Page 0: Page 1: Measuring
the
Environmental
Impact
of
displaced
traffic
in
the
West
End
 
 Background
 The
City
of
Edinburgh
Council
(CEC)
has
a
long‐stated
aim
of
reducing
traffic
in
the
‘First
New
Town
 of
Edinburgh’1.
The
same
report
noted
that
“it
is
the
unity
of
[James]
Craig's
plan
and
its
internal
 hierarchies,
which
give
the
first
New
Town
its
special
identity
and
contributes
to
its
character”
–
 however
 this
 report
 indicates
 that
 far
 less
 attention
 has
 been
 given
 to
 the
 impact
 of
 traffic
 displaced
 from
 the
 centre
 to
 the
 residential
 areas
 of
 the
 West
 End
 of
 Edinburgh.
 This
 displaced
 traffic
is
materially
changing
the
environment
in
ways
that
CEC
seeks
to
make
permanent
with
the
 current
Traffic
Regulation
Order
for
the
Tram.
 
 It
 should
 be
 noted
 that
 the
 impacts
 studied
 within
 this
 report
 for
 the
 West
 End
 of
 the
 city
 are
 likely
 to
 echo
 similar
 impacts
 on
 all
 the
 residential
 areas
 of
 Edinburgh
 who
 have
 been
 the
 destination
of
displaced
traffic
from
long‐established
commercial
routes.
 
 A
Policy
of
Traffic
Displacement
into
residential
areas?
 
 
 The
above
diagram
is
a
composite
of
three
sources
relating
to
environmental
impact
of
traffic:
 • Scottish
Noise
Mapping
(2005)
highlighting
(in
red)
the
streets
in
Edinburgh
that
are
noisier
 at
night
than
the
daily
average
for
Princes
Street.
The
displacement
of
traffic
from
Princes
 Street
 and
 to
 the
 residential
 roads
 of
 the
 West
 End
 is
 clear,
 though
 in
 2005
 Shandwick
 Place
was
open
to
general
traffic.
The
current
TRO,
if
adopted,
will
make
this
worse.
 • Noise
 Management
 Area
 (2008).
 Though
 major
 roads
 into
 and
 out
 of
 Edinburgh
 are
 highlighted
 for
 action,
 including
 the
 Urban
 Canyon
 in
 Corstorphine,
 the
 residential
 areas
 that
this
traffic
must
traverse
in
the
West
End,
also
Urban
Canyons,
are
not
subject
to
any
 management
plan.
This
plan
appears
to
be
out
of
date.
 • Air
Quality
Management
Area
(2009).
Though
the
majority
of
pollutants
like
NO2
in
the
UK
 arise
from
traffic,
the
displacement
of
traffic
does
not
appear
to
be
reflected
in
the
areas
 being
monitored.
If
they
are
not
monitored
they
will
not
be
‘managed’.
 























































 
A
Strategy
for
the
First
New
Town
Edinburgh,
August
1997:
 www.edinburgh.gov.uk/traffic/reports/CommitteeReports/EDAW.html
 1 Page 2: This
 overall
 picture
 is
 set
 to
 get
 worse
 if
 the
 current
 TRO
 is
 adopted,
 principally
 because
 the
 permanent
closure
of
Shandwick
Place
to
general
traffic,
including
HGVs,
means
that
traffic
will
be
 forced
to
cut
through
residential
areas.
The
various
experiments
that
have
taken
place
by
CEC
in
 Randolph
 Crescent
 to
 increase
 the
 flow
 of
 traffic
 through
 the
 West
 End
 ‐
 including
 suspending
 parking
and
conversion
to
a
two‐lane
road
–
demonstrate
CEC’s
desire
to
increase
the
capacity
of
 roads
in
residential
areas
to
accept
traffic
as
well
as
how
critical
they
will
become
to
traffic
flow
 through
Edinburgh,
reflected
in
the
replacement
of
the
fixed
barrier
from
Ainslie
Place
into
Moray
 Place
 with
 a
 mass
 barrier
 and
 a
 signposted
 diversion,
 that
 can
 be
 employed
 at
 short
 notice
 to
 increase
capacity
should
the
adjacent
junction
become
congested.
 
 If
Shandwick
Place
is
closed
and
Moray
Place
is
opened
to
help
cope
with
the
displaced
traffic,
the
 flows
that
this
would
allow
are
shown
in
the
comparison
below.
Note
that
the
map
on
the
left
is
 based
on
actual
figures
in
2005
measured
by
the
Scottish
Government
–
the
map
on
the
right
is
a
 projection
based
on
two
assumptions:
 
 (i)
that
traffic
coming
into
Edinburgh
from
the
North
will
increase
in
line
with
projections
made
by
 CEC
and
the
Scottish
Government
that
indicate,
for
example,
the
need
for
a
second
Forth
Crossing.
 (ii)
that
traffic
using
Shandwick
Place
in
2005
will
be
largely
displaced
into
the
residential
areas
of
 the
West
End.
Tie’s
own
figure
for
increases
in
Magdala
Crescent,
Douglas
Crescent
and
Melville
 Street
is
that
the
tram
diversions
will
result
in
PM
traffic
at
263%
of
the
pre‐tram
level.
 
 


 
 
 Given
this
future
scenario,
it
is
important
to
understand
what
impact
the
‘temporary’
closure
of
 Shandwick
Place
has
already
had
on
traffic
in
the
West
End
in
terms
of
traffic
numbers,
noise,
and
 pollution,
 as
 all
 of
 these
 determine
 the
 natural
 capacity
 of
 the
 road
 network
 and
 as
 well
 as
 the
 impact
of
the
‘Urban
Canyon’
on
noise
and
pollution
levels.

 
 To
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
no
such
monitoring
has
been
undertaken
by
CEC
even
though
the
 displacement
 of
 traffic
 has
 been
 modelled
 by
 tie
 and
 used
 for
 CEC
 decision‐making.
 Accordingly
 we
decided
to
set
up
a
continuous
monitoring
system
and
give
examples
of
typical
results
here.

 
 NOTE:
 In
 all
 the
 following
 exhibits
 we
 are
 using
 factory‐calibrated
 equipment
 and
 where
 possible
 have
 cross‐referenced
 our
 figures
 or
 calibrated
 against
 CEC’s
 own
 monitoring
 equipment.

Whilst
we
have
taken
every
care
to
be
as
accurate
and
representative
as
possible
 we
believe
that
it
is
CEC’s
responsibility
to
make
such
measurements.
This
data
is
offered
only
to
 support
 the
 argument
 that
 CEC
 and
 The
 Scottish
 Government
 should
 collect
 evidence
 on
 the
 environmental
impact
of
their
traffic
management
plans
before
permanently
closing
established
 commercial
traffic
thoroughfares.
 
 Page 3: Traffic
Volumes
 The
 noise
 mapping
 conducted
 on
 behalf
 of
 the
 Scottish
 Government
 and
 used
 in
 the
 above
 exhibits
 was
 calculated
 directly
 from
 measured
 traffic
 flows
 during
 a
 short
 census
 in
 2005.
 The
 Scottish
Government
has
refused
to
release
these
figures.
 
 Typical
 measurements
 are
 shown
 below,
 indicating
 that
 peak
 flow
 level
 in
 the
 north
 arm
 of
 Randolph
Crescent
alone
exceed
rates
of
900
vehicles
per
hour.
Note
also
the
significant
number
 of
vehicles
travelling
through
the
road
at
night.

 
 Noise
 The
 graphic
 below
 shows
 noise
 measured
 at
 a
 second‐floor
 window
 on
 Randolph
 Crescent
 and
 plots
a
rolling
maximum,
minimum
and
the
industry‐standard
LAeq
that
is
used
by
government
to
 decide
 whether
 an
 intervention
 is
 required.
 Note
 that
 noise
 is
 plotted
 on
 a
 logarithmic
 scale,
 meaning
that
an
increase
of
3dB
reflects
a
doubling
in
the
noise
energy,
and
each
10dB
represents
 a
doubling
in
how
‘loud’
the
noise
sounds
to
the
human
ear.
 
 In
this
instance
there
were
three
periods
in
the
afternoon
that
were
of
the
same
order
as
a
Jet‐ powered
helicopter
landing
in
Randolph
Crescent
gardens!
The
listed
buildings
that
line
this
traffic
 route
must
retain
single‐pane
sash
and
case
windows
that
are
ineffective
barriers
against
this
level
 of
noise.

 
 Page 4: Pollution
 Nitrogen
 Dioxide
 and
 particulate
 pollution
 have
 direct
 consequences
 for
 health.
 They
 are
 both
 ‘heavier
than
air’
pollutants
and
this
raises
a
number
of
concerns
given
the
‘urban
canyon’
created
 by
the
tall
buildings
of
the
West
End
and
the
large
number
of
residences
below
street
level,
some
 buildings
going
down
three
levels.
 
 CEC,
 in
 response
 to
 pressure
 from
 residents,
 has
 placed
 a
 ‘passive
 diffusion
 tube’
 at
 one
 end
 of
 Great
 Stuart
 Street
 as
 it
 opens
 out
 into
 Ainslie
 Place
 to
 measure
 NO2
 levels
 on
 a
 monthly
 basis.
 ‘Uncorrected’
figures
of
“high
30’s
micrograms
per
cubic
metre”
have
been
reported
by
CEC
at
this
 location.
The
statutory
limit
for
this
type
of
pollution
is
average
levels
of
40
micrograms
per
cubic
 metre,
and
peak
levels
exceeding
200
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
over
one
hour
is
only
‘allowed’
 18
times
a
year.
These
limits
at
standard
temperature
and
pressure
equate
to
measurements
of
 21ppb
(parts
per
billion)
and
105ppb.
 
 Accordingly
we
have
conducted
real‐time
monitoring
and
as
the
exhibit
below
shows,
the
hourly
 average
 (blue
 line)
 significantly
 exceeds
 the
 average
 limit
 threshold
 of
 21ppb.
 Longer
 term
 measurements
 are
 required
 to
 determine
 whether
 this
 early
 indication
 proves
 to
 exceed
 the
 statutory
limit,
but
this
is
already
a
cause
for
concern.
CEC
should
be
doing
more
than
using
one
 relatively
inaccurate
passive
diffusion
tube
to
measure
pollution
levels
on
Great
Stuart
Street.
 
 
 
 Summary
 The
 monitoring
 of
 traffic
 volumes,
 noise
 and
 pollution
 in
 a
 residential
 area
 where
 the
 listed
 buildings
cannot
be
adequately
sound‐proofed
nor
protected
against
air‐born
pollution
indicate
a
 number
 of
 areas
 of
 concerns
 about
 potential
 impacts
 on
 the
 health
 of
 residents.
 The
 results
 reported
above
indicate
that
detailed
monitoring
by
CEC
is
required
before
any
decision
is
taken
 to
 make
 the
 displacement
 of
 traffic
 into
 the
 residential
 areas
 of
 the
 West
 End
 of
 Edinburgh
 permanent
 through
 measures
 such
 as
 the
 closure
 of
 Shandwick
 Place.
 Discussions
 with
 representatives
of
communities
along
the
route
of
the
tram
indicate
that
these
concerns
are
likely
 to
 apply
 to
 other
 residential
 areas
 of
 the
 City
 of
 Edinburgh
 into
 which
 traffic
 is
 being
 displaced
 from
established
commercial
thoroughfares.
 
 Ashley
Lloyd
 26
February
2010
 Page 5: