“
Reducing roads and property maintenance
“
(And a lot more.)
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Meanwhile in Midlothian
(124 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Conservative motion next week about Workplace Parking Levy:
Midlothian Council Conservative Group
Midlothian Council recognises the importance of vehicle transport to local residents. Council agrees that for many local residents a car is a necessity and not a luxury item. As such Council resolves to ensure that residents will not face, directly or indirectly a charge known as 'the workplace car park tax', estimated at around £500, for attending work places in Midlothian.
Secondly, many Midlothian residents - those who commute to work in Edinburgh would pay the tax to Edinburgh Council, such that Midlothian Council would receive no financial benefit.
Further, Council will write to Edinburgh Council to urge them
not to introduce this damaging and regressive tax, which disproportionately affects families on lower incomes throughout the Lothian's.Council resolves to:
1.Agree not to implement a Work Place Parking Tax within the term of this Council as it is a negative and regressive action
2.Acknowledge that responsible car use is essential for many Midlothian Residents
3.Instructs the Chief Executive to write to Edinburgh Council to advise them of the detrimental effect introducing a workplace parking tax would have on Midlothian Residents.
4.Commends instead positive moves to encourage alternative transport modes where appropriate, such as the recently announced Sheriffhall Roundabout cycle lane proposals.Proposed by:
Councillor Janet Lay-DouglasSeconded by:
Councillor Peter SmaillDate:
12th March 2019Posted 5 years ago # -
Motion rejected: incorrect use of apostrophe and capitalisation, inaccurate reference to "Work Place Parking Tax". 7/10 please try harder.
<sidles off muttering to self about how these are the sort of people who bang on about 'standards'...>
Posted 5 years ago # -
I am intrigued by the argument that Edinburgh Council will benefit from Workplace Parking Levies paid by Midlothian residents "such that Midlothian Council would receive no financial benefit." Yet the solution to this is to ask Edinburgh not to introduce the levy, rather than for Midlothian to also do so.
Also, arguing that upgrading the Sheriffhall roundabout is about improving active travel is (being kind) unhinged.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Also, arguing that upgrading the Sheriffhall roundabout is about improving active travel is (being kind) unhinged.
To be fair, I don't think they are doing that. They are specifically commending the improvements to walking/cycling infrastructure which will be included at the same time.
The fact that those improvements were a complete afterthought, only achieved after a lot of fuss was made by local cyclists, is worth bearing in mind though. Especially since there appears to be zero desire from Midlothian Council to make sure that routes to the roundabout are also improved.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Of course, the fact that we only get to cycle safely at Sheriffhall because they've decided that more people need to be able to drive on the bypass is completely [rule 2].
Posted 5 years ago # -
“
Secondly, many Midlothian residents - those who commute to work in Edinburgh would pay the tax to Edinburgh Council, such that Midlothian Council would receive no financial benefit.
“
Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
Well if they are going to get petty/absurd, perhaps they’ll be arguing for Congestion Charging as long as some of money goes to MidL on the basis that some people are depriving MidL by not working there (or somesuch)?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Lets just gloss over the fact that these people are helping to send Edinburgh residents to an early grave due to the pollution being caused.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Frenchy - Tories name checking active travel in a motion opposed to the introduction of the WPL in their own, and a neighbouring, Council should not be taken seriously.
The environmental statement for the Sherriffhall Roundabout scheme makes it clear that the project will result in higher traffic flows, greater vehicle miles driven and increased emissions (page 195).
Posted 5 years ago # -
Tories name checking active travel in a motion opposed to the introduction of the WPL in their own, and a neighbouring, Council should not be taken seriously.
I completely agree, but I'm not sure it's helpful to construe their (hypocritical) commendation of cycling infrastructure improvements as them saying that the entire project is about improving active travel.
Anyway, enough arguing with comrades, I've an email to Cllrs Lay-Douglas and Hardie to write...
Posted 5 years ago # -
Frenchy - sorry, general anger at Tories approach to all things transport (WPL, 20mph limits, trams, city centre transformation...) leading to a bit of hyperbole on my part.
Posted 5 years ago # -
These are very curious Tories of Midlothian. They are arguing that Edinburgh will benefit from charging Midlothian residents who drive on the roads of Edinburgh and then park at their work in Edinburgh. But their residents have been getting away with using Edinburgh roads but paying council tax in Midlothian for years. These Tories appear to have applied a good amount of gammon to their brains.
Posted 5 years ago # -
As I said in another thread the clearly haven't realise how irresponsible driving into Central Edinburgh for work is.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Not so clear about Edinburgh, but with just around 30% of Glasgow City Centre households not owning a car, and outside the twice daily gridlock of drivers queuing to enter or leave at least 20,000 parking spaces in this City Centre, driving in from many places with excellent rail & bus services. I really look forward to a WPL 1) reducing the gratuitous provision of free or cheap parking 2) the funds coming from this levy underwriting free or easy access to better city connectivity by bus, on bikes or on foot
Posted 5 years ago # -
Developers propose building a rat run through Roslin to link two housing developments. Said rat run will bisect a (newly upgraded) core path.
The indicative design for the crossing is a raised table and zebra crossing.
So Cllr Smaill, concerned about "the safety of interaction" between cyclists "going a pretty good lick" along the path has suggested that it might be necessary to "make sure that cyclists dismount" here.
*sigh*
Posted 5 years ago # -
Counter proposal - make sure drivers stop. Perhaps using a barrier that can be raised by pressing a button.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Pop-up POP event https://pedalonparliament.org/events/event/midlothian-cycling-not-just-for-superheroes/
Posted 5 years ago # -
Study recommends moving the A703/A702 junction further south and signalising it, leaving the Old Pentland Road junction as it is.
£3-5 million estimated cost.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Can't help but feel you could just close one of the roads for much less cash and with minimal inconvenience for everyone - there's plenty of good links between the roads and both ends are well connected to Edinburgh and the bypass. The study still proposes an unsignalised give way on the main road, so all the money is really just being spent to mitigate the closure of the A703 and perhaps to improve the geometry of the existing junction a bit.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Agreed @jonty
Seafield Moor Rd and Pentland Rd are basically just rat-runs.
Close Seafield Moor Rd (A703) and Pentland Rd to motors Northbound at the Hillend junction. Make the Northbound traffic go via the A701, then around the bypass between Straiton and Lothianburn. Job done.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yet another example of splurging millions on a new road on a whim.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"And a survey recorded over 5,500 “conflicts” in four days - anything from motorists having to brake for another vehicle to cars encroaching into the wrong lane when turning to a narrowly-avoided collision."
...
And among disadvantages listed in the report are longer journey times for road-users on the local access section of the A703, potential delays and queuing, a possible increase in rear-end shunts and perhaps limited gaps for motorists joining the A702 from Old Pentland Road.Heaven forbid that the poor motorists should have to brake at a junction. I'm not sure that increasing the number of rear-end shunts is a real solution though.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I assume that means braking on the main road for people pulling out when there's not really space rather than people simply having to come to a stop at the give way?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Or possibly having to drop down to the speed limit, the poor souls?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Planning application in for a development at Auchendinny. If built, it should be used to join NCN 196 (Penicuik-Rosewell path) to the Gilmerton-Roslin path.
But nope, no cycling infrastructure whatsoever in the proposed layout.
Hopefully this link to the planning site works: https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/OnlinePlanning/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=Q5HN8AKVLB500
Posted 4 years ago # -
That link works, but (annoyingly - and in common with other planning portals) related links can’t be shared.
Check “12 Mar 2020 F - Consultations and Representations Cannot Measure Document F - LETTER OF OBJECTION/RESPONSE” for details and maps.
Posted 4 years ago # -
If you open the 'documents' tab on the page linked from Frenchy's post above (possibly as a new tab or page) then other links such as the 12 Mar objection above to that planning application might work?
The Transport Assessment has a few nice things to say about cycling, so maybe needs some more commitments to go with it. I haven't read all the documents but notice that in the road adoption proposals some of the footway/footpaths are marked as 3m wide and suspect these are intended to be shared use cycleways/cyclepaths. Still need connections from this site to other places though.Posted 4 years ago # -
I skimmed the Transport Assessment the other day but will need a proper look later. A lot of the warm words in it about cycling are just blatantly untrue though. Mentions "integrating with" and "strong links to" existing cycling infrastructure, for example
Good spot on the road adoption layout. I suspect you're right about the 3m paths being earmarked for shared use. I can't immediately see a straightforward way to cross the site using them though.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“then other links such as the 12 Mar objection above to that planning application might work?”
Nope
All Council planning portals I’ve tried are like this.
Why?
Infuriating and very unhelpful.
Makes encouraging people to take an interest/comment harder.
Oh...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Another document (called something like Green links and masterplan) seems to confirm that the 3m paths will be shared use.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
