the present, whilst pedestrian space would increase very significantly. In summary, the Murphy plan would reflect the Council’s agreed Transport Hierarchy far better than the Council’s own plan.
Why cycling must be well catered for
As expressed earlier, inclusion of cycling is taken for granted in leading European cities and by internationally-renowned architects and urban designers. However, in the case of Princes Street there are also strong practical reasons.
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. It also plays a vital central role in CCWEL.
However, for many journeys George Street is not a sensible alternative, and any gains in safety on the street itself are negated by the manoeuvers to access it from Princes Street. For example, 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.
It is also notable that, observationally, significantly more cyclists appear to use Princes Street than George Street, even despite being on the same carriageway as the tramlines. An all-day comparison count would be welcomed, but even the limited evidence from Strava is a strong indicator.
Comparing the options for cycling provision
In the table below, we compare what are probably the four main options for Princes Street walking, cycling and public transport – the two Council draft strategy options, the imaginative Richard Murphy proposals, and the fully segregated bike route which, from a purely cycling perspective, would be top preference.
What happens next ?
A major re-think on Princes Street, including carriageway changes to reduce motor vehicle dominance, as in the Murphy proposals, needs to encompass forthcoming decisions on tram expansion and the role of buses. Indeed, the Council’s draft strategy does recognise this! – it notes that ‘major street redefinition,’ with changes to carriageways and footways, has to await the strategic bus network review [see 4.2 of Mobility Plan]. But to go ahead with the Council’s costly ‘non-aspirational’ draft proposals now, without including such decisions, risks lost opportunity and abortive expenditure.
Brave decisions are possible: many years ago cars were banned from Princes Street under Cllr David Begg – against much opposition and dire warnings. Who would now reverse that decision? More recently there has been some footway widening and cyclist blackspot remediation, but conditions for pedestrians and cyclists remain seriously sub-optimal. And yet, when Princes Street was closed to all but pedestrians and cyclists for a month in December 2011, the Evening News reported shops delighted with the increased takings.
In summary, the Council needs to rethink its approach to Princes Street, take onboard wider advice, as from the Jan Gehl reports and Richard Murphy Architects. Rather than the current draft strategy, which many feel is little more than tinkering and fails to unlock the potential of one of the world’s best known streets, the Council should devise a Princes Street scheme fit for a major European city, and fit for the future.
What you can do
- Ask your councillors [your ward will have either 3 or 4] to read our article, to press for a rethink on Princes Street, and come up with a scheme which caters for the future, for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and which reflects the Transport Hierarchy
- Repost our Bluesky post of this article
- Like on Facebook
- Pass on the link to this article on other social media and to your contacts
Resources
- Spokes comparison of various options for Princes Street travel, and further notes
- Princes Street & Waverley Valley – consultation
- Spokes response to the above
- Richard Murphy architects original proposal + Urban Realm report
- Richard Murphy updated drawings, July 2025 – street + key / entire area
- 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.
Historic pictures
1996: Labour Transport Convener Cllr David Begg proudly opens Princes Street cycle lanes – advisory at that time – but, sadly, removed by a later council
