http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: M2GS - Meadows to George Street en Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:11:25 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385690 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 10:59:50 +0000 bakky 385690@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Some confusion on TROs; fairly certain mound wands are in Travelling Safely 'City Centre' ETRO made permanent last year, and that the TRO we're talking about having expired was to cover the full Meadows to George Street redesign including pedetrianisation of Forrest Rd, bidirectional cycleway down the east side of George IV bridge continuing down the mound, Bus gate on mound and Candlemaker row, and other features. But because they've been referred to a hearing due to objections to RSO, they decided to also refer TRO objections to the same hearing, but also then made mistakes in TRO paperwork / timings that has delayed things further and allowed for some tweaks that will allay some of those objections.</p> <p>7-7-7 on trial from London Rd (somewhere) eastwards, not on George IV bridge where in theory it won't be needed once bus gate is in place - black cabs and buses only, plus local access. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385688 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 09:12:26 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 385688@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What remains of the expired TRO anyway? The only thing I can think of is the uphill wands on the Mound, and most of those are hanging on by a thread (the missing ones obviously didn't hang on).</p> <p>The George IV bus lane is parked up all day every day, which is presumably not the 7-7-7 the council has in mind (or maybe it is) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385685 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 07:23:14 +0000 gembo 385685@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Perhaps the redesign of the two streets down the side of the Kings has awakened Smaug from its slumbers? Perhaps we have a sister group who constantly try to block safer cycling?</p> <p>As with the rose burn link there seems to be little appetite to change the rod layouts to allow the routes to link up. I mean it has been done at the east ended of the meadows linking the meadows to the innocent via three pedestrian crossings and two quiet streets so it is possible. And yet nothing in 730 days…. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385684 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 20:44:07 +0000 Morningsider 385684@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's pretty wild. A TRO has a 21-day consultation period, yet the Council couldn't get its act together in 730 days. </p> <p>Remember, this TRO was published after an extensive non-statutory consultation exercise. The whole point of which was to refine the design and ensure there were no surprises or significant changes needed at the formal consideration stage. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385683 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 20:28:42 +0000 bakky 385683@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What does it say about Edinburgh that they could have screwed it that badly though… </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385682 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 20:00:20 +0000 pringlis 385682@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Aha, apologies for any panic caused. I saw the 25 Aug 2026 publication date and thought it was new info. As you were, everyone! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385680 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 19:34:57 +0000 bakky 385680@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>…has anything materially changed since then?</p> <p>Have emailed project team anyway to ask. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385679 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 19:34:02 +0000 bakky 385679@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Email from team at 26th May said:</p> <p><blockquote> Dear Sir/Madame</p> <p>I am contacting you as you submitted a representation to the Meadows to George Street Traffic Regulation Order TRO/21/32 and/or Redetermination Order RSO/21/08.</p> <p>The current Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), which was due to be heard at a public hearing in June, is no longer being taken forward and a new revised order is being drafted. This is, in part, due to an error in the date to apply for an extension to the TRO, but also in relation to the need to start a new Re-determination Order (RSO) following moderate but essential design changes, which were included to respond to points raised during consultation and since the RSO was advertised. These are to:</p> <p>· address new heritage considerations on the Mound<br /> · accommodate a new tour bus stop on George IV Bridge<br /> · provide space for access controls on Forrest Road.</p> <p>A decision has therefore been taken to consider and report on both orders at the same time.</p> <p>Starting a new TRO also means we are now able to include some moderate design modifications which address some of the concerns raised during the TRO consultation, which if incorporated at this point, may potentially benefit the final delivery stages of the project. These relate to:</p> <p>· extending loading times on Bank Street<br /> · increasing the amount of disabled parking<br /> · access for residents of the streets within the project<br /> · access from Chambers Street to George IV Bridge<br /> · increasing the number of controlled zone 4 parking at Mound Place.</p> <p>If you submitted a response to the initial TRO<br /> Please be assured that your original submission of support, objection, query or comment will be carried forward to the new TRO process to be considered by councillors alongside the any new submissions. This approach has been used previously in similar circumstances. If you submitted a representation to the original TRO, you can also submit a new response to the new TRO, but you do not have to do so. However, It is not possible to amend your original response to the original TRO.</p> <p>If you submitted a response to the initial RSO<br /> Unfortunately, the RSO process, which is under the direct remit of Scottish Ministers, does not permit the carryover of previous representations. If you wish to respond to the new RSO then you will have to submit a new representation.</p> <p>We will contact you again, via the email address you have provided (or postal address if no email was provided) to tell you when the new advertisement will be published and how to submit a new representation should you wish to.</p> <p>The same statutory process including advertisement, consultation, reporting to Committee, including any requirements for public hearing, will be followed as they were for the previous orders.</p> <p>If you have any questions, please do contact the project team on <a href="mailto:meadowstogeorgestreet@edinburgh.gov.uk">meadowstogeorgestreet@edinburgh.gov.uk</a></blockquote></p> <p>Panic over? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385678 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 19:29:32 +0000 chdot 385678@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Don’t understand </p> <p>The “Request to Withdraw“ seems to have taken place before info in bakky’s post above(??) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385676 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:46:45 +0000 Morningsider 385676@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A TRO must be made within two years of the date the Order is published. A Council can apply to Scottish Ministers for this period to be extended for up to six months. Ministers can, on application, authorise up to four further extensions. The initial application for an extension must be submitted within those two years, or the Order falls.</p> <p>In this case, the TRO was published on 19 April 2024. The request to withdraw was sent on 27 April 2026 - so the Council must have noticed their mistake pretty quickly after the Order fell.</p> <p>TRO mistakes seem to be becoming a bit of a habit at the Council. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-385675 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:11:50 +0000 pringlis 385675@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Err....?</p> <p>From <a href="https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=127127">the withdrawal request sent to the DPEA</a> (document titled Request to Withdraw):</p> <p><blockquote>I've received some unexpected news from the Meadows-George Street project lead. It seems that, due to 'a very unfortunate and frustrating error of timings', the application to extend the Meadows to George Street TRO was submitted late, and the TRO has expired and must be abandoned. As a result, the public hearings will also have to be abandoned.</blockquote> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384535 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 11:03:30 +0000 bakky 384535@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>In response to your queries:</p> <p>- Re: project design stage. Essentially the project's design stage has not changed, we have just restarted the orders process (which includes a statutory consultation process). As part of this statutory process the updated designs will be shared and anyone can respond to them. Note that the design changes are only moderate with no significant change to the project's key design elements.</p> <p>- Re: timeline. We will advertise the dates of this statutory consultation in due course, including an update to all people who previously submitted a representation to the TRO or RSO processes.</blockquote></p> <p>and:</p> <p><blockquote> We don’t yet have a confirmed date for this [start of statutory consultation period], but we will be back in touch as soon as we can in due course to tell you when the new advertisement will be published and how to submit a new representation should you wish to as part of that process.</blockquote> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384471 Tue, 26 May 2026 22:33:51 +0000 bakky 384471@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Arellcat yon meme hath ended me. Top work. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384469 Tue, 26 May 2026 21:16:39 +0000 gembo 384469@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Very suave bollards IMHO </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384466 Tue, 26 May 2026 17:22:31 +0000 pringlis 384466@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If memory serves the reason the segregated cycle lane on Forest Road was removed was that it couldn't remain in place while this TRO was progressing and we were promised fast action on it? Must be almost 5 years now since it was removed.</p> <p>I recall the human bike lane there in 2019... and Civerinos winning an award for not serving people who parked in the lane.</p> <p><img src="https://i.ibb.co/W45K7hr1/Screenshot-2026-05-26-at-17-19-19.png"></p> <p><a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-pizzeria-civerinos-slices-award-for-refusing-to-serve-bike-lane-parkers-3028262" rel="nofollow">https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-pizzeria-civerinos-slices-award-for-refusing-to-serve-bike-lane-parkers-3028262</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384465 Tue, 26 May 2026 16:50:32 +0000 Arellcat 384465@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55294915036_c6aa50a85f_o.jpg"></p> <p>(probably the wrong thread, but curiously also the right thread) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384464 Tue, 26 May 2026 16:29:39 +0000 Morningsider 384464@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>How times flies. This thread is eight years old and the consenting process has just been reset to day zero! Beginning to think we really should do this (a post from a mere two years ago):</p> <p><blockquote>I'm thinking of entering this in the 2024 Fringe programme:</p> <p>"<strong>The Meadows to</strong>... An evolving performance art project about the nature of time, space and the futility of attempts to master the great God car - expressed through a series of immersive, yet imaginary cycle projects centred on Edinburgh's iconic Meadows park."</blockquote> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-384463 Tue, 26 May 2026 15:06:26 +0000 bakky 384463@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>Dear Sir/Madame</p> <p>I am contacting you as you submitted a representation to the Meadows to George Street Traffic Regulation Order TRO/21/32 and/or Redetermination Order RSO/21/08.</p> <p>The current Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), which was due to be heard at a public hearing in June, is no longer being taken forward and a new revised order is being drafted. This is, in part, due to an error in the date to apply for an extension to the TRO, but also in relation to the need to start a new Re-determination Order (RSO) following moderate but essential design changes, which were included to respond to points raised during consultation and since the RSO was advertised. These are to:</p> <p>- address new heritage considerations on the Mound</p> <p>- accommodate a new tour bus stop on George IV Bridge</p> <p>- provide space for access controls on Forrest Road.</p> <p>A decision has therefore been taken to consider and report on both orders at the same time.</p> <p>Starting a new TRO also means we are now able to include some moderate design modifications which address some of the concerns raised during the TRO consultation, which if incorporated at this point, may potentially benefit the final delivery stages of the project. These relate to:</p> <p>- extending loading times on Bank Street</p> <p>- increasing the amount of disabled parking</p> <p>- access for residents of the streets within the project</p> <p>- access from Chambers Street to George IV Bridge</p> <p>- increasing the number of controlled zone 4 parking at Mound Place.</p> <p><strong>If you submitted a response to the initial TRO</strong></p> <p>Please be assured that your original submission of support, objection, query or comment will be carried forward to the new TRO process to be considered by councillors alongside the any new submissions. This approach has been used previously in similar circumstances. If you submitted a representation to the original TRO, you can also submit a new response to the new TRO, but you do not have to do so. However, It is not possible to amend your original response to the original TRO.</p> <p><strong>If you submitted a response to the initial RSO</strong></p> <p>Unfortunately, the RSO process, which is under the direct remit of Scottish Ministers, does not permit the carryover of previous representations. If you wish to respond to the new RSO then you will have to submit a new representation.</p> <p>We will contact you again, via the email address you have provided (or postal address if no email was provided) to tell you when the new advertisement will be published and how to submit a new representation should you wish to.</p> <p>The same statutory process including advertisement, consultation, reporting to Committee, including any requirements for public hearing, will be followed as they were for the previous orders.</p> <p>If you have any questions, please do contact the project team on <a href="mailto:meadowstogeorgestreet@edinburgh.gov.uk">meadowstogeorgestreet@edinburgh.gov.uk</a></blockquote></p> <p>This does rather read like a big ol' watering down... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-383142 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 21:51:39 +0000 pringlis 383142@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I looked up Mr Paul Cackette CBE, LLB (Hons) Dip LP NP. Sounds like he's well placed for that role but I shudder to think what his day rates are like. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-383141 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 20:32:46 +0000 dessert rat 383141@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>CEC seem to have employed the same redaction technique in that .pdg as DOJ on the recent Ep files. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-383140 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 18:22:40 +0000 bakky 383140@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>A reporter, Mr Paul Cackette CBE, LLB (Hons) Dip LP NP, has been appointed to carry out an examination and hold a Public Hearing with respect to the objections to the TRO. He will then report his findings and recommendations to City of Edinburgh Council, as the promoting authority in respect of the TRO. The Reporter will conduct the examination in accordance with the 1999 Regulations. This is not an examination into Redetermination Order RSO/21/08 nor objections to it.</blockquote></p> <p>I have more bits in the letter I received on this if folks are interested. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=8#post-375022 Fri, 17 May 2024 20:15:34 +0000 CycleAlex 375022@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Last day to comment! Only takes a few minutes to email saying you support the project. Various nonsense from CA/NTBCC/LSE and others have been submitted already.</p> <p>Email <a href="mailto:TRO.Consultations@edinburgh.gov.uk">TRO.Consultations@edinburgh.gov.uk</a> referencing TRO/21/32 and RSO/21/08 </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-375020 Fri, 17 May 2024 16:35:06 +0000 pringlis 375020@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>Funding was 7 years ago?! I was full of such hope when that was announced.</blockquote></p> <p>Good luck with those construction estimates from the funding bid still being accurate! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-375019 Fri, 17 May 2024 16:07:13 +0000 neddie 375019@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>10 years to deliver 1km of segregated cycleway is absolutely hopeless in terms of the climate emergency context.</p> <p>To prevent the worst effects of climate breakdown, we need to be looking at reducing private motorised traffic by at least 90% over the next decade.</p> <p>The only way to acheive this is to start filtering streets everywhere, all at once. No consultation, no nothing, just do it!</p> <p>People will adapt </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-375018 Fri, 17 May 2024 15:30:13 +0000 toomanybikes 375018@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Funding was 7 years ago?! I was full of such hope when that was announced. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-375007 Fri, 17 May 2024 10:25:33 +0000 chdot 375007@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/project-details" rel="nofollow">https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/project-details</a></p> <p><img src="https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/timeline.png"></p> <p><a href="https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/who-how-when/" rel="nofollow">https://meadowstogeorgestreet.info/who-how-when/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374974 Tue, 14 May 2024 17:49:51 +0000 boothym 374974@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://twitter.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/1787422295134183790" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/1787422295134183790</a><br /> LSE quote tweeted the NFBUK video at Westminster Bridge (the one where a third of the interactions are pedestrians walking into the cycle track without looking).</p> <p>"We've been raising concerns about floating bus stops for many years, but @Edinburgh_CC seems determined to include them in every active travel scheme: even at the foot of one of the city's steepest hills here."</p> <p>The thing about these concerns is they never explicitly say what they would do instead. Do they want just an uphill (southbound) cycle track on the Mound, or do they want both directions to use the carriageway without any protection? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374963 Mon, 13 May 2024 19:59:01 +0000 chdot 374963@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Banning bus stop bypasses could stop new protected cycle lanes, putting lives at risk across the country.</p> <p>Our analysis in London shows the risk of a pedestrian/cyclist collision is very low.</p> <p>@transportgovuk let’s work together to make designs better.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://x.com/willnorman/status/1788950871574773986" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/willnorman/status/1788950871574773986</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374960 Mon, 13 May 2024 18:27:06 +0000 Dave 374960@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>(when I'm feeling cynical, which is almost always, I think that these people are fully aware that it will create a hugely expensive failed scheme but just want to watch the world burn) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374959 Mon, 13 May 2024 18:25:37 +0000 Dave 374959@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's truly baffling that anybody would try to advocate for building a scheme without bus stop bypasses. I can see a strong argument to either not build the scheme at all, or to build it with bypasses, but the middle ground is literally throwing money away on something useless. It's an absolute red line for me to take our kids anywhere that rushing double decker drivers dive across their path every hundred yards. A complete white elephant </p>