Things seem to take that long I honestly wonder if I'll still be cycling when it is built (I'm 57)!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL
(5535 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
IT is ludicrous that a handful of objectors can hold a small project like this up for years while hundreds of objectors are simply ignored at the other end of town (Picardy Place). Someone is having a laugh here at our expense.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
Any idea why the West-East segregated route, phase 1, is now in a 15-month delay??
“
https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1153273243991719936
Posted 4 years ago # -
@chdot - the way I read it is that's it's not a further delay, just that it would have been 15 months earlier under a more rational planning system.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Dunno, I just believe everything on the internet (if it comes from Spokes).
Posted 4 years ago # -
PG wanting to address the hearing under his Roseburn Vision guise. Apparently they consider “there are far better solutions to boost cycling”.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Thus spake Spokes:-
A MAZE OF DELAYS AND DISAPPOINTMENTS
In a more rational traffic planning system the City Centre West East Link (CCWEL) should have commenced building no later than autumn 2018.
But it has now been delayed until January 2020 at the earliest because of hold ups in the Traffic Orders (TRO) and Redetermination Orders (RSO). Certain types of objection must by law be sent to the Scottish Government who normally then decide to hold an Inquiry. The objections to Phase 1 of the Council’s scheme were sent by the Council to the Government on 26 Oct 2018. After much correspondence between the Government Reporter, the Council and all the objectors, the actual hearing will begin in November 2019 and a decision is currently expected to be sent to the Council around mid- January 2020.
Basically this is a local matter which should be decided locally, but the present rules mean it has to go to the Government. These present regulations are the primary cause of considerable delays.
The Transport (Scotland) Bill is to go through its Stage 3 process. At present there are no provisions in the Bill for rationalising the process.
Our letter below to Michael Matheson, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity requests a more rational process for building active travel infrastructure, without costly delays.
You may feel moved to write to your MSP asking them to support a more rational planning process.
LETTER
Michael Matheson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity
cc Roy Brannen, Chief Executive, Transport Scotland and Chair of Active Travel Task Force Lee Craigie, Active Nation Commissioner
John Finnie MSP 22 July 2019TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND) BILL
AMENDMENTS ON TRAFFIC REGULATION & REDETERMINATION ORDERSSPOKES watched with interest the RECC evidence session on the Transport Bill2 on June 26, and specifically the discussion around John Finnie MSP's amendments to rationalise the present rules for Traffic Regulation and Redetermination Orders.
We, along with other environmental transport organisations, were extremely disappointed to see that you were at that stage unwilling to accept these amendments which would merely allow local decisions to be taken at local level – a principle which the Scottish Government supposedly supports.
The amendments would have greatly improved the ability of Edinburgh City Council rapidly to implement essential changes to encourage growth of active travel in Edinburgh. Without doubt other councils planning similar measures would also benefit from the proposed legislative changes.
We are aware that Cllr Lesley Macinnes and Cllr Anna Richardson, the Transport Conveners of Scotland's two largest cities, have been in touch with you about the 'fundamental necessity' of these changes, to allow cycling infrastructure to be delivered timeously. Their experience-based, considered, evidence must surely be taken seriously.
Likewise, the level of frustration amongst the population desiring and looking forward to safe and attractive cycling infrastructure in our capital city is acute. The Council/Sustrans 2017 'Bike Life' report found that “80% of Edinburgh residents support building protected roadside cycle lanes, even where this could mean less space for other motor traffic.”
The present regulations on TROs/RSOs are the primary cause of considerable delays, 12 to 18 months, on major cycling infrastructure projects in Edinburgh. In particular, there seems no sense whatsoever in certain types of objections to such Orders having to be referred to a government inquiry, with all the time and expense involved, when the Council does have the powers to deal with other types of TRO objections of a seemingly similar level of significance. No rationale was given by yourself or others to justify this inconsistency when John Finnie raised it at the Committee.
Furthermore it is clear from the June 2018 Active Travel Task Force report (pages 16/17 and annex 5) that many objections which have to be referred for national decision are supported only by "anecdotal evidence and opinion" rather than being the "robust evidence-based" objections which might merit a national level inquiry and decision.
In Edinburgh, the Council deserves congratulations for its positive attitude towards encouraging active travel and the development of a radical and comprehensive programme of proposals to transform the way in which journeys are made into and through the city centre. Such an approach is essential if we are serious about reducing transport emissions as part of a strategy for tackling both the current climate emergency and well recognised problems of air quality. The Council’s pioneering city centre east to west cycleway proposal provides a clear example of the delays that can and do result from existing procedures. Objections to phase 1 of the Council’s scheme were sent by the Council to the Scottish Government on 26 October 2018 yet, we understand, the hearing is not expected to begin until November 2019, with the outcome not delivered to the Council until some time in January 2020.
In addition to speeding delivery of major cycling infrastructure, the proposed amendments would allow Councils rather than national government to make local decisions on small and wholly local issues such as moving a kerbline. They would also allow Councils more flexibility on Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders – the present rules have been extremely unfortunate and wasteful in Edinburgh – for example resulting in removal of a successful experimental cycle lane and forcing the Council to take a decision on bus lane hours before it had sufficient time adequately to assess its experimental scheme.
As you yourself recently admitted in Parliament, the government has failed badly (indeed extremely badly) in terms of its 2020 target, or 'vision', for 10% of all trips to be by bike. Perhaps that is not so surprising when one considers obstacles such as the above placed by the government in front of enthusiastic and capable delivery partners.
If the First Minister's declaration of a Climate Emergency means anything, it surely means that such obstacles to zero-carbon travel must be tackled with the greatest alacrity - even more so when an opportunity presents itself. You now have that opportunity in the Transport Bill. Alternatively, you can choose to continue delaying major cycling infrastructure projects by 12-18 months, until such time as the assessment promised in the ATTF Delivery Plan [recommendation 2.7, page 18] is completed - and then until there is a subsequent legislative opportunity – a delay which you must surely agree is likely to be measured in years rather than months.
We therefore urge you to ask Transport Scotland to work at once with John Finnie MSP, to identify any necessary modifications to his amendments so that they can be included at Stage 3 of the Bill.
Yours sincerely
Dave du Feu for Spokes
Posted 4 years ago # -
Well done Dave (as usual).
I’m sure (most) CCEers are well aware that without 42 years of letters to Ministers, complaints (and encouragement) to several Edinburgh councils and 134 Spokes Bulletins (mostly done by Dave), cycling in Edinburgh would be VERY different.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Hear, hear
I am in Cambridge jut now. Many cyclists of course but totally full of cars.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Has anyone ever been to one of these hearings? What is the format?
Most of the objections seem to be lacking any evidence so does the reporter just listen politely to NIMBY ranting or will they tell people to stick to the point or question them about their objection? (Thinking specifically of PG sitting in a gas mask, hi-viz and cycling helmet shouting about Ruth’s baby)
Posted 4 years ago # -
Updated document on the DPEA site setting out what the reporter intends to cover with the three objectors* attending in person
- the extent of cycle use along the route as it is now
- alternative routes including Option B/Roseburn Place
- the lack of simulation of the proposals/impact on congestion
- pedestrian safety*PG Tips, Murrayfield CC and the person who claimed only 12 cyclists an hour in rush hour.
Posted 4 years ago # -
It make a nonsense of the whole consultation process that even after years of making compromises/improvements the TRO process still adds 18 months to the process because one side of the table is high on petrol fumes.
Next time the council should just drop the consultations and opt to go straight to TRO with their initial plans.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Are supporters allowed to contact the reporter at all? In the most recent "Further Supporting Information" from an objector they're complaining about e-bikes saying most provided assistance up to 20mph and some to 28mph which is just rubbish in the UK. One of the other objectors mentioned there's only 12 cyclists that use the route currently.
Seems stupid if these statements will actually be considered without challenge...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Anyone looked at this planning application to extend the Tune Hotel at Clifton Terrace? Would it affect the cycle route at all?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Can't immediately see why there'd be a long-term effect. The application is to build an extension in behind the current building, so the only effect should be a (negligible) increase in the number of people around.
Building work might have an effect, though.
Posted 4 years ago # -
From the George Street/MGS Places for Everyone announcement: "As well as this, funding will support the construction of a cycleway along York Place, detailed design for the remainder of the Council’s proposed City Centre West to East Link and the roll-out of on-street secure bike parking for residents of tenement areas.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2706/funding_boost_for_george_street_redesign_project
Posted 4 years ago # -
From the George Street/MGS Places for Everyone announcement: "As well as this, funding will support the construction of a cycleway along York Place, detailed design for the remainder of the Council’s proposed City Centre West to East Link and the roll-out of on-street secure bike parking for residents of tenement areas.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2706/funding_boost_for_george_street_redesign_project
Posted 4 years ago # -
Maybe PG has been advising them...
“
This urged politicians to divert cyclists displaced by ripping up the Embankment route through the City of London’s financial district. This would potentially slow down traffic in the Square Mile – the main rival of Canary Wharf Group.“
Posted 4 years ago # -
New mobile phone/PC repair shop opening up in the old pharmacist, directly opposite the new location for the existing PC repair shop.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Lib dems trying to play both sides again...
(Or maybe it is just one side)
https://twitter.com/RoseburnCycle/status/1158972156274978816?s=19
Posted 4 years ago # -
Total gridlock just now at St Mary’s Street, caused by Festival. I think local traders should ask for compo. Oh wait the festival causes greater footfall.
If this segregated path ever happen how long would it take to put in the infra? Which would then hopefully increase the footfall.
Was this bunkum not given short shrift at the last TC??
Posted 4 years ago # -
The obvious solution is land value taxation based on the rental value of the unimproved land the businesses occupy.
That way the public benefit from the value created by public spending rather than the landlords of the businesses and also those landlords pay less tax if public works materially decrease the value of the land.
I think liberals have historically been in favour of this, just not sure if the Liberal Democrats are liberals.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“Was this bunkum not given short shrift at the last TC??” Yes.
Would have been a good opportunity for them to point out the evidence that bike lanes are good for business. Unfortunately it’s just a continuation of Cllr Gloyer’s opposition: I’ve never heard her say a positive word about this scheme, or any other bike plans.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Is that right 3 years since approval and nothing built?
Posted 4 years ago # -
No it’s not right, it’s Edinburgh.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I bought some stuff in House of Hound today - owner was very friendly and there were several other customers in: didn’t look like any of them were driving.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“owner was very friendly”
Is that normal in that part of town??
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Traders’ Association does nothing to welcome people to the area.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Anyone know what happened to the Charlotte Square cycle way/public realm improvements and the St Andrews Square-Princes Street cycle way that were part of CCWEL?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Real students look at cycleway consultation designs on a Saturday night
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
