http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: M2GS - Meadows to George Street en Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:15:52 +0000 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> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374958 Mon, 13 May 2024 18:25:29 +0000 neddie 374958@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@yodhrin Exactly. </p> <p>And the Cockburn Association’s demands that “explicit compliance with the Equality Act must be demonstrated” is a nonsense because the Equality Act says that “reasonable adjustments” must be made to accommodate disabled people - the key word being *reasonable*</p> <p>The word “reasonable” deliberately leaves things open for interpretation, meaning that compliance can never be “explicit”, as the CA demand </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374954 Mon, 13 May 2024 17:52:35 +0000 Yodhrin 374954@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Claggy Cog</p> <p>Missed the word "supposedly" there I see, so I'll be blunter: they're using objectively false claims about disadvantage to disabled people as a smokescreen for their carbrained conservatism. Bus stop bypasses are safe and effective for all users and anyone arguing to the contrary is doing so in bad faith. Access to Waverly is not prevented in any way whatsoever by these plans for anyone, let alone for disabled people - once again the mild inconvenience of having to take a different route is falsely equated with stopping access entirely. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374949 Mon, 13 May 2024 15:07:42 +0000 Claggy Cog 374949@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Yodhrin "Don't "stakeholder" groups have to limit their comments and actions to their own area of specialty? Why the hell are the heritage twerps allowed to lodge objections to transport projects supposedly on safety grounds on behalf of disabled people?" </p> <p>Thankfully there are some "heritage twerps" who clearly are advocating for the disabled and are concerned about that.</p> <p>@Morningsider the Cockburn Society advocates the conservation of the city's landscape and historic and architectural heritage...</p> <p>All of which will be impacted by the changes. So it is not just "amenity". Candlemaker row is a heritage site and if used consistently by coaches and buses (which makes no sense to me it being very narrow as it is, and as a cyclist why would you want to share it with buses?) how long will it take before Greyfriars Bobby is taken out or the buildings suffer from vibrations. George Street was a complete mess after the tram was completed and took years to repair.</p> <p>Will Scott Arthur be apologising and cringing over the impact of all not just disabled people's access to Waverley station in years to come? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374930 Fri, 10 May 2024 19:46:08 +0000 Morningsider 374930@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@pringlis - I don't think the UK Government could actually 'ban' floating bus stops, even in England. The closest they could probably get is making active travel grants conditional on not using them.</p> <p>@Yodhrin - I did wonder that myself, to the point where I actually looked up the <a href="https://www.cockburnassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/THE-COCKBURN-ASSOCIATION-CONSTITUTION-2012.pdf">Cockburn Association's constitution</a>, which states:</p> <p><blockquote>a. The objects of the Association are to promote and encourage the following objects by charitable means but not otherwise:</p> <p>i. the maintenance, improvement and promotion of the amenity of the City of Edinburgh and its neighbourhood;<br /> ii. the protection, preservation and conservation of the City’s landscape and historic and architectural heritage...</blockquote> Their objection is a bit of a stretch, but "amenity" can cover pretty much anything. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374929 Fri, 10 May 2024 19:03:29 +0000 Yodhrin 374929@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Don't "stakeholder" groups have to limit their comments and actions to their own area of specialty? Why the hell are the heritage twerps allowed to lodge objections to transport projects supposedly on safety grounds on behalf of disabled people? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374927 Fri, 10 May 2024 17:33:16 +0000 chdot 374927@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>There is also some doubt about the safety case for a ban. In London, which has the highest number of floating bus stops in the UK, statistics for 2020-22 showed that of 623 pedestrians injured after being struck by a bike, 0.6% of them – four in all – were hit at floating bus stops. None of these incidents appeared to have happened at a designated crossing point. </p> <p>Over the same period, 11,400 pedestrians and 15,000 cyclists were injured after being hit by motor vehicles. </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/10/uk-floating-bus-stops-cycle-lanes" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/10/uk-floating-bus-stops-cycle-lanes</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374926 Fri, 10 May 2024 16:10:07 +0000 pringlis 374926@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I see the UK Gov is considering banning floating bus stops too, not sure if that'd be applicable to Scotland or if it's devolved... <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/10/uk-floating-bus-stops-cycle-lanes" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/10/uk-floating-bus-stops-cycle-lanes</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374925 Fri, 10 May 2024 15:08:12 +0000 Morningsider 374925@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Utterly depressing - could easily be an extra 12-24 months delay, if CCWEL is anything to go by.</p> <p>The substance of the objection is evidence free piffle. There are thousands of bus stop bypasses in operation across Europe. There is no evidence they are "inherently unsafe". As far as I can see, the scheme does not disadvantage older or disabled people. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374924 Fri, 10 May 2024 13:54:08 +0000 neddie 374924@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Oh great!</p> <p>They've objected to the RSO, which means it'll now have to go up to the reporter at ScotGov level, with all the attendant delays...</p> <p>Plus, "we're a bunch of drivers and we want wide roads for cars so we must show our faux concern for the disabled" and "floating bus stops and bus-gates are to be opposed, because reasons..."</p> <p>FFS give their heads a wobble </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374923 Fri, 10 May 2024 12:29:40 +0000 chdot 374923@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>The Cockburn Association is wholly supportive of the overarching objective of the Meadows to George Street project: to transform cycling, walking, public spaces and accessibility for all on in the City Centre area, thereby improving both the health and wellbeing of users and reducing motor vehicle journeys in the area. However, we have serious reservations regarding the detail of the scheme as outlined by the current TPO ((RSO/21/08) which includes much more detailed information on proposed interventions than has been publicly consulted on hitherto.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.cockburnassociation.org.uk/news/tro-rso-21-08-objection/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cockburnassociation.org.uk/news/tro-rso-21-08-objection/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18147&page=7#post-374900 Wed, 08 May 2024 13:31:10 +0000 neddie 374900@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What Morningsider and pringlis said ^^^</p> <p>Get yer letters o support in! </p>