they didn't strike me as quite that immovable.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Roseburn - Canal link (new Dalry route)
(651 posts)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The RSO must relate to something on-road. So can only be at the Sauchiebank end, or possibly Dalry Rd (on-ramp to Telfer park?)
Posted 2 years ago # -
The RSO was to widen the pavement on Russell Road so that you could cycle between the zig-zag for the NEPN and the access to the path.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That section's already shared use, isn't it? So someone's just objecting to it being made suitably wide?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Is anyone able to provide a link to this problematic RSO?
Posted 2 years ago # -
@Frenchy IIRC from reading the CCWEL committee papers, the scope of material objections for RSOs is very wide. It could purely be a grievance against the principle of the scheme rather than the particular change. e.g. don't build this because evil, fast cyclists will kill us all
@Murun Buchstansangur TROs/RSOs aren't archived on the CEC website unfortunately.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@CycleAlex: So basically, someone saying "wahh don't like it" means it can end up being referred up to ScoGov? That sounds a trifle excessive - or is it just the council being too scared of possible objections to them dismissing the objection, so they bump it upstairs to get the monkey off their own back? Either way, it smells rather like the kind of anti-democratic delaying/blocking shenanigans that have been going on in the US Senate recently.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@ejstubbs: Article today about this in the Herald (paywalled) but the last paragraph hints that this might be the case:
ground.
“Transport Scotland has previously highlighted opportunities to City of Edinburgh Council officials on how they could streamline their processes in relation to traffic regulation orders and redetermination orders.”Glasgow doesn’t seem to have the same delays due to objections. I suspect the relative strength of the Tories in each city could have something to do with it and could be influencing Edinburgh’s more cautious approach.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Would a RSO be required to widen a footway (by narrowing the carriageway) and make it a cycle track? Because Fife Council did that near me but I didn't see anything like a RSO or TRO advertised.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, that raises an interesting question... in Edinburgh that would generally need an RSO but not a TRO (assuming no changes to parking restrictions/access).
Some councils just don't seem to bother at all with RSOs. In Edinburgh, small adjustments also don't tend to get RSOs. Stuff like narrowing a junction a touch as part of resurfacing.
Whether that road layout is now legally questionable and invites lawsuits is presumably CEC's concern, especially with groups of people happy to pursue the legal avenue in relation to active travel...
Posted 2 years ago # -
When you think about it, RSOs are very odd things. The original layout of a street is not set out in any order. The layout is at the whim of the developer, working within the standards set by the local authority. Most streets in older parts of the city weren't really "designed" at all, they are an accumulation of history, tinkering, maintenance and decisions by individuals living or working on the street. The fact the Council need an order to change this is kind of nuts.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For me this is the key thing, a cast iron case to get rid of them. You can build almost literally any layout in a new estate without being exposed to the level of scrutiny of an RSO but a tiny tweak after it's built? You're doomed!
Posted 2 years ago # -
“Transport Scotland has previously highlighted opportunities to City of Edinburgh Council officials on how they could streamline their processes in relation to traffic regulation orders and redetermination orders.”
This supports a long-term suspicion I've had that CEC is much more zealous in publishing RSOs than other councils. I've seen statements from CEC to the effect of "a lot of councils don't do this, but that's unlawful and they're opening themselves up to legal problems" ie. we are doing this strictly, but correctly.
My impression of roads law is that it can be a bit of a mess and lots of things on the road end up being unlawful or legally unenforceable or grey areas yet it's generally OK because nobody minds or notices and things can be relatively easily sorted out if they do. I wonder if there's some grey areas here which CEC have interpreted in an extremely (and perhaps unnecessarily) conservative way. I've noticed too that small tweaks even in Edinburgh don't seem to have gone through RSOs, like the crossing buildout on South Bridge just before the Royal Mile, so there's obviously some wiggle room even for us.
Of course, it raises the question of what the legal consequences might be of relaxing RSO policy might be given that the cat is very much out the bag in terms of vexatious objection. It's unlikely that this single objector would have launched a full legal challenge but clearly the stakes might have been higher for the Roseburn segregated lane.
However, if the only legal consequences are that someone might be get out of a prosecution for driving/parking on the footway then...who cares? If we actually decide to start enforcing these laws and someone kicks up a fuss then they can sort out the legalities later. Just get the kerbs in now!
Posted 2 years ago # -
given that the cat is very much out the bag in terms of vexatious objection
I wondered this too. There are specific rules for example with handling vexatious requests under FOI(S)A s.14, where they:
- are unreasonable;
- would impose a significant burden on the financial and human resources of public authorities; or
- are deemed to be vexatious because of other impacts on the authority.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I guess it's hard to apply that bar to objections, particularly given the objectors are arguing for the status quo, and that, if an RSO wasn't provided, they may well have the letter of the law on their side. Indeed, you could probably argue that any 'impact on the authority' is entirely their fault for planning an objectionable scheme. If the council spent millions planning an extension of the bypass through my back garden, I might very reasonably object at great cost to the public purse! But I don't think that would be a reason to invalidate my objection.
I suppose I'm using 'vexatious' incorrectly in that case. "Obstructive" might be better.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It would be interesting if someone could find out the nature of the objection in this case.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What I don't understand is why road projects nsuch as Picardy Place/Leith Street go ahead despite unresolved objections but active travel projects are fillerbustered like this.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yeah - remember when the roads opened, but the cycle lanes didn't, because of the objections?!
To be fair, a close reading of the council update doesn't suggest any of the delays here are directly due to the objection, so hopefully it can either be resolved before the bird nesting season finishes or the project can be proceeded with at risk/only the objected-to part will be delayed.
Posted 2 years ago # -
https://twitter.com/gdcc_/status/1538468654559412226
Update on the Roseburn/Dalry Community Park/Canal link. From @Edinburgh_CC project manager. They are doing value engineering to find cost savings. @CllrScottArthur, TEC & ward cllrs, please look into more money for this project, to stop significant downgrading designs.
Possible deferrals/downgrades:
- access steps from Russel Road & Duff St Lane
- upgrade of the basketball court
- toucan crossing at Dalry Road
- maintenance access path at West Approach RoadContract due to be signed with Balfour Beatty in October, work starting January 2023 to be completed by March 2024 - a mere eight years after initial consultation. Positively speedy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
yesterday there was a sustrans survey going on by the steps down to Lidl and a usage count where the path meets teller subway.
I was feeling rather positive until I read the above...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Related...
Now that they've blocked the Approach Road shared use pavement with planters it really is time to extend the path on other side towards Roseburn and make the crossing at Drysdale Road. Was with new customer and it really is a barrier for cargo bikes.
Assume no-one will move these planters now?
Path straight along towards Morrison street and west end - maybe take a lane off Approach Road to reflect decline in car use they seek? (!)
Posted 2 years ago # -
From a Roseburn Cyclist:
"I wrote to Sarah Boyack MSP about cuts to various cycle projects in Edinburgh. She wrote to Sustrans. This was their reply:
As a result of increased costs, CEC, with support from Sustrans, undertook an exercise to reassess all of their projects that receive PfE funding. The aim of this was to identify where savings could be made for certain projects by rescoping areas or looking at other ways to reduce costs. The aim of this exercise was to ensure that the ambitious programme for walking, wheeling and cycling that CEC are looking to deliver remains viable within their existing budget.
With regard to the Roseburn to Union Canal project I can update you that costs have increased further since this exercise was undertaken. During the previous process it was broadly agreed by both Sustrans and CEC that any reduction in scope or value engineering on this specific project would greatly undermine its impact, therefore funding was reallocated from other projects within Edinburgh’s programme to support it. To continue to retain this scope, we are currently considering a request from CEC for additional PfE funding for the construction of the project. A decision is due to be made at our next funding panel on 8th August.
Sarah has asked Sustrans to update her following their meeting on 8th August."
Posted 2 years ago # -
“that CEC are looking to deliver remains viable within their existing budget”
So when does CEC’s increased AT budget start??
Unfortunate if this extra merely covered increased costs in already planned/overdue projects rather than new ones..
Shambles really.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The funding model for cycling projects in Scotland is clearly broken. Instead of making Councils bid for funds for individual schemes I would suggest:
1. Councils draw up plans for a cycle network, which must be built to the standards set out in the new version of cycling by design.
2. The Scottish Government allocates ring fenced funds directly to local authorities to deliver that network.
3. Funding is allocated on a three to five year basis, allowing for forward planning and rolling delivery of projects.Sustrans could become a centre of excellence to assist Councils in design and delivery - preferably brought within the public sector.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So... costs went up, therefore they looked to see where they could reduce costs, but in that time the costs went up again. The review found there were no costs that could be reduced (otherwise the project would be useless) so they are taking money from other projects, meaning other work isn't going ahead either...
Great announcing record funding of active travel, not so great if schemes aren't being funded and nothing gets built.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Seen on FB:
“Sarah Boyack's office received the below update from Sustrans yesterday regarding the Roseburn to Canal cycle route
”Apologies for the delay. We’ve just confirmed the panel decision earlier today to City of Edinburgh Council, which is that we have awarded their increased funding request for this project in full – this was for an additional £1,780,447.”
Posted 2 years ago # -
How munificent of Sustrans to award taxpayers money, collected by the democratically elected UK and Scottish Governments, to the democratically elected City of Edinburgh Council.
Just a pity there is no way this process could be streamlined...
Posted 2 years ago # -
“Just a pity there is no way this process could be streamlined...”
I gather precisely that is ‘being looked at’.
What difference could/will be made remains to be seen.*
That said, how CEC carves up its various budgets could be improved too…
*No doubt as many faces as possible will be saved.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The Finance & Resources Committee discussed the financials for the Roseburn - Canal project this week in private (as they didn't want the potential contractors hearing how much they were willing to pay).
Hopefully this means that signing of contracts is imminent...
Posted 2 years ago # -
“
So the contract was approved at F&R - expect to hear a real start date soon.
“
https://mobile.twitter.com/rsmcksg/status/1572327394106654724
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
