Princes Street & George Street – the future

Following the Council decision of 12 February 2026 on how to use revenue from the Visitor Levy, there is considerable uncertainty around projects to improve Princes Street and George Street, in terms of funding, timescales and project scope.

Spokes has therefore written to Transport and Environment convener Cllr Stephen Jenkinson suggesting various options which would provide wider footways and safe and attractive cycling conditions in both these world-renowned streets. For George Street, low cost interim options are suggested if funding for the full scheme is not likely for the forseeable future.

1. Princes Street / George Street – relative issues

Spokes has always been concerned that there should be safe and attractive conditions for cycling, walking and wheeling in both streets, as would be the case in most other European capitals. Both streets are important destinations in their own right, and both serve essential, but different, functions for through-journeys.

Princes Street is a vital through route for many cycle journeys. Whilst some in the Council have suggested that George Street is a suitable alternative for all cycling trips, this is far from the case. Indeed, for some journeys, to use George Street rather than Princes Street would entail not just a detour, but crossing tramlines twice and/or undertaking additional main-road left and right hand turns.

The fact that both streets serve very different journey needs is clearly evidenced by the relative numbers of cyclists currently using the two streets. Visually it appears that as many or perhaps more cyclists use Princes Street than George Street, despite the tramlines, a conclusion supported by Strava data [fig 1]. Of course, Strava data is far from complete, and we urge the Council to conduct counts to confirm the current usages in both streets.

In the case of George Street, this has been chosen as the route for the central core of CCWEL, the City Centre east/west link, the west and east sections of which are now complete and already continue east down the whole of Leith Walk and onwards, nearly to Ocean Terminal. George Street is an essential missing link – see Fig 2.

2. Princes Street – future

The Planning Committee of 12 November 2025 unexpectedly rejected draft planning guidance on Princes Street and the Waverley Valley, which many had deemed unimaginative [see Spokes submission]. The agreed motion asked officers instead “to convene an elected member/ officer/ stakeholder workshop that brings together those with transport, culture, heritage and placemaking expertise so a more ambitious and exciting strategy can be brought forward for approval.”

In that debate, the ambitious proposals by Richard Murphy architects [here and fig 3 below] were raised as the type of approach that merited consideration, providing considerably increased pedestrian space and largely protected bike lanes. Spokes had also suggested such in our deputation. Without a major rethink on Princes Street roadspace, it is difficult to see how the Planning Committee decision can be realised.

Furthermore, we note that whilst that Planning Committee decision was taken in mid November, three months ago, we have as yet heard nothing further, and in particular no mention of the stakeholder consultation which was mandated by the Committee.

We also note that, way back in 2011, the Council’s own commissioned Jan Gehl report on Princes Street and George Street identified “cycle and pedestrian priority” and reduced vehicle presence as “essential” for Princes Street to achieve its “huge potential.” A theme repeated in 2025 by Richard Murphy.

3. George Street – future

Discussions on the future of George Street have continued ever since the 2011 Jan Gehl report, with a vast amount of time and money expended. Not least huge amounts of voluntary time and effort by community organisations such as Spokes through endless consultations.

It is greatly distressing that, 15 years later, George Street remains car-dominated, with relatively narrow footways, no safe cycling provision and a huge amount of roadspace still given over to static car storage.

The current ‘cycle street’ proposals are certainly a massive improvement on the present position on the ground. However, in offering our support, Spokes has compromised on our ideal solution which incorporated segregated bike lanes, as in the Council’s earlier proposals (and similar to (3a) below). Subsequently we have also become increasingly concerned as the intended restrictions on motor traffic in the ‘cycle street’ have been progressively eroded, to the extent that we considered withdrawing support.

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.

3b [a tried and tested solution, easy to implement, but losing symmetry and retaining car parking]

Remove all traffic from one side of George Street, enabling a wider footway and a 2-way bike lane

For those with a long memory, the council actually did this as an 18-month experiment under an ETRO in 2014-2015. See plans, statement of reasons and this Broughton Spurtle overview and the streetview picture below. The scheme was a considerable success, with surveys showing increased footfall, reduction in car numbers, and people feeling it made the street more pleasant and encouraged them to return.

Unfortunately at that time, prior to subsequent legislative changes [here, para 2111], ETROs could not be made into a permanent scheme, which would therefore have required a full TRO process to be undertaken after the experimental lane had been removed. Since it was expected that a full George Street project would go ahead within the relatively near future (!) and would redesign the entire street, it was decided not to dedicate the time and costs to undertake the TRO process for the interim period.

4. What you can do

• Email or speak to your councillors with your ideas on the future of Princes Street and/or George Street. Ask them to ensure that walking and cycling, safe and pleasant, are central issues for both streets. Ask them about timescales and whether you will have an opportunity to make your voice heard
• Repost our bluesky post of this article.