The report is less than candid about the design brief. Consider what it states as the criteria:
—
2.1 In 2007 the Council approved a redesign of Picardy Place to allow the delivery of Tram Line 1A (outlined in appendix 1). This approval was followed in 2009 by outline planning consent of the St James Centre redevelopment and subsequently the same year of the ‘Picardy Place Development Principles (PPDP). This design established the basic form of a triangular arrangement of one way streets connected by traffic signal controlled junctions. The design sought to improve conditions for walking, but made no off carriageway cycling provision and provided very limited provision on carriageway.
—
There’s a bit of sophistry at work here. When you look at the PPDP, there were different options suggested, not one design as stated above. Certainly not all options were “a triangular arrangement of one way streets connected by traffic signal controlled junctions.” Only the "prior approval" design made in 2007 for the tram by TIE was configured in this way. Other options included extending a "pedestrian priority zone" from the cathedral out to the "island" with some permeability for traffic. Which is not at all what the repot attempts to assert.
Also note the watering down of language from the PPDP from “maximising access by foot, bicycle and public transport” to merely “improve conditions for walking”.
How did this “finessing” of the design brief occur? How was the solution of “a triangular arrangement of one way streets connected by traffic signal controlled junctions” arrived at? Who made the decision to downgrade “maximising access by foot, bicycle and public transport!” to the markedly less ambitious “improve conditions for walking”?
This paragraph in particular raises more questions than it answers about the design process:
—
2.4 Building on the 2009 Development Principles, from 2014 onwards, a revised deign for Picardy Place has been developed in a process involving Council officials, the developer of St James, Sustrans Ltd (though Sustrans Ltd have recently ceased direct involvement in the project) and Lothian Buses.
—
posts
