I have objected as follows:
(Note that what I submitted got 'truncated' according to CEC's planning portal, so if you wish to submit anything as long, it may be better to email
I wish to object to this planning application for the following reasons:
1. The scheme as it stands will not significantly improve the pedestrian experience.
From the developers own words: "the proposals are consistent with the
general aim of the masterplan which is to improve the pedestrian’s experience of the public realm" and "The intention is to create a better overall network of pedestrian routes within the public realm whilst maintaining safety and accommodating the high vehicular movements"
Unfortunately, the two statements are incompatible with each other. It is not possible to have high vehicular movements and a good pedestrian experience at the same time. If high vehicular movements are unavoidable, then pedestrians need to be removed from where the movements take place (e.g. a motorway). If pedestrian movements are unavoidable (which I think they are in this case), then the high vehicular movements need to be removed.
2. The 2 stage toucan crossing will be detrimental to pedestrians. It is not acceptable for pedestrians/cycles (especially those with small children who must set an example by not crossing on the red man) to have to wait 4 minutes to cross the road at this point. I've no doubt that the crossing will be subservient to motor traffic, with 'dummy' button pushes. Most pedestrians/cyclists will just 'take their chances' and cross on the red man (as they currently do on Frederick St/Princes St). Furthermore, cycles and pedestrians will come on conflict (or not be able to pass each other at all) at the central toucan island.
3. There is no need for 2 lanes to exit Elder St and 2 lanes to enter it, especially as 2 buses travelling in opposite directions cannot pass on the corner into the bus station. Cars should be banned from entering via Elder St and should access the car park from Leith St. The number of lanes should be reduced to 1 in each direction, with proper priority & timing given to the lights on York Pl, such that as soon as a bus wishes to enter or exit Elder St, the traffic lights are triggered, thus preventing a 'pile up' of buses. The rest of the time, the green man should stay on, on a single stage crossing, giving priority to pedestrians and cycles.
4. The 2-way segregated cycle path on York Pl is shown as taking space away from pedestrians and narrowing the pavement to unacceptable levels. In the meantime the number of lanes for motorised traffic, westbound on York Pl, has increased from 1 to 2. It is unacceptable to take space away from pedestrians at this busy location, space should instead be taken from motor vehicles to create a 1-way segregated cycle route (see also point 5).
5. The 2-way segregated cycle route will be inaccessible to cyclists travelling east and wishing to join or leave it. 2-way cycle routes on 1 side of a busy multilane road are not a good idea. It would be far better to build a 1-way segregated cycle route on each side of York Pl, by taking space away from motorised vehicles / removing parking etc.
All of the above reasons do not favour pedestrians, nor cyclists. The council's own policy is for the hierarchy of transport modes is Pedestrians, Cycles, Trams, Buses, Taxis, Cars (most important first). It is clear that this development does not follow that priority.
posts
