CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Questions/Support/Help

TRO technicalities - tips?

(14 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by Adnerb
  • Latest reply from davecykl
  • This topic is not resolved

Tags:


  1. Adnerb
    Member

    Long-time lurker from Glasgow here, many thanks for all entertainment and information. Can the long and deep collective CCE experience provide some suggestions for the best response to a TRO in the following situation:

    A main road with bits of Glasgow Uni on each side (University Avenue) is about to have work done, supposedly to make the route fit for the uni's expansion onto the adjoining (now-ex-)hospital site. University Avenue is a link between Byres Rd and Kelvingrove park. Byres Rd is about to get City Deal megabucks spent on it, including (fingers crossed) segregated cycleways after massive effort by campaigners.

    University Avenue is uphill from both Byres Rd and Kelvingrove, currently has advisory (broken white line) cycleways on the uphill sides, both with double yellow lines, routinely ignored. The plans for University Avenue focus on wider pavements for pedestrians (good) wider crossings for pedestrians (good), and after protracted email exchanges with the council and the uni by GoBike, 'upgrading' of the advisory cycle lanes to mandatory.

    The uni and council are passing responsibility between them, claiming the plans are too far on to be changed and that they were widely consulted on (evidently without telling any cycle campaigners, Sustrans, or the Byres Rd consultation). The council has been saying for weeks that a TRO for the changes will be published any time now.

    We expect it to be about removing a handful of parking spaces, possibly about the crossings (not sure if they fall under TRO stuff), and - now - putting in mandatory cycle lanes.

    It's my understanding that they can move kerbs wherever they like without any regulations being involved, is that right?

    And is it sensible (or valid, in TRO-speak) to object to the change to mandatory cycle lanes because they ought to be segregated? Is there a way to register the massive loss of opportunity this represents (not to mention the coach and horses galloping through the uni's active travel 'commitment' for the extended campus) via the TRO process?

    Sorry this is so long, if you're still reading, be amazed that the latest wonder has been the uni's attempt to use Glasgow's 'Strategic Plan for Cycling' as the authority for its claim that 'segregation' for cycling includes painted lanes, both solid and broken...

    Posted 5 years ago #

  2. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Hi @Adnerb!

    Your post isn't being ignored - we're just all waiting for @Morningsider to give you chapter and verse. I suspect they're away on holiday so could be a wee wait - bump the thread up next week maybe?

    Posted 5 years ago #

  3. Adnerb
    Member

    Oooh, a nod from the great IWRATS! Thanks, I'll do as you suggest.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  4. sallyhinch
    Member

    Alternatively, find ways to embarrass the hell out of them about the claim that a line of paint counts as segregation. Once either the university or the council sufficiently wants change, all objections about it being 'too late' or 'subject to TRO' or there not being an R in the month will magically fall away

    Posted 5 years ago #

  5. Morningsider
    Member

    Hi Adnerb - this is a belter! Generally, a TRO deals with issues around the movement of vehicles on a road, while a redetermination order deals with the reallocation of road space for the exclusive use of one type of road user. There are also the lesser known designation orders for parking places and another for setting speed limits other than the national default.

    Naturally, there are different procedures for making TROs/parking place/speed limit orders and redetermination orders. These procedures are over 30 years old, sparse and pretty opaque.

    Just to make it even more confusing. Pedestrian crossings are technically counted as traffic signs and, as long as they meet certain design requirements, can be installed without much in the way of consultation or authorisation procedure.

    What does this mean for you. Well, there is no "right" way to object to a TRO (which is generally used to describe all of the above orders). I would suggest:

    1. If there is more than one order then lodge separate "objections" to each.
    2. Specifically state that you are objecting - the regulations only require the Council to consider objections.
    3. Explicitly state what you consider wrong with the proposals, particularly how they disadvantage cyclists.
    4. Tie your objection to as many local and national policies as you can find - focus on the Local Transport Strategy, but feel free to chuck in anything relevant from the Regional Transport Strategy and even the National Transport Strategy if you are feeling keen.
    5. Emphasise that you are keen to see cycling improvements, but have been forced by the nature of the TRO process to formally object.

    As well as the formal process, contact councillors on the Committee considering the TRO - let them know how you feel, imply you are surprised that cities such as Manchester seem to be stealing a march on Glasgow with their plans for cycling (never underestimate civic and political rivalry as a driving force for change).

    Let me know if you need anything else - I could go on about mandatory cycle lanes, reallocation of road space etc. Really - wait, come back...

    Posted 5 years ago #

  6. Adnerb
    Member

    Many thanks, still waiting for the TRO (or whatever) to appear, we'll get our most powerful quote-all-the-policies hats on and follow your advice.

    @sallyhinch, a glorious idea, so far they appear to have a very high bar for embarrassment - able to spout total rubbish with a completely straight keyboard - waiting for the sleeting particles of inspiration to strike.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  7. rbrtwtmn
    Member

    Something simple, but worth saying out loud...

    Narrow cycle lanes make a road more dangerous to cycle on than if they weren't there at all.

    I can't prove that numerically - but hope that others on here would agree (which itself adds weight to the point I think).

    A nice point is that the (enlightened parts of the) police and many others have been using 1.5m minimum (at slow speed) as a passing distance. Rather than quoting cycle lane widths, I think it is helpful to ask "how does a lane of X metres wide help to make this happen"? That's not a technical question, but one that any old member of the public can answer. I like taking such things out of the technical sphere and appealing to ordinary public common sense (yes I know).

    Posted 5 years ago #

  8. fimm
    Member

    @rbrtwtmn you may not have the numbers, but somebody else does.
    Here's the actual article, rather than a report on it:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457518309990?via%3Dihub

    Posted 5 years ago #

  9. sallyhinch
    Member

    I think there was some research out recently about that (narrow bike lanes being more dangerous) - have seen it floating around on Twitter but not had a chance to have a look

    Posted 5 years ago #

  10. sallyhinch
    Member

    Ah Fimm pipped me to it

    Posted 5 years ago #

  11. daisydaisy
    Member

    How about a PoP event on university avenue?

    Posted 5 years ago #

  12. Adnerb
    Member

    Thanks @fimm, I saw mentions of the press reports of that research, but the horse's mouth abstract is much better. So 4x4s pass closer than cars and buses pass closer than 4x4s (do drivers position themselves 'comfortably', rather than the nearside of the vehicle?) and marked bike lanes induce a mean passing distance close to the bus average (wonder if buses pass even closer when there's a painted line, shudder). And the proposed University Ave painted lanes are only 1.5m...

    @daisydaisy, definitely tempting. There has been a well publicised human bike lane, a month or so ago. I've wondered about an 'endless cycling chain' up and down and up and down at going to work time on pre-PoP Friday, but they've started the roadworks already (with ironically helpful coned off bike lanes in pics someone posted), I need to go and have a look before deciding to buttonhole some social media connected person.

    Posted 5 years ago #

  13. Adnerb
    Member

    Petition initiated by GoBike for safe / decent / segregated / protected cycle infrastructure on (Glasgow) University Avenue, as part of the (call me climate emergency pioneer) uni's £1 billion new development - here

    Please share with any/everyone you know who cycles in Glasgow or would like to. Sign too, of course (maybe Glasgow addresses are better?)

    Posted 5 years ago #

  14. davecykl
    Member

    Only just seen this thread…

    Yes, it is probably strategically useful to object to the TROs, as it makes things more awkward for the council, and they'll have to spend time (and therefore money) dealing with the objections.

    (And, as you have pointed out, changing the lanes from advisory to mandatory sadly isn't really gaining very much: no protection from other traffic, and selfish idiots will probably still park in them anyway. Maximise the embarrassment for the council (and the University of Glasgow), as you have been, by getting media attention for how they are letting cyclists (and their current and future students) down.)

    Back in the day, Go Bike managed to successfully negotiate for quite a lot of (originally not included) improvements to the Route Action Plans (for Maryhill Road, Victoria Road, etc) by holding out and formally objecting until quite late in the process (this is, umm, a while ago now, and I can't now remember quite how much pushing we did, but the fact that dealing with objections would have delayed implementing the projects by some time did give us quite a good negotiating position.

    And, yes, I have signed the petition. Don't forget to ask Glasgow cyclists to also contact their councillors as well, that can really help to make a difference. Good luck!

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin