CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Transport Committee Papers

(168 posts)

123…6

  1. crowriver
    Member

    Of particular relevance to 'us' are the following items:

    Item 7.2 - Road, Footway and Bridges Investment – Capital Programme for 2017/2018

    Item 7.5 - Leith Programme – Objections to Traffic Regulation Order

    (This looks like it's going to a public hearing: could be a stooshie. 100 representations, of which only 17 were messages of support).

    Item 8.4 - Objections to Traffic Regulation Order TRO/16/74 20mph Speed Limit - Various Roads

    Lots of interesting stuff in items 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1 too.
    Item 8.5 - Objections to Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Traffic Regulation Order TRO/15/41

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. crowriver
    Member

    Some local resident has taken a leaf from the KNS playbook (Item 7.5):

    ---

    3.51 Sixty four objections were received in relation to the proposal to prohibit entry onto Leith Walk from Montgomery Street under the new layout. Twenty one of these were submitted by way of a standard letter containing draft wording supplied on an online facebook page entitled Savethejunction, https://www.facebook.com/Savethejunction-315795795458565/.
    
    The main concern of these objections centred around the potential increase in traffic levels on a number of nearby streets and locations including Windsor Street, Elm Row, Brunswick Road, Brunswick Street, London Road, and East London Street.

    ---

    If you check the Fb page (no need to 'Like' it) there are the usual nonsense arguments about shops going out of business if cars can't go both ways, etc. Idiots!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    Item 7.5

    ---

    3.56 It is recommended that the Committee sets aside the objections that do not relate to proposed changes to loading and unloading facilities.

    3.57 In accordance with the requirements of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, if an objection is made to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order on the grounds of loading provision and the objection is not withdrawn, a public hearing is mandatory. This hearing should be conducted by an independent Reporter appointed in accordance with the requirements of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999.

    3.58 If Committee accepts the recommendations in this report, officials will request that the Scottish Government arranges the necessary public hearing at the earliest opportunity. A further report on the outcomes of that process will then be brought to this Committee.

    3.59 In accordance with the requirements of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, all objections to a Redetermination Order must be referred to Scottish Ministers. It is therefore recommended that the Committee instructs Officers to refer to Scottish Ministers the valid objections which were received to the Redetermination Order. The process that Scottish Ministers use to reach their determination on the Order is at their discretion.

    ---

    Oh great. So the local traders will have their 'day in court'. Well I for one hope to turn up and give them a piece of my mind.

    At least the objections to the banning of right turns/Westbound traffic on Montgomery Street look like they may be set aside.....it may be useful to contact councillors on the committee to persuade them to support recommendation 3.56?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. crowriver
    Member

    Under Item 7.2, the following:

    ---

    Cycling Improvements

    3.37 The Council has a commitment to allocate a percentage of the Transport revenue and capital budgets to improve cycling facilities throughout Edinburgh. This was introduced in 2012/13, when 5% was allocated with a commitment to increase this by 1% each year, up to 10%. 10% of capital budgets will be allocated for cycling related improvements in 2017/18.

    3.38 The 10% budget commitment will enable the Council to deliver new cycling infrastructure, including the creation of links between existing off-road routes and upgrading the facilities that are available on-road.

    3.39 The full detail of cycle improvements and spend has still to be determined for all of Transport Services. This may mean that funding is allocated from other areas within Transport and the full allocation of £1.507m is not required from this
    
    budget in order to achieve the 10% budget commitment from Transport. Once
    the allocation that will be taken from the Carriageway and Footway budget is known, this Committee will be updated.

    ---

    That's £1.5 million for cycling according to the budget. :-)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. Stickman
    Member

    @crowriver: from the report on the Leith Walk plans

    could be that these concerns may be based on one or more mistaken assumptions or the dissemination of inaccurate anecdotal information.

    Transport Committee will be getting used to this now!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "
    could be that these concerns may be based on one or more mistaken assumptions or the dissemination of inaccurate anecdotal information.

    "

    Officer understatement!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. crowriver
    Member

    Item 8.4

    ----

    3.15 The objection to the removal of streets from the 20mph schedule is based on a view that as many streets as possible should be set at 20mph. Appendix 2 provides the reasoning for the removal of these streets. Whilst it is recommended that the objection be set aside, should Committee be minded to retain the 20mph limit on any of these streets, the speed limit signage can be installed in due course without need for further statutory process.

    ----

    Scope for contacting councillors there!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    Just to be clear, the full paragraph from Item 7.5.

    ---

    3.55 In considering the objections that referred to planned road closures and to the closure of Brunswick Street, as there are no road closures proposed in the draft Order, it could be that these concerns may be based on one or more mistaken assumptions or the dissemination of inaccurate anecdotal information.

    ---

    In other words, the objections are against things that don't exist and are not proposed!

    Post-truth politics alive and well in Hillside. A quick look at the detailed reasons for objection listed in the appendix, reveals that they mainly centre around perceived inconvenience for motorists. What a surprise!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. neddie
    Member

    The papers are out for the committee meeting on Thurs 10th Aug:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4200/transport_and_environment_committee

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. gembo
    Member

    @nedd1e-h thanks for these

    Motions

    1. Leith Walk collapse of Land Engineering firm
    2. Weeds
    3. Picardy Place Development - lack of public consultation
    4. Plastic bottles (did not read why that is in transport)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. Frenchy
    Member

    4. Plastic bottles (did not read why that is in transport)

    It's the Transport and Environment Committee, rather than just the Transport Committee.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. gembo
    Member

    @Frenchy, that makes sense. Weeds also I went with weeds on pavements tripping pedestrians as Transport but also weeds bad for environment? I weeded the space where the pavement touches my neighbour's wall last night which has become a bit overgrown as has not been sprayed. I was putting the brown bin out and on return the last of my mid season taters had not over boiled so all was well (very easy weeds to pull out).

    He has some slightly over-ripe gooseberries hanging on his numerous bushes that he has asked me to take as he cannot eat them this week. Ooh I love gooseberry compote.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    https://twitter.com/fountainbridge/status/894549342559907840

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
    07/08/2017, 8:54 pm
    @fountainbridge @LivingStreetsEd @CllrChasBooth @CyclingEdin We & @LivingStreetsEd planning joint deputation to @Edinburgh_CC Transport Cttee @EdinburghSSC @phabbay @edfoc https://twitter.com/fountainbridge/status/894549342559907840

    "

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. neddie
    Member

    Papers are out for the 7th Dec meeting:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4290/transport_and_environment_committee

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. jonty
    Member

    I notice papers about changing the Shandon Place/Slateford Road junction and adding an all-pedestrian phase to "reduce driver confusion". I've noticed a lot of mention about how aggressively "confused" drivers often turn right against a red down Henderson Terrace - perhaps this shows it might be relatively easy to get a change done there too? (Isn't there also a missing pedestrian crossing there as well?)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. neddie
    Member

    Papers are out for the 1st March meeting:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4342/transport_and_environment_committee

    Posted 6 years ago #

  18. crowriver
    Member

    Good grief. BIG delays ahead. A bit crafty though - if tram goes ahead, presumably stages 5 & 6 will be "bulldozed" through like Picardy Place has been?

    ---

    7.10 - Leith Programme Close–Out Report Constitution Street to Picardy Place

    1.1 It is recommended that the Committee:
    
    1.1.1 Notes that the delivery of Leith Programme Phases 5 and 6 have been incorporated into the Edinburgh Tram York Place to Newhaven project.
    1.1.2 Approves the cancellation of the Leith Programme Phase 5 TRO and RSO process; and
    1.1.3 Approves the cancellation the Leith Programme Phase 5 Public Hearing.

    ---

    Posted 6 years ago #

  19. jonty
    Member

    No mention of Lothian Road in the resurfacing list, which is a bit of a surprise given the state of it.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    Noted under bridges section of appendices:

    ---

    St Marks Bridge

    Bearing replacement, grouting of post tensioned tendons, deck waterproofing and structural repairs

    ---

    That's the bridge over the WoL that connects Broughton Road/McDonald Road to the NEPN.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    ---

    Cancellation
    3.8 It is recommended that the Phase 5 TRO/RSO process and Public Hearing are formally cancelled and that the Council wraps both Phase 5 and 6 into the TRO process for Edinburgh Tram – York Place to Newhaven which is due to commence in the third quarter of 2018.
    3.7 Should the Edinburgh Tram – York Place to Newhaven project not receive Council approval at the end of Stage 2, the Council would seek to reinstate the Leith Programme team to deliver Phases 5 and 6 separate from any other major projects.
    3.8 It should be noted that this would require the resubmission of a further TRO/RSO for consultation.

    ---

    Posted 6 years ago #

  22. wangi
    Member

    Overturn the previous Brighton Place Porty decision, and relay the setts. With road closures for 56 weeks.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  23. crowriver
    Member

    ---

    Item No 5.1 - Key decisions forward plan

    3. Objections for RSO/17/13 Leith Street, Calton Road, Greenside Row, Waterloo Place

    4. George Street Experimental Traffic Regulation Order Concluding Report and Design Principles

    5. Consultation on diesel surcharge introduction

    6. Central Edinburgh Transformation Update Report

    ---
    
    All with an “expected date of decision” of 17 May 2018.

    Also due for decision that day, the all-important, earth shattering one we’ve all been awaiting with bated breath:

    7. Gull De-nesting report

    I can't quite recall the name of the councillor who requested this incredibly timely and clearly essential report. It's on the tip of my tongue. Anyone remember who this fine, upstanding person is, doing their civic duty?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  24. HankChief
    Member

    Weezee's post reminded me to post the TEC papers here

    full papers

    summary

    Lots of juicy stuff this time.

    Plenty on parking and who could miss the full gory details of Councils responses to the Leith Street TRO consultation.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    Don't forget this highly essential report inspired by a question from Cllr Cook:

    Item 7.11 - Urban Gull Control Options - Version 2

    I particularly enjoyed this pithy paragraph at the end, which handily signals the futility of gull control measures:

    ---

    3.32 The example of Dumfries is often put forward as an example of gull de-nesting and control for Edinburgh to follow. But the human population of Edinburgh is 15 times that of Dumfries and housing style is often four to six storey tenemental rather than single or double storey. The evidence from Dumfries would suggest that if considerable resource was expended over a significant time period the number of gulls in North Merchiston could be reduced a little but the gulls would relocate to other parts of Edinburgh instead.

    ---

    Posted 6 years ago #

  26. Klaxon
    Member

    For better or for worse gulls bother a lot of people, so I don’t mind a report.

    No mention of bike hire scheme, and no b-agenda?

    I skimmed the Leith St bit, and it now claims the scheme is being constructed with a TTRO in place. This is at odds with E Kennedy’s assertation last Autumn (at a stakeholder workshop) that it was entirely normal for a major project to proceed without a TRO, as ‘a project risk’

    Are TTROs ever published online for awareness or do they just happen? I don’t remember any mention of one here or on twitter, other than Crowriver correctly predicting the tail would wag the dog again

    Posted 6 years ago #

  27. crowriver
    Member

    "it now claims the scheme is being constructed with a TTRO in place"

    Presumably this is the same TTRO that enabled the temporary Abbeyhill gyratory. TTROs can be issued without any requirement for consultation, and can last up to 2 years so I understand. This one is supposed to expire in September...

    I noted a generally complacent and dismissive tone in the responses to objections to the RSO and TRO. Brushed off many of my concerns, at any rate. I'm not particularly surprised given the overall rather high handed way this whole project has unfolded to date.

    Seems the RSO objections will go to the Scottish government though.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  28. Klaxon
    Member

    Use of a TTRO in this fashion seems equivalent to the head of planning building two extra stories on their house, and then granting retrospective planning permission to themselves

    Posted 6 years ago #

  29. crowriver
    Member

    Just to say that the webcast of the recent T&E Committee meeting is worth a watch if you have time. You can skip to individual agenda items if you wish.

    Pretty impressed with the forensic questioning of Cllrs Burgess and Booth in holding officials to account and in pushing the agenda for cycling also.

    https://edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/293987

    Posted 6 years ago #

  30. crowriver
    Member

    Papers for 20 June meeting are online.

    Of particular interest here perhaps:

    Item 7.1 - City Centre West to East Cycle Link and Street Improvements Project – Section 1 (Roseburn Place/Murrayfield Avenue to Rosebery Crescent/Morrison Street) – Objections to Traffic Regulation Order and Redetermination Order

    Item 7.2 - Reconstruction of Picardy Place – Utilising Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006

    Item 7.3 - Roads Capital Investment Programme – Update

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4429/transport_and_environment_committee

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123…6

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin