Reposted by Robbie Ainsworth
#GeorgeStreet #PrincesStreet
🙋 Spokes #TrafficCount
! 🚲 are 1 in 3 of all traffic
! #VoiBikes success
! #CCWEL #MissingLink vital
--> www.spokes.org.uk/2026/10/city...
@edi.bike @chdot.bsky.social @edfoc.bsky.social @edtiss.bsky.social @davidfkey.bsky.social @chasbooth.bsky.social @sw20.info
![From the spokes article...
[also artist impression of Richard Murphy proposals, showing much widened footways, tram/bus lanes and bike lanes]
The Ambitious Pragmatism content and rationale were laid out in an overall presentation and a more specific briefing on transport aspects. As can be seen from the above slide, the Princes Street element of this basically comprises repaving footways, some widening to the south footway, improved seating and garden accesses.
The Complete Rethink was exemplified by a presentation from Richard Murphy, expanding on his earlier material as in our 25 Feb article. Since his presentation is 36MB, and includes a lot on Princes Street gardens, we have not uploaded it, but have extracted relevant slides around Princes Street itself.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreigcgcdv6xvsrxb6esa5feclhqqrw2cb6zo3d27uoe4rlbbz7d2gna)
![Spokes input
Although the only presentations at the workshop were by officers and professionals, points made by Spokes during discussions included…
Whilst George Street is important for many bike journeys, for many others there is no sensible alternative to Princes Street. For example, to use George Street when travelling from Waverley station/ Waverley Bridge to the West End would entail turning right off Princes Street whilst crossing tramlines [see section 1 of our February article]
We believe that cycling is at least as prevalent on Princes Street as on George Street, and is likely to grow with the increasing use of the Voi bikes in the city centre. The Council has not published any figures on this, and Spokes hopes to organise a count after the Festival
The dangers of bike/tramline crashes on Princes Street are real, not imagined, and we are not convinced that this, and the resulting injuries, are being taken seriously enough. For example, this is not mentioned in the above transport-issues paper. Yet, see this BBC Scotland report detailing crashes, injuries, the death of Zhi Min Soh, and compensation paid by the Council following early successful court cases brought by victims. Here is a more recent example, from January 2026. Fortunately, the rate of crashes appears to have declined since the early years, as the Council has tackled known blackspots. However, analysis of tramline crashes reported to Spokes suggests, perhaps unexpectedly, that roughly 50% occur not at crossing-point blackspots, but at random locations when the cyclist is travelling in the same direction as the tramlines, not needing to cross them, but is forced into them by traffic, or encounters them for other reasons. The only realistic safety solution is physical separation from the tramlines.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreiavlhooti26qcdeoytdgtyamcb34aba4vmlxssqhvusd5nf4dwch4)
![Table comparing AT investment promises in 2021 and 2026 manifestos. Sorry, tables don't come out well in ALT text!
Key to tables below++Very good and/or best+good=mixed, unclear, or less good than other parties-poor (or unrealistic)
- -very disappointing
NNot in manifesto [N is generally disappointing, but depends on the issue, so think!]
Page numbers shown are to pages of each party’s 2026 manifesto
2026 v 2021 comparison of AT Investment manifesto commitments
Sadly and shockingly, in view of the climate crisis, the cost of living crisis, and the need for healthier lifestyles to help the NHS crisis the 2026 manifestos mark a massive deterioration in active travel policies as compared to the 2021 election – or even 2016. Only the Greens, and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, retain positive approaches.
Whilst this applies to many policies and promises, the astonishing contrast is seen clearly in this comparative table on the top issue, active travel investment
AT Investment
Conservative
Green
Labour
LibDem
Reform
SNP
2021 manifestos
[AT funding then was approx £116m, roughly 3.5% of total transport]
+
10% by 2026
++
£320m immediately [approx 10%] rising further
+
10% [unclear if soon or by 2026]
=
“aim” to double existing
[this would be approx 7%]
N/A
=
10% of “capital” bgt by 2026 [BUT this is less of the total transport bgt]
2026 manifestos
[AT funding is now approx £163m, roughly 3.9% of total transport]
- - p35; p75
cut the AT budget; end ring-fenced cash to councils
++ p26
at least 10%; multi-year funding
N
= p66
“Invest in active travel for the first and last mile”
- - p11
End ring-fenced cash to councils
= p64
£2.5m for bike repair; new fund for outdoor recreation paths](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreibjehlqigqutbozlwiaphxrnvj32bcfcl3dbqbntksgl3jay2ptxi)
![Table of party manifesto comparisons (page 1)
2026 manifesto overall comparisons
Note that the manifestos include more transport policies/promises than are shown here, particularly on walk, bus and rail.
We hope this table includes most of the items directly relevant to cycling, as well as some relevant wider transport issues.
Also, note that if something is not in a manifesto, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen, though it is less likely to.
Issue Conservative Green Labour LibDem Reform SNP
AT Investment
[from above table]
- - ++ N = - - =
Extent of cycle/AT
routes/networks
ambition
- - p36
“End the
obsession with
cycle lanes”
Cycle lanes only
ok if not using
road or
pavement space
++ p26
“national blueprint
of walking, cycle
and wheeling
networks“; faster
Council AT project
delivery
N + p66
“Investing in
active travel for
the first and last
mile”
= p23
Rural Scotland:
“support
outdoor
recreation ...
cycling … with
accessible
paths”
= p64
outdoor
recreation
paths fund; no
Roseburn
tram; support
Powderhall AT
path [see note
3 below]
Is AT recognised
and supported as a
public health
measure
- p57
Only considers
leisure centres
& sport
+ p163
“space to walk, run,
play, wheel and
cycle is a right not a
privilege”
N ++ p33 & p61
“Supporting
wellbeing by
making it easier
for people to use
active travel”
N N
Neighbourhoods /
Car-free lifestyles
N + p118
“Support local living
and 20-minute nbd
approaches”
N + p52
New towns
“prioritising
features such as
rail links.. and
20-minute nbds”
N N
Disincentivise car
use/
Demand
management
- - p35
“End the war on
drivers”;
No targets; stop
any Workplace
Parking levies or
congestion
charging
++ p22
Seek road-user
taxation powers for
Scotland
++ p33
Levy on out-oftown
retail, to
support towns
+ p89
Business
rates
replaced by a
new levy
favouring
town centre
retail &
hospitality
= p73
“Moving all
forms of
transport away
from fossil fuels”
– But carrotsonly
approach
- - p21
“End the war
on the car“
N
20mph - p36
20mph only ok
where locals…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreic7sh5vtotgvkucrlfeiypqwuhkksdqosgnwxox657f4jwgfdluwy)
![Table of party manifestos (page 2)
Potholes - - p33
Fund pothole
filling by cutting
(scrapping?) the
AT budget
N + (or - -) p49
£350m fund
[see note 1
below]
+ p64
“fair funding” for
councils; use of
new technology
+ p21
“Fix potholes”
+ p72
“up to £350m”
for potholes &
resurfacing
Air pollution
including Low
Emission Zones
- - p36
Halt more LEZs
and reduce
fines in existing
++ p118
expand LEZs, plus
stronger monitoring
N - - p21
Abolish LEZs
N
Transport
integration, with
respect to active
travel
= p38
Rail, bus & tram
integration; no
mention of
walk/ bike
+ p22, p26
Better AT links to
public transport; All
new rail, bus, tram
to carry bikes
N N N N
Road building - - p34
New law to fasttrack
trunk road
upgrades; dual
A9 by 2031;
many other
trunk projects
+ p22
Future-proof roads
like A83 vulnerable
to climate change;
no mention of
expansion
- - p49
Dual A9 by
2035, look
into dualling
A77 and A75,
& create
National
Roads Plan
- - p64
Dual A9 & A96;
- - p21
“plan to
upgrade major
trunk roads”
[see note 2
below]
- - p71
Dual A9 by
2035, also
parts of A96;
and consider
A75, A77
Air travel taxation
ADT= Air departure
tax
- - p39
oppose any new
taxes; reduce
long-haul tax
++ p34
frequent flyer levy;
private jet tax;
more..
N + p66
Higher tax for
private jet
passengers
N + p27
private jet tax;
including for
‘ghost’ flights
USP – unique
selling points (good
and bad!) picked
out by Spokes
- - p33
1. AT schemes
are “ideological
projects”
2. ban bikes in
all pedestrian
areas
+ p16, p156
Universal rail card;
£2 max bus fares
+ p122
Council powers to
enforce traffic
contraventions
+ p55
“Crush illegal
e-bikes,
using drones
to track &
trace
unlicensed
bikes”
+ p64
”Dangerous
Roads
Programme“
- - p21
“End the war
on the car“
+ p38
£2 bus fare
cap
[1] Labour £350m pothole fund. The manifesto does not say where the money would come from. In early campaign speeches
Anas Sarwar had said it would be from cutting Active Travel funding. On our estimate this would mean a 40% cut on curre…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreihtx3yx2su5oubnssv3v75xk6lov5cp57qt2pftf5o4wn2u7hf5qe)
![A suggested low cost scheme for George Street, possibly as an interim solution for several years until funding becomes available for a full scheme.
Following the visitor levy decision we are unclear if the existing proposals can still be funded. However, if they are not going ahead – or not in the relatively near future – then we urge that low cost changes are made as rapidly as possible to complete CCWEL, including connections at Charlotte and St Andrew Squares, and to improve pedestrian conditions. We suggest two alternatives, even if they are only interim solutions for a number of years.
3a [our strong preference]
Remove central parking, and reduce traffic lanes from 4 to 2, with wider footways and unidirectional kerb-protected cycle lanes on both sides
This type of approach was in fact accepted to be a feasible low-cost option by transport officers in a TEC debate a few years ago, when concern was growing about escalating project costs, but was rejected in favour of developing the more comprehensive, but costly, current scheme.
It also has the advantage of preserving symmetry, a major concern for heritage groups.
Under an initial or temporary low cost, scheme, the central setts etc could be retained and the space repurposed, for example seating and planters with trees. The proposal would ideally also be accompanied by restrictions on moving traffic, for example allowing only taxis, buses and necessary deliveries, although this could be a later stage so as to aid early implementation. The removal of central area parking would in any case substantially reduce private motor traffic.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreibh7mc7gww73zv73qy4srxopktw7kjxjer6tarviv7kug6w5sh7ua)
