CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Parliament debate

(29 posts)

  1. Morningsider
    Member

    There will be a Scottish Government debate on walking and cycling in the afternoon of Tuesday 31 October. If I was to take a wild guess about the subject, it will cover the recent doubling of investment in walking and cycling and links between active travel and the public realm.

    Possibly a good time to contact your MSP about Picardy Place, asking them to raise this issue during the debate - particularly why the Scottish Government backed Growth Accelerator funding will be used to create a 60's style gyratory hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. Contrary to national and local policy and this new focus on active travel and the public realm.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Oh, Morningsider I shall do just that. Thanks for the prompt.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Hi Daniel,

    I understand there is to be a debate in Holyrood next Tuesday on the promotion of active travel in Scotland - a subject close to my heart as you know. I wonder if you could raise an issue for me during this debate; the City of Edinburgh Council's proposal to remake Picardy Place. Their proposal can be seen here;

    https://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/picardy-place-our-position

    It's essentially a plan to take the east end of Edinburgh back to the sixties with a three lane gyratory. Sustrans are a mild-mannered bunch and their pulling out of co-operation with the council is an extraordinary step in response to an extraordinary level of intransigence.

    My objection to the proposal so far has been based mainly on its being in contravention of the council's own business development plan. (My letter to Councillor Macinnes is attached for your information.) Excessive motor traffic sterilises streets and kills business.

    The proposal as it stands depends on Scottish government funding under the rather unfortunately named 'Growth Accelerator Model'. I wonder if you could ask Mr Yousaf on my behalf what growth is promoted by handing Picardy Place over to transient motorists? I think the answer is growth in sedentary lifestyles, pollution, road traffic injuries and out-of-town shopping.

    There are several admirable counter-proposals for Picardy Place. This is one of the best;

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/picardy-place-counterproposal

    Edinburgh is on the cusp of making a stupid and historically shameful decision. The proposal as it stands was dreamed up in 2008, a time when people thought RBS was a good company and the UK was still dabbling with joining the Euro zone. That's how weird and unwelcome these plans are now in 2017. Our streets should support this hierarchy of travel;

    1. Pedestrians
    2. Public transport
    3. Cyclists
    4. Private motor cars

    It would be great to see our parliament functioning as it should; driving towards consensus and consultation. Time for the Scottish Government and CEC to pause, consult and think again about what a liveable, world-class city is and what part active travel can play in this.

    Thanks in advance,

    IWRATS

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Dear IWRATS,

    Thank you for getting in contact in regards to Picardy Place and the debate at Parliament tomorrow.

    It is my intention to attend the debate tomorrow, although I am unsure if there will be time for me to make a substantive point in this debate. However, rest assured that I am interested in this matter and have been following up the planning of Picardy Place with the government.

    I wrote to the Minister of Transport and Islands last week on this very issue, concerned that government intervention may be limiting the scope of the plans for this area and was prioritising motor vehicles over cyclists and pedestrians. I would be very happy to pass on this response to you once I receive it.

    Kind regards,
    Daniel

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Here is today's Business Bulletin. for the Parliament.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. Arellcat
    Moderator

    On now.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. Harts Cyclery
    Member

    Finlay Carson speaking now. I was bending his ear at the Corstorphine Air Pollution visit. He's pretty on-side and has a decent, but not full, understanding of the issues.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. toomanybikes
    Member

    Shame not to link pavement cycling with inadequate on road infrastructure, but instead with inadequate signage.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. HankChief
    Member

    Official report out

    http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11157&i=101737#ScotParlOR

    So if opposition MSPs are welcoming the doubling of Cycling Investment and are saying that more should be done, does this mean it is now their party policy?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. HankChief
    Member

    Jamie Green - Conservative (my Bold)

    "Although we welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to increase funding by £40 million in the coming financial year, it is important to note how we got to where we are today. In 2010, the active travel budget was £35.7 million. It had been reduced to £29 million by 2014 and to £25 million by 2015. In the current financial year, the figure for that budget represents a real-terms cut of about 8 per cent since 2010."

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. HankChief
    Member

    Neil Bibby - Labour

    "We welcome the increase in funding from £40 million to £80 million"

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. HankChief
    Member

    Mike Rumbles - Libdem

    "The Scottish Government’s announcement of a doubling of the active travel budget in this year’s programme for government is welcome"

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. HankChief
    Member

    Claudia Beamish - Labour

    "The Labour Party also welcomes the Scottish Government announcement of the doubling of the active travel budget. "

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    Note that the Green amendment, which sought to increase active travel spending to 10% of the transport budget by the end of the parliamentary term, was defeated by 108 votes to 6.

    That shows you where the priorities of SNP, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems lie regarding active travel and transport spending.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. HankChief
    Member

    does this mean it is now their party policy?

    There's only 1 way to find out...

    Conservative

    Labour

    LibDem

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. Frenchy
    Member

    Picardy Place got a mention in closing from Alison Johnstone.

    One of the MSPs I wrote to about this debate said they would follow up on Picardy Place too.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. Frenchy
    Member

    That shows you where the priorities of SNP, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems lie regarding active travel and transport spending.

    Labour's manifesto at the last Scottish election actually proposed spending 10% of the national transport budget on active travel!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. crowriver
    Member

    "Labour's manifesto at the last Scottish election actually proposed spending 10% of the national transport budget on active travel!"

    Yet, when the opportunity came to vote for enacting that policy pledge, all Labour MSPs voted against...

    So much for manifesto promises!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. Roibeard
    Member

    @crowriver - do you know if there is a record of this vote on the Parliament website? I'd like to follow this up with my Labour representatives and my Google-fu is failing me...

    Robert

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. steveo
    Member

    So much for manifesto promises!

    I never understand how politians ever expect to be taken seriously when time and again they prove their manefesto's aren't worth spit.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. Frenchy
    Member

    @Roibeard - HankChief's link above shows that Labour voted against John Finnie's amendment.

    I'll just link it again, for clarity: http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11157&i=101737#ScotParlOR

    John's amendment (from Arellcat's link) was: As an amendment to motion S5M-08497 in the name of Humza Yousaf (The Promotion of Active Travel in Scotland), leave out from “, and notes” to end and insert “; further welcomes the work across parties, communities and policy portfolios to make Scotland a healthier and more active nation; recognises that the latest Scottish Household Survey figures show that active travel rates remain low; believes that meeting the Scottish Government’s target of '10% of everyday journeys to be made by bike, by 2020' will be missed without a rapid shift in resources, and calls on the government to commit at least 10% of the transport budget to walking and cycling by the end of the parliamentary session.”

    EDIT: I'm struggling to find the pledge in the Labour manifesto. Ian Murray definitely told me it was there, though...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. HankChief
    Member

    Positive (albeit brief) response from Alex Cole-Hamilton for the Lib Dems to my request if Doubling Active Travel funding was now their policy

    "Want to go further"

    Feel free to like / Retweet

    Nothing back from Labour or Tories yet...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. crowriver
    Member

    @Frenchy, you must have confused Labour with the Greens who did have the 10% pledge.

    Spokes' analysis of Holyrood manifestos in 2016 clearly shows the vague nature of Labour's pledge and even calls it "disappointing":

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/2016/03/holyrood-election-5-may-2016/

    "We want to see more investment in active travel, not just to improve people’s transport choices, but to improve people’s health and wellbeing, and make our communities safer. Extra investment in the City of Edinburgh is driving up active travel and we want to see more investment across the country. "

    So naturally, given the lack of any hard commitment, you cannot hold Labour's feet to the fire on this vote. Maybe they think 2% or so is enough? After all there are dual carriageways to be built you know!

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. Frenchy
    Member

    Not me getting confused. Ian Murray definitely told me it was a Labour Party pledge. I presume he was just confused himself, but more nefarious explanations also exist.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    "more nefarious explanations"

    Maybe he was talking about pledges for the local elections rather than Holyrood?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. sallyhinch
    Member

    @Frenchy - having done the Walk Cycle Vote campaign during the Holyrood election, it definitely wasn't a Labour party commitment, unfortunately. Some of the individual candidates did support it - I'd have to go back to the old WCV database to find out which though

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. Frenchy
    Member

    I was specifically asking him about national levels.

    "we had a manifesto pledge in our 2016 Scottish manifesto for 10% of transport spending on cycling and pedestrians."

    EDIT: Thanks Sally, it seems I was misled by a politician who was seeking my vote. First time for everything, I suppose.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. Stickman
    Member

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/greens-call-for-10-of-transport-budget-to-be-spent-on-walking-and-cycling-1-4602432

    *standard Johnston Press comments warning applies*

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. DdF
    Member

    Spokes briefing document prior to the debate.

    Report     and tweet on the debate (RTs welcome!)

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin