There’s a flaw in Edinburgh’s big transport plans

Lies, damned lies and statistics. In a blizzard of numbers it’s not too difficult to find something which appears to shore up whatever argument you’re making, and none more so than Edinburgh Council’s case for forcing private cars off shopping streets like Raeburn Place and Morningside Road.

The clear intention of the SNP-Labour administration is to permanently limit access in favour of walking and cycling, even if it is to the detriment of public transport and two claims quoted as facts now feature prominently in its attempt to persuade the businesses that it’s all in their best interests; that promoting cycling and walking can boost retail spending by 30 per cent and cyclists spend 40 per cent more in shops than motorists over a month.

These startling assertions come from Transport for London’s Economic Benefits of Walking and Cycling presentation, which TfL has encouraged other authorities to use in making their cases for investment in active travel schemes.

If true why isn’t every business in Edinburgh clamouring for the kind of projects now being rolled out across the city as part of the safe-distancing “Spaces for People” programme?

Like the infamous Boris Brexit Bus they contain a kernel of truth, and as the TfL approach is driving Edinburgh’s transport strategy, it’s crucial to understand what supports the claims.

The evidence of higher spending by cyclists and walkers comes from a 2012 study of consumer behaviour and travel in Portland, Oregon, but this was not a detailed study of retail activity but limited to convenience stores, fast-food restaurants and bars. So cyclists and pedestrians spent more in pubs than drivers? Who knew?

The data is heavily influenced by the latter two categories so it’s, shall we say, disingenuous to suggest to businesses like Toys Galore on Morningside Road or Armstrong the Stockbridge fishmonger that they will enjoy a similar boost. Indeed the authors were clear that “more work is needed, particularly for retailing and supermarkets, where the requirement of hauling goods purchased can limit the purchases per visit by patrons using non-automobile modes”. If such work exists, it’s not quoted by TfL.

The other document on which TfL leans heavily is 2013’s The Pedestrian Pound economic impact study for the Living Streets charity, updated in 2018. It looked at 20 projects with car reduction at their heart, including the Grassmarket, which as we all know remains a key through-route for public and private transport alike. And Lochgelly.

Typically for an economic study, it is couched in caveats, not least of which is the admission that “the business and commercial case for investing in walkability remains a challenging area within which to make robust claims about commercial returns”.

Nevertheless, it cites a junction in New York where turnover at a shop shot up 48 per cent after changes were introduced, and a 20 per cent rise at another in London’s Shoreditch. A further claim that retail rents increase by 17 per cent is based on the experience of a district in Hong Kong. The previously run-down Piccadilly district of Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, experienced a 30 per cent increase in footfall after a £10m regeneration project. Similarly, after the revival of Sheffield’s Peace Gardens a 35 per cent increase in footfall was reported.

There are numerous examples of benefits of pedestrian-led improvements, but this is hardly new; traffic was banned from Glasgow’s Buchanan Street when I was still at school and that wasn’t yesterday.

There is little doubt that in some locations some businesses have done well from changes which prioritise walking and cycling, but most of them were improvements to neglected places and it is irresponsible to promise Edinburgh businesses the same uplift without a proper understanding of the background.

Yet when the Conservative group called for all empirical evidence to be properly evaluated, it was dismissed by the transport convener Lesley Macinnes as an attempt to “dilute” their case.

In one sentence the game was exposed; the administration is not really interested in a thorough examination of the evidence in case it compromises their aims. Some months ago the council leader Adam McVey said he didn’t know where business fits into the new transport hierarchy. It looks like they don’t want to know.

Edinburgh tries to tell businesses what they want

Another Transport for London study, Healthy Streets, based on a 2017 survey of about 40 business improvement districts (BIDs) in the UK capital by Westminster University, makes a good case for urban walking and cycling improvements.

Some 85 per cent of BID members surveyed agreed that a good environment for walking, cycling, and spending time was important for their businesses and TfL set out to respond to their needs and concerns.

Edinburgh only has one Business Improvement District, with the city council only giving the failed attempt to establish one in the Old Town tepid support, and traders elsewhere have spoken of their disquiet about the lack of engagement about forthcoming changes. Now there are vague promises about establishing local business champions through which it can channel its aims. City businesses don’t disagree that a more pleasant environment free of diesel fumes where people can stroll would bring benefits, but the approaches in London and Edinburgh couldn’t be more different. One set out three years ago to find out what businesses wanted and the other is now firefighting having set out to tell businesses what’s good for them.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

The dramatic events of 2020 are having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive. We are now more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription to support our journalism.

Subscribe to the Edinburgh Evening News online and enjoy unlimited access to trusted, fact-checked news and sport from Edinburgh and the Lothians. Visit www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Joy Yates

Editorial Director