http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Forum: Infrastructure - Recent Posts en Sun, 17 May 2026 04:05:34 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384297 Fri, 15 May 2026 22:55:52 +0000 bakky 384297@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Not unless that’s a euphy. Only from quasi-judicial TRO Sub, not TEC. </p> <p>(This is a thing I was realising recently - the same issues with who can vote on these filters will come around when TRO Sub have to ratify whatever long-term order. Unless all those who recused due to having kids at Gillespies can take part again because the filters there are now permanent?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384295 Fri, 15 May 2026 19:36:50 +0000 gembo 384295@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Cllr Lang has not learnt that he needs to recuse himself severely? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384294 Fri, 15 May 2026 14:32:29 +0000 chdot 384294@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Braid Road ‘modal filter’ survives long-running traffic-calming saga</p> <p>THE long-running saga about traffic-calming measures and car parking restrictions between the Braids estate and James Gillespie’s Primary School - taking in also Comiston Road - appears to have come to an end, with a decision to retain some ‘modal filters’, such as Braid Road, and remove some, such as Canaan Lane.</p> <p>On Tuesday, members of the city council’s Traffic Regulation Orders sub-committee met (<a href="https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s98371/4.1%20-%20Travelling%20Safely%20-%20Braid%20Road%20Comiston%20Road%20and%20Greenbank%20to%20Meadows%20Quiet%20Connection%20ETRO.pdf">report to committee</a>) to ‘finally’ consider which measures to remove, keep temporarily, modify or make permanent.</p> <p>To be retained: Whitehouse Loan at Warrender Park Road, Whitehouse Loan at Strathearn Road and Braid Road at Hermitage Drive. Meanwhile, being removed: Canaan Lane, Hermitage Gardens and Braid Avenue.</p> <p>‘Finally’, insofar as the deliberations thus far have been mired in, among other things, wording errors, consultation exercises that have been met with scepticism, a seeming reversal of earlier decisions by elected members, a censure of two councillors and highly polarised views among the general public.</p> <p>The decision to retain the Braid Road filter followed a 5-4 vote in favour of a verbal amendment suggested in the room.</p> <p>It is understood the decisions regarding the filters to be removed will be reviewed in six months’ time.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://buildedinburgh.substack.com/p/in-the-news-we-may-15" rel="nofollow">https://buildedinburgh.substack.com/p/in-the-news-we-may-15</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384293 Fri, 15 May 2026 14:11:32 +0000 bakky 384293@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In terms of the ETRO vs TRO stuff? Don't believe so - there was a back and forth at TEC on 2nd April where KLang asked whether we'd learned anything from all of this stuff and the answer was less ETROs in future. I think the Transport committee are more across the possibilities than the average bear.</p> <p>However the fact this will be taken seriously vs. a random email is it coming from Spokes Planning Group - so will be a clear indicator to Cllr Jenkinson that there's a good route through this mess if desired. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384292 Fri, 15 May 2026 13:26:50 +0000 gembo 384292@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Officers will need to explain all of this to councillors……. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384291 Fri, 15 May 2026 11:47:28 +0000 bakky 384291@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><strong>Spokes have agreed for this to be shared here, but not beyond - i.e. will not be for Social Media (here excepted) nor for edi.bike's newsletter.</strong></p> <p><blockquote>Dear Councillor Jenkinson,</p> <p>I'm writing for Spokes Planning Group regarding the next steps for the Greenbank to Meadows Quietroute at TEC on 18th June.</p> <p>I'm sure you will agree that this is an important issue, but one that needs concluding, so thank you for requesting that officers prepare a report.</p> <p>We've seen the challenges with ETROs and believe that, instead, a new TRO should be made for the missing modal filters.</p> <p>Following an ETRO with a TRO was the established practice for trials prior to the 2021 regulations.</p> <p>We also note that, earlier this year, a wording error present within the Central ETRO at S St David St was similarly rectified by a new TRO.</p> <p>We would suggest that following this procedure should be included in the options within the report.</p> <p>Importantly, these streets are part of the Council's Primary Cycle Network and these safety measures should not be abandoned due to paperwork mistakes.</p> <p>Secondly, we are extremely concerned that road safety should be maintained in the interim.</p> <p>Canaan Lane is a popular route for active travel and is part of the School Travel Plan for its 2 primary schools.</p> <p>It would be deeply regrettable to remove this traffic reduction measure in particular, when it has been so successful.</p> <p>The council has a responsibly to ensure road safety and to minimise the legal risk exposure inherent to the TRO process. There is a balance to be struck between these responsibilities.</p> <p>Spokes believe the traffic reduction measures remain a clear safety benefit to the quiet route, even if they are not enforceable.</p> <p>For this same reason, there are other unenforceable signs and speeds limits in Edinburgh without an order, such as on Duddingston Rd West.</p> <p>Additionally, between 20/05/2024 and 16/12/2024, these modal filters were previously left in place without any order covering them.</p> <p>It seems right that TEC has a say in this balance or at least has a chance to discuss the matter.</p> <p>I have raised with officers that Section 62 of the Roads Scotland Act allows a short temporary order for up to 7 days for matters of public safety or convenience.</p> <p>As the trial is due to expire on 15/06/2026, this could bring the date of removal of the filters beyond TEC.</p> <p>We hope you will consider these points.</p> <p>Kind regards,</p> <p>Spokes Planning Group</blockquote> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21892#post-384290 Fri, 15 May 2026 09:17:36 +0000 gembo 384290@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Going West from Edinburgh to Ayr we do take the alternate route at Easterhouse round the south side of the Weege - avoids the viaducts and the Kingston Bridge. Works fine unless there is an accident and then all the slip roads clogged and the jam takes a while to clear with lot of reversing up slip roads and displacing around rutherglen. Going in the other direction you have to double back on yourself for a bit which is a little counter intuitive. But should work fine. Closing the North M8 will be a big thing BUT Glasgow Council favour that option which is actually a bold thing to do. To finally say we shouldn’t have run a motorway through our city centre etc. Other cities in Europe have re-wilded city centre motorways. Again on the south side the routes around East Kilbride can get you round Glasgow. But the North side is all M8 unless you loop a lot further North. Glasgow has also retained the suburban railways [they are close to capacity throught he week]. Glasgow buses less good. Glasgow cycling good again mainly South and West. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21892#post-384285 Thu, 14 May 2026 23:16:52 +0000 chdot 384285@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>When Transport Scotland presented three early options for the permanent fix of Glasgow’s decaying Woodside Viaducts back in February, they did not present the only possibilities. The options they put forward were heavily weighted in favour of the status quo – keeping the elevated motorway in place either through repairs or replacement. The third option, to remove the viaducts, was framed as chaos. But the model they used to sound the alarm about potential traffic disruption constructed a partial narrative.</p> <p>Herein lies the false dilemma: that we keep the motorway running through the city, or we abolish it overnight with no accompanying measures. This would mean clogging up the M74, which is already at capacity and sending scores of displaced vehicles racing through residential streets like a mischief of rats.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://archive.ph/https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/26107992.boulevard-not-viaduct-glasgows-real-m8-solution/" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/26107992.boulevard-not-viaduct-glasgows-real-m8-solution/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384283 Thu, 14 May 2026 20:48:43 +0000 chdot 384283@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As I understand it the current situation is that that nothing will be removed any time soon as CEC doesn’t have the staff to do it (strange but true apparently), so it can’t be done without a contract</p> <p>I’m sure it’s not, particularly, a priority for officers - but at the same time they can’t deliberately stall things</p> <p>It’s unfortunate they thought that removing a legal piece of infrastructure was a good idea, and fortunate that a cross party grouping was willing/able to deliver an amendment and get it passed</p> <p>I also believe the motion and arguments were ‘influenced’ by ‘campaigners’</p> <p>I think that there is a feeling on this thread that sending <em>even more</em> emails won’t be helpful </p> <p>I think the officers have got ‘the message’ - though perhaps not the one about what may be <em>possible</em> (as per <strong>careful</strong> reading of the legislation)(?)</p> <p>Officers (generally), have to pay attention to what the Administration/Committee Chairs want done. Perhaps some pressure needs to be put on Labour Cllrs?</p> <p>At the moment ‘everything’ depends on the next report to the next TEC</p> <p>It may contain everything ’we’ want - or not</p> <p>I hope all the people involved in organising the deputations, demos and publicly keep going - and book a slot for appearing again!</p> <p>With luck it’ll be ‘we thank the Council for listening and hope the new report will be passed unanimously’…</p> <p>I wonder if any of the ‘illegals’ will mysteriously disappear like cameras have in some places. I really hope not, as that would just make things messier</p> <p>Additionally, this saga has stirred things such that some MSPs what the whole business of TROs looked at with some urgency by SG </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21925#post-384282 Thu, 14 May 2026 20:23:01 +0000 gembo 384282@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@shug in top 40 now with Simon Mayo </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384281 Thu, 14 May 2026 20:01:46 +0000 Morningsider 384281@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Ideally, officers could include a TRSO as an option for the TEC to consider in a formal committee paper. Highlighting that it could be used to keep the filters in place while a full TRO is worked up. </p> <p>Next, as you suggest, it's consideration could begin as a motion from (lets face it) the Greens.</p> <p>Failing that, the option could be presnted to the committee in writing - ideally in a joint letter from as many locals and organisations as willing to sign up to it. Any supportive delegation could simply reference the written representation, so as not to dilute the emotional impact of their message.</p> <p>I do understand people's reticence in relying on legalese and techncial workarounds. However (as I only half jokingly) mentioned in my prevous post, the anti's have no qualms in using this approach. Nor should we at his point in the game. The filters are about to be removed, and may never come back (at least not for this current generation of kids). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=25#post-384280 Thu, 14 May 2026 19:33:25 +0000 bakky 384280@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That is some sage advice. It also chimes with a worst-case I expressed to @neddie where officers say 'well the best we can do for now is monitoring and bring this back to TEC in three cycles'.</p> <p>The question there is - what form does that fall-back position take? I assume it's essentially a motion from another party at TEC to amend the officers report to e.g. 'Instructs officers to urgently implement a TRSO for these measures and retain the existing filters, a method that has not yet been used by this Council but is legislatively very much at its disposal'. </p> <p>Cllr Savage is going to follow whatever Jenkinson does, Jenkinson is going to follow Officer recommendations - though the window of opportunity here is assumedly compelling deputations on the matter. We're then at the mercy of the Leb Dims at TEC siding with that argument. The party of Dodgy Debbie the Integrity candidate could do the right thing, but at least they're predictable and we know they won't.</p> <p>The more I think about this the more I think pressure from Canaan Lane Primary and the Royal Blind School is the key here. We've heard from affected residents on Braid Ave at TEC - how about schools that with filters in place still have safe driving issues now, never mind introducing more through-traffic. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384279 Thu, 14 May 2026 18:38:57 +0000 Morningsider 384279@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I absolutely agree that the arguments in favour of retaining the filters should be led by those most affected by their removal, that processes must be followed, and that officers and Councillors are all people trying to do their best.</p> <p>However, what happens if administration Councillors simply say in response to any delegation "We agree. Unfortunately, our hands are tied by TRO procedures. The filters simply have to come out. Don't worry, we will come back to this at some point in the future".</p> <p>I think it is worth having a strong case for a TRSO (even as a fall-back position) as a means of preventing the filters from being removed in the first place. </p> <p>In my experience, promises about permanent replacements for 'temporary' cycle infrastructure that is removed at the end of an ETRO in Edinburgh are worth little. Think of Geroge Street cycle lanes/pedestrianisation, or the Meadows-George Street cycle lanes. Years later and still nothing.</p> <p>Honestly, who would be a museli knitting, cycling campaigner type? Must be so much easier being a [rule 2] living in the Braid Estate happy to see road safety features outside a primary school and a school for blind people removed so you can get home 20 seconds quicker. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384278 Thu, 14 May 2026 18:08:38 +0000 bakky 384278@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@pringlis excellent knowledge, thanks. </p> <p>@MediumDave it's really hard to know right now. The thing I keep trying to remind all those involved is; Officers are genuinely embarrassed by this state of affairs, and both they and the administration (and TRO Sub / TEC councillors) have all had a deluge of email about it. Assumedly, the longer it drags on, the more email there is. And all of this is off the back of their plan (Option 3) being literally a ready-to-publish ETRO and then the standards hearing leading to it being canned.</p> <p>Factor in a 'politically sensitive time' around the election, during which everything goes very tight-lipped and officers are clearly uncomfortable commenting on anything at all - and then TRO Sub leading to a bit of a bashing and profuse apologising, including a vote against one of their recommendations - and we're looking at a pretty bruised group of people. </p> <p>Jenkinson now has Greens publicly gunning for immediate action in the press - and they're not wrong to, but there will be many more emails flooding his way and I worry that potentially we are pre-empting Officers recommending something entirely reasonable in their report and risk alienating Labour in such a way that whatever we're proposing doesn't make it through TEC. Remember Option 3 was a Lab/Con/Lib vote to put it through, to the shock and dismay of the rest of us.</p> <p>Spokes put a very measured missive to him - I will seek their permission to publish it here. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384277 Thu, 14 May 2026 17:56:23 +0000 pringlis 384277@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>When you stand back and consider it, "Council removes effective road safety measures outside school for blind and partially sighted children" really is an unbelievable state of affairs. </p> <p>bakky, <a href="https://www.daddydaycareedinburgh.com/after-school-clubs/morningside-club" rel="nofollow">https://www.daddydaycareedinburgh.com/after-school-clubs/morningside-club</a> is another one to bear in mind for deputations, and I'm happy to contact them too. They're an after school/holiday club for children who are based in the Royal Blind School (who used to run their own after school club). They walk I think ~30 children a day from SMPS at Comiston Road up to the Blind School (all in adorable little orange high vis vests) and I imagine will also be unhappy to the filter on Canaan Lane being removed. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384276 Thu, 14 May 2026 17:19:40 +0000 MediumDave 384276@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Cool. I agree that local activists are most likely to be able to punch through the bureaucratic indifference and I don't fall into that category. </p> <p>If further letters to councillors may help I'm happy to take advice on timing. Presumably sometime shortly before the next Transport committee meeting? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384274 Thu, 14 May 2026 17:02:58 +0000 bakky 384274@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Green councillors are leading the charge on this and believe that focus on the legal instrument at use is a ‘red herring’, and that focus needs to be on a) immediacy of action and b) filters remaining in place in the interim. </p> <p>While I don’t doubt TRSO would be a valid instrument and probably exactly the right choice, I do think both officers and administration are likely not going to be receptive to further calls for a specific approach, so I think the pressure being kept up on the two points above is the key. As such, deputations at TEC from Canaan Lane Primary (parent council) and Royal Blind School might well be the trick… </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384273 Thu, 14 May 2026 16:52:37 +0000 MediumDave 384273@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What to do? </p> <p>FOI the council for why they think the TRSO can't be used? Would take a long time and they'd probably just come back with "information not held". By which time it's too late. </p> <p>Demand a meeting with councillors? Probably best coming from ward residents though I am not one. </p> <p>Of my own ward councillors I have two transport committee/TRO sub members. Dan Heap is obviously sympathetic, Denis Dixon presumably not since he voted against retaining the Braid Road filter. So not sure what would be achieved. </p> <p>Lawyer-up ourselves -- Crowdfunder time? Might take too long as well.</p> <p>Critical Mass through the Braid Estate every week (complete with bangin' jungle X acid-techno mix at earsplitting volume) until antis beg for mercy? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384272 Thu, 14 May 2026 16:01:42 +0000 chdot 384272@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ M</p> <p>“but I think a temporary Redetermination Order could be used to keep the filters in place”</p> <p>Just consulted another expert </p> <p>“Actually I think I agree” </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384270 Thu, 14 May 2026 12:58:36 +0000 pringlis 384270@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Edinburgh roads: Call for urgent meeting to save controversial traffic filters is rejected</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-roads-call-for-urgent-meeting-to-save-controversial-traffic-filters-is-rejected-8544049" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-roads-call-for-urgent-meeting-to-save-controversial-traffic-filters-is-rejected-8544049</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384269 Thu, 14 May 2026 12:49:06 +0000 Morningsider 384269@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@bakky - I don't see how that could be the case. The Order could be drafted in a matter of hours. Officials have plenty experience drafting TTROs and Trafic Regulation Notices at very short notice, this should be no different.</p> <p>Although not actually required, site notices could be posted, emergency services advised the filters remain in place (after five years - not an issue), and the Council website updated. </p> <p>The Council then have 18 months to get a full TRO in place.</p> <p>If keeping these filters in place is any way a priority then this is how it could be done, until a permanent legal soultion is in force.</p> <p>I suspect the Council simply don't want to use an untried approach in the face of opposition from well informed anti's and with lukewarm political support for the measures. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384268 Thu, 14 May 2026 11:58:30 +0000 bakky 384268@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I believe TRSO was ruled out due to the timeline - Officers claimed they could not complete it by the ETRO expiry. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384267 Thu, 14 May 2026 11:38:40 +0000 Morningsider 384267@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I know I keep banginig on about this, but I think a temporary Redetermination Order could be used to keep the filters in place. The Council report stated that this could not be used as it requires the same consultation process as a full Order. This is incorrect. Section 152 (3A) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states:</p> <p><blockquote>(3A) Where an order under subsection (2) above states that it has effect only for such period not exceeding 18 months as is specified in the order, the order shall have effect during that period notwithstanding any failure to comply with—<br /> (a) any regulations made under subsection (1) of section 71 of this Act; or<br /> (b) subsection (2) of that section.</blockquote></p> <p>The Regulations mentioned above are The Stopping Up of Roads and Private Accesses and the Redetermination of Public Rights of Passage (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1986, which sets out the process for approving a Redetermination Order - including public consultation. However, as you can see from the above quote, a temporary Redetermination Order has effect even if those Regulations are not complied with. Similarly, an Order will also have effect if the public notification and consultation requirements set out in subsection 2 of Section 71 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 are not followed. </p> <p>I honestly think this might be worth pushing again - at least to get the Council to explain why they think it cannot be used. A temporary Redetermination Order could potentially be imposed within days, as it appears there is zero requirement for public consultation. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384266 Thu, 14 May 2026 11:06:47 +0000 Arellcat 384266@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Huge if true.</p> <p>Honestly, is CEC just utterly incompetent or actually malicious towards active travel? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384264 Thu, 14 May 2026 09:08:07 +0000 chdot 384264@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“<br /> ANOTHER QUIET ROADS U-TURN: Councillors on the local authority’s TRO (traffic regulation orders) sub-committee voted 5-4 to remove large parts of the five-year-old Meadows to Greenbank Quiet Route as we covered last week (Low traffic streets: Five years, two censured councillors, and endless uncertainty). An amendment from Green councillors preserved the traffic filter on Braid Road. However, after further “legal errors” were identified, all filters between Hermitage Drive and Grange Loan will now be removed, allowing cars to travel along the roads again. That includes the filters on Canaan Lane, where the Royal Blind School and Canaan Lane Primary School (opened after the quiet route was installed) are located.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/monacos-artist-to-the-stars-his-125k?" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/monacos-artist-to-the-stars-his-125k?</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14986&page=10#post-384263 Wed, 13 May 2026 21:13:34 +0000 chdot 384263@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>“Green infrastructure in cities matters. Finding space for it is rare. And battling through the treacle to make projects like this happen is difficult, lengthy, and expensive. Which is why today’s announcement is so painful to make.” </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/13/londons-answer-to-new-yorks-high-line-camden-scrapped" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/13/londons-answer-to-new-yorks-high-line-camden-scrapped</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=21925#post-384260 Wed, 13 May 2026 19:21:52 +0000 gembo 384260@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@shug shtill smashing it </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384256 Wed, 13 May 2026 16:13:13 +0000 chdot 384256@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“and then a 6 month consultation period“</p> <p>Perhaps some of our new MSPs (especially the ones who are still Cllrs) could whizz through a useful amendment banning perpetual consultations…</p> <p>Perhaps not </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384255 Wed, 13 May 2026 16:06:55 +0000 neddie 384255@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If they do a permanent TRO, there should be only 3 weeks for objections. No need to do another consultation </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20337&page=24#post-384254 Wed, 13 May 2026 15:45:31 +0000 pringlis 384254@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's positive at least. I had been hopeful they can pull the date forward but at least this gives officials time to actually form a plan, I imagine it was a mad scramble preparing for the TRO Sub. Still going to be an interesting timing challenge with the 6 month fallow period, and then a 6 month consultation period that will likely clash with council elections. </p>