Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-12 04:31:30 EDT

Explore

PostsPeople
LatestRanked
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:10 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Cllr Lang: Does recent fire suggest need buses on George St, for resilience ?

Officers: 1. Princes St needs 4 lanes for its resilience
2. The George St design would allow buses if needed for resilience

Cllr Mitchell: Legal problems banning non-local buses?

@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:02 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Q: Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social: Option 1 not really ambitious?

A (planning officer): Yes, ambitious, new paving (& other things) is "ambitious" though "not radical"
A (transport officer): It is the best possible compromise to cater for public transport & đŸš¶

Cllr Lang
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 1:56 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Chief Planning Officer says south đŸš¶footway too narrow, and no space for segregatedđŸšČ lanes..

BUT his recommended Option 1 retains 4 traffic lanes throughout Princes St, so extra đŸšČ width is not available and only slight đŸš¶ widening

@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 1:41 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Planning Committee papers (7.3) --> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocume...

Option 1: 'pragmatism' - improve footways
Option 2: 'radical' - reconsider roadspace

Watch here--> edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/...

Spokes submission - bluesky above

Council report Exec Summary Non Statutory Planning Guidance - Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy Update 2. Executive Summary 2.1 This report responds to a motion put forward by Councillor Lang, adjusted and approved by Planning Committee on 12 November 2025 in respect of Non-Statutory Planning Guidance - Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy (The Strategy). 2.2 Following the elected member/officer/stakeholder workshop in early summer, it sets out a summary of the views expressed and the potential options available to Committee to bring forward a more ambitious and exciting strategy for approval, namely: 2.2.1 Option 1 – ‘ambitious pragmatism’ – a series of enhanced measures to address public and stakeholder issues (as per paragraph 4.2) to augment the current Strategy and redouble efforts to renew the street, working within the existing policy context in terms of the public transport network and heritage; or 2.2.2 Option 2 – ‘radical rethink’ - prioritising Princes Street as a civic destination but impacting its role as a primary public transport route, requiring review of how people and goods move around the city, and the function of city centre streets, including those in advanced stages of redesign e.g. George Street. 2.3 The report recommends taking forward Option 1 so that a significant transformation of Princes Street and the Valley can occur for the benefit of all. There would be an improved pedestrian experience with wider footways repaved with high-quality materials, a much more accessible West Princes Street Gardens, and the potential for opening the Gardens into the evening.spokes conclusion The report before councillors today basically means that a very costly George Street project, banning buses, and with partially compromised cycle space, is likely to go ahead at the expense of leaving Princes Street, Scotland’s premier street, dominated by roadspace, pedestrian congestion, unsafe cycling, and with its magnificent views not taken advantage of. These decisions will cement the future of Princes Street and George Street for years, maybe decades. Both streets, in a European capital city like Edinburgh, should be places for walking, cycling and public transport – not seeking a supposedly gold-plated solution for one, whilst sacrificing the other.
@spokes.org.ukSep 5, 2026, 5:01 PM

#PrincesStreet - future to be decided Weds 9th Planning Cttee

Spokes submission --> www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/u...

@edi.bike @chdot.bsky.social @edfoc.bsky.social @edinreporter.bsky.social @joshpizpom.bsky.social @spurtle.bsky.social @harryjwilliams.bsky.social @edinpl.bsky.social @sw20.info

Start of Spokes deputation... Princes Street and Waverley Valley CEC Planning Cttee 9.9.26, agenda item 71 Spokes submission on transport aspects Spokes fundamentally rejects the recommendations in this report. The proposals represent only minor change from those rejected by councillors2 on 12 November 2025, under Cllr Lang’s motion as amended. Their very description as ‘pragmatism’ does not reflect councillors’ request for an “ambitious and exciting strategy.” As regards Princes Street itself, the approach mainly consists of repaving the north footway, and a 1.5m improvement to footway width on the south side, whilst leaving the bulk of the width of Princes Street as a 4-lane transport corridor which, whilst busy at times, is for much of the day mainly an expanse of tarmac. It is not the ‘place’ proposal which has been recommended by experts in urban design, from the Council’s 2011 Jan Gehl report [para 1102 here3] and subsequently, for what is Edinburgh’s premier street, and, indeed, Scotland’s. Gehl recommended4 a place with high pedestrian provision, safe cycling as well as quality public transport. This can only be achieved by reducing the amount of road width allocated to bus, coach, tram and taxi, and possibly reducing their numbers. We discuss this further belowPrinces Street and George Street – major suggestion If indeed a truly pedestrian and cycle-friendly Princes Street is not possible without reducing public transport levels (which, as above, we do not necessarily accept) then Spokes calls for a rethink on the relationship between the two streets - treating them in a more unified fashion, and reverting to the earlier George Street plans with wide footways, cycle lanes, and bus services. We recall historically that Gehl recommended a unified approach to Princes Street and George Street. Very regrettably, councillors subsequently decided this was too difficult and that the council would instead concentrate on George Street, leaving Princes Street to later decisions (e.g. para 2.34 here8)Implementation We recall at TEC, when George Street costs were rising significantly a few years ago, officers were asked by councillors if a low cost initial solution would be possible, removing central parking and private traffic, whilst installing cycle lanes and allowing bus and taxi use. Officers confirmed this was possible, in a relatively modest timescale and at relatively low cost. Spokes urges this initial approach, which would also at low cost test the feasibility of the wider unified approach to Princes Street and George Street which we suggest above. Conclusion The report before councillors today basically means that a very costly George Street project, banning buses, and with partially compromised cycle space, is likely to go ahead at the expense of leaving Princes Street, Scotland’s premier street, dominated by roadspace, pedestrian congestion, unsafe cycling, and with its magnificent views not taken advantage of. These decisions will cement the future of Princes Street and George Street for years, maybe decades. Both streets, in a European capital city like Edinburgh, should be places for walking, cycling and public transport – not seeking a supposedly gold-plated solution for one, whilst sacrificing the other.