30 July 2008
|
Report Title: |
Edinburgh Tram Network |
|
Issue Date: |
13th December 2007 [unrestricted as of 30th July 2008] |
|
Client/Developer: |
City of Edinburgh Council / Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (tie) |
|
Lead Designer: |
Systems Design Services (SDS) |
|
Local Authority: |
City of Edinburgh Council |
|
Location: |
Edinburgh |
|
Planning Ref: |
|
|
Details: |
Updated design proposals for the Edinburgh Tram Network, including information on related public realm and infrastructure for Coates Crescent, Leith Walk and St Andrew Square. |
|
PDF version: |
Edinburgh Tram Network Update (35kb) |
This report relates to designs for the tram network for Edinburgh. Aspects of the design were presented to an A+DS Design Review panel on 20 November 2007. This followed on from a previous review held on 20 March 2007 for which a report was issued in April 2007.
The project was presented by representatives of tie, Dundas and Wilson, System Design Services / Parsons Brinkerhoff, Steer Davies Gleave, and EDAW.
The meeting was also attended by Ian Spence, consultant to City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) and representatives of CEC Planning, and Historic Scotland.
1 Design development
1.1 In our report of April 2007 we supported the project but considered that it lacked design vision. We were concerned that the design approach appeared to have been dictated by technical engineering requirements, and that the procurement route seemed to be led by financial, and not design, considerations.
1.2 We recognise that the design team are grappling with significant and complex issues, and understand that there is an attempt to review urban design and public realm matters. Whilst we welcome efforts to correct fundamental aspects which were inadequately dealt with early in the process we continue to have significant concerns with this project.
2 Public realm
2.1 A high quality public realm will be essential to ensure a successful tram network. The impact of the project will extend outwith its immediate boundaries, yet any design is being conceived within the limited scope set for the route. We believe it is unacceptable that a generous budget is not available to properly consider and integrate public realm works over a wider area.
2.2 The tram installation will change the character of the street and public spaces. We acknowledge the recent introduction of urban designers, but there is little evidence of this influencing the design or procurement of the system. This is instead being led by technical engineering solutions, a business case or other baseline economic considerations that do not correctly assess the impact on the city. We do not believe this approach is good enough for a capital city, with World Heritage status; particularly when other European cities have responded in a more positive manner to similar design challenges.
2.3 The project lacks joined up thinking, and a lack of management is evident in the approach to funding, the integration with retail, streetscape or other initiatives, and the co-ordination of the project across various City Departments. This is a major infrastructure project with potential to stimulate and bind together regeneration and other development opportunities or public space projects along the route, and a holistic approach is required to co-ordinate and overcome a ‘silo mentality' to the delivery of initiatives.
2.4 There is currently an inadequate recognition of the needs of pedestrians and cyclists in the designs as they have been presented.
3 Tram experience
3.1 We acknowledge an approach that is attempting to keep any intervention to an expressive minimum, in which the system is subservient to the context. Regardless of this, the tram network is a major piece of infrastructure which will impact on and determine the quality of the urban environment.
3.2 Fundamental decisions have been and are continuing to be taken that will affect how the tram is experienced by both users and observers. Combining tracks to run centrally in streets will disconnect tram stops from pavements, and result in island platforms with consequent safety issues. In certain instances separating the lines and locating stops adjacent to pavements would have resulted in a safer more inclusive system for users and been less disruptive to the urban fabric. We believe there may still be opportunities to address these issues.
3.3 Whilst we welcome the aspiration to de-clutter the streetscape, the tram installation will necessitate its own assemblage of apparatus and we are concerned that something new is being added without anything necessarily being taken away.
3.4 It would appear that the components necessary for the tram's operation are being considered in isolation of other street fixtures, furniture or signage. The accumulation will have a major impact on the quality of the environment, and there is as yet no evidence of the management or co-ordination of the whole.
3.5 We are not aware of any analysis of the consequences of the removal or reduction of large number of buses operating in the most environmentally sensitive areas. The two transport networks require greater integration and co-ordination.
4. Kit of parts
4.1 We are disappointed that the ‘kit of parts' was not presented in detail at the design review. It is of concern that at such an advanced stage in the process we are unable to comment on any ‘exemplar' design - either generic or as it may appear in differing locations. We welcome a future presentation that will identify how the ‘kit' adapts to specific locations, and where scope exists for further design development.
4.2 We continue to await graphic information that describes the tram, platforms, stops, and all associated street furniture and features required for its operation. We are surprised at the apparent absence of any meaningful illustrative material prior to this point, and question how it could have been possible to critically comment on design quality without such information.
4.3 The procurement process will be based on an exemplar proposal that appears to demonstrate value for money; however, we are yet to be satisfied about the quality of what is being proposed, and suggest that the product and its procurement method may ultimately not represent best value for the city. We are concerned that design quality may not be delivered through the bidding process, and that should the process come under budgetary pressures, then quality is likely to be compromised.
4.4 We are concerned at an apparent short sighted attitude towards the budget. The cost of tram stops and other public realm interventions are relatively small compared to the overall cost of the network, and wider costs are likely to result from restricted and injudicious funding that is not worthy of a nation's capital city.
5 St Andrew Square
5.1 This will be a major transport interchange, linking bus, rail and airport connections. We commend a sensitive approach to design in such a prestigious environment; however, we are concerned at the quality of what is being suggested. The tram stop, which has the appearance of a functional shelter, lacks sophistication and is not an adequate response to this special location.
5.2 We are surprised that the tram is disconnected and sits in isolation from Waverley Station and the bus station, when other major cities would work hard to develop the best possible transport connections, particularly to a national railway interchange and its airport.
5.3 The integration of the tram into the Square will alter the nature of the place, and potentially upset the balance of the overall composition. This is illustrated by a point of detail, where a path exits the east side of the central square at a point which does not connect to the tram stop, or where the road cannot be crossed.
5.4 Further work is required to develop a legibility of understanding to describe and make explicit where public are welcome or have restricted access. The patchwork of materials indicated in the illustrations demonstrates insufficient attention to detail and an impoverished design.
5.5 We are concerned that the tram stop is being conceived in isolation of what is happening ‘around the corner' where there would be a separate set of bus shelters, lighting conditions and other street furniture and signage.
5.6 We suggest that further unified thinking and design work is required to consider the implications for St Andrew Square as a single entity.
6 Leith Walk
6.1 The existing character of Leith Walk changes along its length; however, the proposal will effectively transform it into a single entity, whilst at the same time dividing it in two. The rhythm of the central poles will dominate and separate the streetscape, and diminish the strength of the architecture along the Walk. Greater urban analysis is required, and a variant solution proposed, that is more specific to context.
6.2 The combination of the central poles, the collected tram routeing, raised mid band, and central coloured tarmac band will exacerbate the division and separation of each side of Leith Walk, and the raised central platforms will inhibit access across lengths of the street.
6.3 We question why, instead of being combined, the tram lines are not separated to have a more direct and better relationship with the pavement and pedestrian users.
6.4 We understand that existing street lighting (which in some cases is mounted off buildings) is to be substituted by lights on central support poles; however, these will be distant from the pavements where the greatest illumination is required.
7 Coates Crescent
7.1 The scale of the space appears to be capable of accommodating the tram. However, we are concerned that the platform is positioned in the middle of the road, when separate stops would have been better located at each side of the road directly connected to each of the park areas.
7.2 The central platform will interrupt the western vista towards the city centre, and the manner in which vehicular traffic is diverted will result in a fragmented approach that denies and detracts from the beauty of such a direct route.
7.3 Despite its apparent capacity to handle a tram stop, Coates Crescent would appear to be a curious location as it is not perforate on its south side and will not therefore aid pedestrian movement and dispersal to serve a wider area.
8 Other areas
8.1 The location of a stop at Coates Crescent is in close proximity to Haymarket and relatively distant from the west end / Lothian Road. We question whether a location at the west end of Princes Street would better recognise and service major and direct routes.
8.2 We question why there is only one stop on Princes Street, and find it surprising that Waverley Station is isolated from the tram network.
8.3 We consider it of fundamental importance that the proposals for the wider Haymarket area are structured around, and correctly incorporate the tram. The anticipated redevelopment of a number of sites in the Haymarket area presents a one-off opportunity for the City to co-ordinate and deliver a major intervention of a quality that befits a European city and gateway to the World Heritage site. The tram network is central to achieving a quality public realm in this area.
We thank those attending for their presentation. We are supportive in principle of the project, and wish to see the installation of a tram system that is of the highest design quality, and is worthy of a capital city with World Heritage status.
Some of the decision making so far has not anticipated the consequences of decisions made. We acknowledge the introduction of urban designers; however, we continue to be concerned at the low priority given to public realm, urban design and related funding considerations, when such aspects will have profound and long lasting consequences for the capital city and the impression of the nation.
We reinforce the calls for joined up thinking in relation to all aspects surrounding the tram programme and its implementation, and the integration with other initiatives. We trust that assessment criteria will not be based primarily on economic considerations but will have proper regard for the importance of creating an internationally high standard of tram system and public realm.
We welcome a future presentation on the ‘kit of parts' and other significant areas, and request that this is timetabled so that any feedback can be meaningful to the design process.
Report issued: 13 December 2007 [unrestricted as of 30th July 2008]