http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Is the TRO system biased... en Sun, 31 May 2026 16:14:10 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-263550 Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:19:48 +0000 neddie 263550@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/is-law-stacked-against-active-travel.html" rel="nofollow">http://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/is-law-stacked-against-active-travel.html</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259076 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:18:07 +0000 chdot 259076@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>The pedestrian walkway was created to a) give walkers a safe passage from the overspill carpark up to the restaurant entrance and b) discourage parking. I am aware however that parked cars is still a problem however the process to install a traffic restriction order takes 12 months.</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17139&amp;page=3&amp;replies=87#post-259052" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17139&amp;page=3&amp;replies=87#post-259052</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259056 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:34:30 +0000 HankChief 259056@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I went to the Spring ATTF meeting to talk about the experience of building community support for schemes using Roseburn as my example. Spokes were also there.</p> <p>I built on the comments I made <a href="https://hankchiefblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/minister-whats-stopping-you/">here</a></p> <p>The whole day was about communities and they had a representation from MCC amongst others. They wanted to learn from all sides...</p> <p>I don't know how the other sessions went but they seemed pleased to have me there showing the positive support that can back a scheme.</p> <p>Hopefully the points made will help them build/recommend an approach for other LAs doing similar schemes.</p> <p>No idea what the topic of the autumn meeting will be... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259049 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 16:41:58 +0000 chdot 259049@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>How did this go?</p> <p>"</p> <p>Possible second evidence day in spring (April/May) or early autumn (September)</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259037 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:16:15 +0000 Morningsider 259037@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Arellcat - TROs are made under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The subject matter of this Act is devolved to Scottish Ministers, with the exception of driver training and speed limits as they apply to emergency vehicles on motorways.</p> <p>TRO making procedures are set out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, as amended. Scottish Ministers can amend or replace these regulations.</p> <p>In short - Scottish Ministers could do something about this. The Transport Scotland "Active Travel Taskforce" is meant to be looking at this, details:</p> <p><a href="https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/active-travel/active-travel-task-force/" rel="nofollow">https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/active-travel/active-travel-task-force/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259034 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:57:12 +0000 Arellcat 259034@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So is what we need a Minister or three to propose to Parliament a motion for TRO reform? Are TROs devolved to Transport Scotland et al? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259028 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:14:41 +0000 Cyclingmollie 259028@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I see. So TROs are the only way to roll back the drive where you like, park where you like default that applies across the country? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259027 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:51:17 +0000 neddie 259027@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Cyclingmollie</p> <p>An example that springs to mind is the two shopkeepers at the top of Leith Walk who have objected to the TRO over a couple of loading bays.</p> <p>Because of these unwithdrawn objections, the council now has to take the whole process up to the next level of bureaucracy aka Scot Govt. thus delaying the process by at least an additional 9 months. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259023 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:27:17 +0000 Klaxon 259023@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The TRO comments system is biased towards no action, too.</p> <p>If you object, and your comments are material, they must be considered in full by an officer and responded to in the TRO report that goes to committee.</p> <p>If you write in support, it's just recorded in a footnote that N people wrote in support.</p> <p>There's no means to feed in constructive criticism ("I support, but") while supporting the project as a whole. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259020 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:40:13 +0000 Morningsider 259020@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The TRO system is broken - it takes an average of around nine months to designate an enforceable disabled persons' parking place outside their home using the TRO process. How can that be right? Yet a local authority can designate bus stops as "clearways"(parking in which is an offence) without a TRO.</p> <p>I agree the system favours the status quo - to the detriment of cyclists, pedestrians and the less able. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259012 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Cyclingmollie 259012@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>...in favour of preserving the status quo for motorists.</em></p> <p>Do you have an example in mind? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259009 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 10:17:20 +0000 jonty 259009@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Didn't the developer of that place off Grove Street need (and failed to get) a TRO to block up the pedestrian route from Fountainbridge to the WAR? Don't know how much effect that had though.</p> <p>I think it is definitely biased, like a lot of legal mechanisms, in favour of "the status quo" - the "for motorists" bit is probably the fault of the people who established it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085#post-259002 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 09:54:24 +0000 neddie 259002@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>...in favour of preserving the status quo for motorists.</p> <p>It seems to me the TRO system (and never-ending consultation loops) makes it impossible to quickly implement new cycle routes, pedestrianise an entire area or block up rat-runs.</p> <p>After all, pedestrianisation and restricting motor traffic is more about returning the streets "to the people", or to the original use and purpose of the streets. Original purpose being as a community / market / play space for slow movement of people, not somewhere to race through as fast as possible.</p> <p>The only benefit I can see of the TRO system is that it helps to protect bus lanes.</p> <p>What does the hive mind think? </p>