CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Is the TRO system biased...

(13 posts)

  1. neddie
    Member

    ...in favour of preserving the status quo for motorists.

    It seems to me the TRO system (and never-ending consultation loops) makes it impossible to quickly implement new cycle routes, pedestrianise an entire area or block up rat-runs.

    After all, pedestrianisation and restricting motor traffic is more about returning the streets "to the people", or to the original use and purpose of the streets. Original purpose being as a community / market / play space for slow movement of people, not somewhere to race through as fast as possible.

    The only benefit I can see of the TRO system is that it helps to protect bus lanes.

    What does the hive mind think?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  2. jonty
    Member

    Didn't the developer of that place off Grove Street need (and failed to get) a TRO to block up the pedestrian route from Fountainbridge to the WAR? Don't know how much effect that had though.

    I think it is definitely biased, like a lot of legal mechanisms, in favour of "the status quo" - the "for motorists" bit is probably the fault of the people who established it.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  3. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    ...in favour of preserving the status quo for motorists.

    Do you have an example in mind?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  4. Morningsider
    Member

    The TRO system is broken - it takes an average of around nine months to designate an enforceable disabled persons' parking place outside their home using the TRO process. How can that be right? Yet a local authority can designate bus stops as "clearways"(parking in which is an offence) without a TRO.

    I agree the system favours the status quo - to the detriment of cyclists, pedestrians and the less able.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  5. Klaxon
    Member

    The TRO comments system is biased towards no action, too.

    If you object, and your comments are material, they must be considered in full by an officer and responded to in the TRO report that goes to committee.

    If you write in support, it's just recorded in a footnote that N people wrote in support.

    There's no means to feed in constructive criticism ("I support, but") while supporting the project as a whole.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  6. neddie
    Member

    @Cyclingmollie

    An example that springs to mind is the two shopkeepers at the top of Leith Walk who have objected to the TRO over a couple of loading bays.

    Because of these unwithdrawn objections, the council now has to take the whole process up to the next level of bureaucracy aka Scot Govt. thus delaying the process by at least an additional 9 months.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  7. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    I see. So TROs are the only way to roll back the drive where you like, park where you like default that applies across the country?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  8. Arellcat
    Moderator

    So is what we need a Minister or three to propose to Parliament a motion for TRO reform? Are TROs devolved to Transport Scotland et al?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  9. Morningsider
    Member

    Arellcat - TROs are made under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The subject matter of this Act is devolved to Scottish Ministers, with the exception of driver training and speed limits as they apply to emergency vehicles on motorways.

    TRO making procedures are set out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, as amended. Scottish Ministers can amend or replace these regulations.

    In short - Scottish Ministers could do something about this. The Transport Scotland "Active Travel Taskforce" is meant to be looking at this, details:

    https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/active-travel/active-travel-task-force/

    Posted 6 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    How did this go?

    "

    Possible second evidence day in spring (April/May) or early autumn (September)

    "

    Posted 6 years ago #

  11. HankChief
    Member

    I went to the Spring ATTF meeting to talk about the experience of building community support for schemes using Roseburn as my example. Spokes were also there.

    I built on the comments I made here

    The whole day was about communities and they had a representation from MCC amongst others. They wanted to learn from all sides...

    I don't know how the other sessions went but they seemed pleased to have me there showing the positive support that can back a scheme.

    Hopefully the points made will help them build/recommend an approach for other LAs doing similar schemes.

    No idea what the topic of the autumn meeting will be...

    Posted 6 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    "

    The pedestrian walkway was created to a) give walkers a safe passage from the overspill carpark up to the restaurant entrance and b) discourage parking. I am aware however that parked cars is still a problem however the process to install a traffic restriction order takes 12 months.

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17139&page=3&replies=87#post-259052

    Posted 6 years ago #

  13. neddie
    Member

    http://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/is-law-stacked-against-active-travel.html

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin