@Murun: I fully expect the Tories to back this amendment.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5569 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Will the lib dems manage to move beneath the tories on my ballot at the next election..?
Posted 6 years ago # -
“Chasing the motorist vote of Edinburgh West at the expense of everyone else?”
Traders’ interests plus the minority of ‘I can’t go shopping unless I can park outside’ customers. (May or may not include people buying bacon rolls.)
“
The @EdinburghLibDem's happily joined others to 'set aside' over 150 formal objections to scrapping Saturday #BusLanes
“
https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1009189014321102849?s=21
Posted 6 years ago # -
This always happens. Lots of talk, but when it comes time for action - and that action means restrictions placed on motorists - it gets kicked back to "consultations."
If you're the sort of person who judges people by their actions, rather than their words, you'd probably conclude the council has no real interest in creating real cycling infrastructure.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
The TEC Committee has 11 members - 3 SNP, 3 Conservative, 2 Labour, 2 Green and 1 Liberal Democrat. If Labour and the SNP hold firm (assuming the Greens are rock solid here) then things should be okay.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Webcast not working, or are they just running late?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Hello everyone... first post after I procrastinated for two months about logging in for the first time, even after having lurked here for some time. Anyway.
I wrote to my local Lib Dem councillor and Cllr Glover this morning, and received this explanation of the motivation for the amendment:
"Thank you for contacting Cllr Osler and me about this afternoon’s Transport and Environment Committee meeting. I would like to reassure you that my amendment is not aimed at overturning the agreement on the CCWEL route which was reached in December 2016.The legal framework is complicated but, in brief, a) there must be a public inquiry, with an independent reporter, on objections to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which relate to loading/unloading provisions; b) objections to the Redetermination Order must also be referred to Scottish ministers, who may hold a public inquiry on them but are not obliged to; and c) a third category of objections can be decided on by TEC (on behalf of the Council). The recommendation in the administration’s report is to set aside all of category 3 and to start implementing the TEC apart from the four areas affected by loading/unloading objections. These four areas cover about half of the proposed route (maps showing their extent are included in the meeting papers, here: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4429/transport_and_environment_committee). If the independent reporter were to decide in favour of the objectors in these four areas, the current design for the cycle-route would no longer be viable. There would have to be a re-design and new Traffic Regulation and Redetermination Orders would be needed to implement that. I believe that it would be reckless to prejudge the independent reporter’s decision by going ahead now with the reconfiguration of pavements and roadways in the rest of the route.
This is the background to my amendment, which I don’t intend to withdraw. Thank you again, however, for getting in touch.
Regards,
Gillian Gloyer
Liberal Democrat councillor for Corstorphine/Murrayfield"
I remain very concerned that if passed, this will derail CCWEL, regardless of the reasoning or motives. Unfortunately my skepticism doesn't allow me to believe that same reasoning as would be applied to objections to car centric changes, especially in light of the process around Picardy Place.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"especially in light of the process around Picardy Place."
Exactly. They went ahead and built Leith Street cycle lane even before the TRO responses were collated. That is going to a hearing on loading/unloading but all other objections on TRO and RSO have been set aside if I recall.
Given that, no real rationale for CEC to not do similar on Roseburn and Haymarket.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The Development subcommittee meeting which is going on just now, and which has several TEC committee members present, is expected to go on until 2pm or so.
I'm guessing that the TEC meeting is actually tomorrow. They're normally on Thursdays, aren't they?
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's a special TEC so starts at 3pm
Posted 6 years ago # -
Ta. I learned some stuff about trees in Princes Street Gardens anyway.
Posted 6 years ago # -
So since at least some of the objections will be going to a hearing, does anyone know how long this will take? Will it be done this decade?
At the public hate meeting I overheard one of the then local councillors tell objectors that the place to stop it was at TRO stage. Looks like they took that advice to heart.
Will be interested to know if any of the objectors sat on the stakeholder group.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Cllr Osler speaking very well in the Development Subcommittee meeting about the importance of active travel.
Which kind of makes the Lib Dem motion even more disappointing.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Spokes's take:-
CEC TEC 20 June 2018
ITEM 7.1 –CCWEL project, Objections to TRO and RSO
We are writing to express our continuing support for this, the Council’s flagship active travel project. We strongly support the recommendations in the paper, possibly enhanced with minor amendments if the Committee so decides.
We were delighted at the all-party agreement achieved, after much heartsearching and local consultation, in late 2016. After the delays at that stage, then further delay, when the main project officer moved way, any further delay would be very disappointing. In particular, we urge councillors not to support the amendment which could delay the project by not setting aside those objections which can be set aside.
We make the following points in support of the above..
• It was clear at the time of the all-part agreement that objections to the draft Orders were to be expected, as the plans cannot fully satisfy everybody. In respect of route alignment and widths, as far as we are aware the plans have not changed since the all-party agreement. As regards parking and loading objections, as explained in response to representations to the draft Orders, the council officers have even found ways to somewhat enhance parking and loading provision as compared to what was proposed at the time of the all-party agreement.
• The Committee has plenty precedents for the setting aside of objections. For example, to the great disappointment of ourselves and Living Streets, the Committee in 2015 set aside over 150 formal objections, from individuals and community organisations, to the TRO which scrapped Saturday bus lanes and weekday off-peak lanes. It should also be noted that on that occasion there were very few representations in support of the draft Order. Draft Orders are of course advertised for objection or comment rather than for support, but nonetheless for the CCWEL draft Orders now under consideration there were almost as many letters of support (43) as objections (47).
• Furthermore, there is also precedent for the report’s imaginative and welcome proposal to make the Order to the fullest extent possible given those withdrawn objections which legally have to be referred to the Scottish Government. The Committee took a similar decision in March 2014 at the time of the Order for active travel improvements on Leith Walk between Pilrig Street and Duke Street, where there were unresolved objections. Thus work on the project was able to continue to the maximum extent possible pending the Scottish Government decision, which could otherwise have meant a delay of unknown and potentially inordinate duration.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I like the implication in the motion that the City Council has a reputation that it wouldn't want to lose...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Chas Booth:
"Wrecking amendment from @EdinburghLibDem to stop Roseburn Cycle route receives backing from Tories saying “we oppose this route.” No surprise with the anti-cycling Tories, but Lib Dems have previously been excellent on cycling. Really disappointing U-turn.
#edincouncil"Posted 6 years ago # -
Lib Dem amendment fell (Conservatives voted for it, coalition and Greens against). Wasn't paying enough attention to know what actually passed.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Chas Booth @CllrChasBooth
Delighted Roseburn Route approved 7-4. Just a shame Lib Dems & Tories opposed it.
---
Nigel Bagshaw @nigelbagshaw
LibDem Cllr Goyer's objections to the #roseburn cycle path display the lack of vision, short-sightedness, fabricated alarm and nimbyism worthy of a Tory transport spokesperson
---
Posted 6 years ago # -
"I like the implication in the motion that the City Council has a reputation that it wouldn't want to lose..."
Maybe the way it mires itself in procedure is greatly admired by other city councils. Perhaps it is lauded by consultancy firms across the land for repeatedly calling on their services but rarely enacting any schemes.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Cynical take/conspiracy theory: the LibDems/Tories see that there are problems with the coalition so decide to try to bring out the anti-cycling types in SNP/Labour in an effort to cause more divisions....
Posted 6 years ago # -
Nick Cook:
"Constructive concerns raised on process. Decision on track already taken,as you know was supported and amended by all parties. I'm proud to have secured major new pay and display parking for the area"
So the thing he is most proud about in a cycle/walking project is the parking.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Parking and gulls are the two things that most matter to Cllr Cook it would seem.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Webcast here:
https://edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/358139
Cllr Gloyer speaking from about 1hr 22m: not doing a convincing job of showing support. She appears to want to reopen consultation on the whole route.
Followed by Cllr Douglas who repeats every anti-cycle lane trope possible, including that no one in the area wants it and no parent would let their 12 year old child use it. This is Conservative support remember.
Posted 6 years ago # -
On Twitter - mostly retweeting Miles B and friends.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"no one in the
arealocal Conservative Association wants it and no parent in the local Conservative Association would let their 12 year old child use it."FTFY
Much more believable.
Posted 6 years ago # -
One cynical take is that the Lib & Tory councillors can appear to be supporting the residents, while the route still goes ahead.
Posted 6 years ago # -
By residents, I mean "vocally opposing residents".
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
