I've lived in these parts for decades and had never heard anyone refer to "the Braid Estate" until a couple of years ago, and only then in relation to the quiet route. Anyone claiming that this is a well defined area with a clear boundary should be subject to knowing looks and hushed whispers at the cheese counter in Waitrose.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route (Inc Braid Road/Estate)
(733 posts)-
Posted 2 months ago #
-
Everyone knows it’s the Braid Estate’s Monster, Braid Estate was the name of the creator
Posted 2 months ago # -
Thiis matter should be referred to Arne’s Court of Arbitration if he is still working the slow till at Waitrose
Posted 2 months ago # -
Quote from the Record article: "I blagged my way in but I think you've got to try these things." Would appear to sum up her ethical approach in a nutshell.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Full council meeting at 10am includes emergency motion from Cllr Booth (page 6):
Emergency Motion by Councillor Booth
City of Edinburgh Council
19 March 2026
Implications of Standards Commission decision
for Greenbank to Meadows Quiet RouteSupporting Information
Council notes:
1.1 The decision of the Standards Commission of 11 March 2026 in respect of complaints against Cllr Ross and Cllr Munro.
1.2 That the standards commission decision calls into question the decision of Transport and Environment Committee of 7 March 2024 to implement option 3 in the report to committee on the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route.
1.3 Notes that the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) for the quiet route (ETRO/21/29D) expires on 15 June 2026 if not made permanent by a decision of the
council or one of its committees.1.4 Notes that a new ETRO to enact the March 2024 decision has been on hold pending the Standards Commission hearing, but that given the standards commission decision, proceeding with this may be procedurally unwise.
Proposed Action/Decision
Council:
2.1 Agrees that the members of Transport and Environment Committee will be briefed by officers on the options available to the council in respect of the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route within 3 working days of this decision;
2.2. Agrees that an urgent report will be presented to Transport and Environment Committee on 2 April 2026 setting out options for the future of the Quiet Route;
2.3 Agrees that officers should take such measures as are necessary under delegated authority to ensure the existing modal filters and other measures that make up the Quiet Route are not removed until a procedurally correct re-run of the decision of 7 March 2024 is taken.
However - it’s down to Lord Provost whether this is ruled as urgent and heard at meeting.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Rule not urgent, on the basis that the Lord Provost considers the council to be in a legally competent position because the decision was taken during the enquiry... which of course is incorrect, because the enquiry happened because of the decision being corrupted by the reasons for the enquiry.
Weird one. However, this motion and engagement with officers and attention of Convener should mean it comes to TEC 2nd April in some form. Is there still time to sort it before 15th June? Who knows.
Posted 2 months ago # -
A local resident has just made me aware that the Standards Commission recently published its full decision on their website:
https://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/uploads/files/1774265414260323WrittenDecision.pdf
As a quick reminder of the current state of play:
- The current, status quo ETRO for the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route will expire 15th June, and if not made permanent or replaced with another order this will lead to measures needing to be taken out along the full route; there is a meeting in early June of the TRO Sub-committee, however this being a mere fortnight ahead of the ETRO expiry makes it very unlikely that a permanent order could be made in time. Perhaps we might see the Transport & Environment Committee ('TEC') call for an urgent additional TRO Sub-committee meeting sooner than June, depending on the outcome of 2nd April TEC.
- While there were reassurances in the amendment brought by then TEC convener Scott Arthur that filters would not be removed until Option 3 measures are in place and could be reverted during the trial, this does not (to our understanding) supersede the in-built timescale of an ETRO's legality. It could be argued that the reassurances to keep the filters are only in place if the council decides it can press ahead with the Option 3 ETRO (TRO/25/17), which seems very unlikely given the conduct debacle.
- Last week at full Council, Cllr Chas Booth for the Green party brought an emergency motion to push for officers and the administration to move quickly to secure the route and prepare such for TEC at 2nd April; this was ruled not urgent by the Lord Provost, who said:
"My understanding is that we are in a legally competent position - that the Transport and Environment Committee took a decision on how to proceed on this while the inquiry was underway and that there is therefore no legal reason why we need to proceed as a matter of emergency at this stage, but I'm sure the convener of Transport and Environment Committee has heard what you have said today and that the matter will be dealt with at the next TEC committee, which happens I think quite shortly in April."
- The 'Install Option 3 with extended Option 1 fallback' ETRO (TRO/25/17) is 'ready to advertise' according to officers that worked on it - however we would expect them not to go ahead with this if the decisions that lead to it can be called into question via Standards Commission findings for Cllrs Munro and Ross, so this is likely dead in the water. On this note - I would be interested in hearing from anyone whether the feeling is that a quiet route with Option 3 ETRO enacted is better than no quiet route at all (?) given the current position - as we would still have the opportunity to revert to the Option 1 (slash extended / option 2) layout within it during the trial period.
- The Green group are understood to be bringing an adjusted version of their emergency motion to TEC on 2nd April - the full TEC paperwork should be published some time this week which we can scour for any signs of what the administration are looking to propose - though amendments I think can come later.
Posted 1 month ago # -
If the ETRO falls and the barriers/planters are removed, there must be a reasonable chance that there will be no replacement (E)TRO and the road layout will revert to pre-covid car domination.
Would this affect the northern leg of the quiet route too? I honestly can't remember how this was all agreed!
Posted 1 month ago # -
Unbelievably, yes - the ETRO is for the full length of the route from James Gillespies Primary to Braidburn Ter.
And there will clearly be those within the Council that would be glad of some peace either way...
Posted 1 month ago # -
Okay - this is a long shot, but there may be an alternative statutory provision that could be used to keep the current infrastructure in place. Section 152(3A) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 allows a roads authority to impose a Temporary Redetermination Order (RSO) for a period of up to 18 months. This can be done with almost no notice or consultation. The Council could designate the sections of road on which the current planters/barriers sit for use by bikes and pedestrians only.
The barriers/planters could stay in place as a necessary feature to enforce this requirement.
As far as I am aware, this power has never been used. I may well be wrong that it can be used in this way. Still - no harm in asking the Council whether it would be possible.
Posted 1 month ago # -
there will clearly be those within the Council that would be glad of some peace either way
You can be sure there won't be peace if they take the filter outside the school out. There's supposed to be *two* crossing guards there, and currently we have none. The filter was there to remove the need for one of the crossing guards.
And I know parents that have threatened civil disobedience if the filter goes
Posted 1 month ago # -
It's impossible to recruit long term crossing guards. SMPS has several vacancies, finally filled one after several years at Morningside Drive but only after a child was hit by a car there. Couple of months later and the new recruit has already left. Don't blame them, they were constantly getting cars driving at them aggressively.
Infrastructure seems to be the only way to create safe crossing points for kids - it'd be an absolute scandal if they took those filters out at Gillespies.
Posted 1 month ago # -
@pringlis - completely agree. Your post got me thinoing about another possible leigsiative stopgap that could be used to keep the filters in place while a new (E)TRO is worked up. A temporary TRO can be put in place to prevent danger to the public from traffic.
Could the Council impose a TTRO on the basis it prevents road danger? Especially on a route that serves so many schools and community facilities/amenities. Again, a bit of a long shot, but would be worth investigating.
Posted 1 month ago # -
I suspect there will be multiple deputations requests for next TEC
Maybe piles of letters from individuals
Perhaps paper not emails
“Delivered by bike” of course…
Posted 1 month ago # -
@Morningsider someone I know has put the proposal for Temporary RSO - with your commentary - in front of (anonymously) the Transport Convener and officer involved in Quiet Route (but not officer McMeddes as I believe he has moved on from the council? I might be making that up). Also sent to Green group who are understood to be bringing an adjustment to their emergency motion to TEC.
Would the issue with the TTRO not be that these schemes originally went in under TTRO? Spaces for People (2020) PDF - Can we legitimately have TTRO –> ETRO –> TTRO? Perhaps not.
Posted 1 month ago # -
@chdot Braid Avenue Residents group are considering another deputation.
Posted 1 month ago # -
@bakky - honestly, I'm not sure whether a TTRO is a goer. The road order system was never designed for situations like this. I certainly think the Council could at least consider it as a last resort to maintain the quiet route until it can get its house in order.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Perhaps it would be more effective to bring Anne Hidalgo over from Paris, and she can kick some [Rule 2]ing [Rule 2]s.
Posted 1 month ago # -
but not officer McMeddes as I believe he has moved on from the council? I might be making that up
Still at the council, but I believe has recently changed roles.
Posted 1 month ago # -
@Frenchy thanks for that - will reach out and see what the score is.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Saw big Rurigdh if that is how he spells it a couple of weeks back - think new post rather than offski from the Death Starunless he was in for his pencil sharpener. The cargo bikes were in today i had a shot on an Urban Arrow and the owner was keeping her eye on me as i went away round the corner of the courtyard before returning
Posted 1 month ago # -
The Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route will be discussed at TEC on 2nd April.
So now is a good time to write to your ward councillors, copying-in the TEC councillors. It's best to write a short anecdote (or two) on why the QR is important to you and why you think it should be kept. Be sure to include your name and address!
Motion 9.2 - Implications of Standards Commission decision for Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=7659&Ver=4
Ward councillors:
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=WARD&VW=LIST&PIC=0TEC councillors:
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=136Posted 1 month ago # -
So now is a good time to write to your ward councillors, copying-in the TEC councillors. It's best to write a short anecdote (or two) on why the QR is important to you and why you think it should be kept.
Also bear in mind the view of certain elder residents who don't live in The Braid Estate™ per se but near it, who drove, and drive, often through it and think that SfP- and generally LTN-type measures are farcical for their prevention of 'rat running', given the self-evident 'benefits' of reducing the burden on 'the other roads' that are in turn more congested.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Not forgetting of course -
“
Edinburgh declared a climate emergency in 2019 and a nature emergency in 2023. Both need to be tackled with urgency while also ensuring a Just Transition to a greener, fairer and more sustainable city for all who live, work and visit here.
…
improving public transport and active travel routes across the city through projects like Trams to Newhaven and City Centre West to East Link (CCWEL) cycle route
“
https://netzeroedinburgh.org/edinburgh-recognised-globally-for-climate-action-and-transparency
So any notion that some consideration/priority should be given to anyone whose driving choices are marginally inconvenienced should be laughed at (privately) by officials and councillors.
Of course that’s not where things are.
It’s not even, simply, left/right/other (Party) politics.
For all parties (in different ways) it’s about ‘electoral advantage’.
With the underlying assumption that ‘voters are more likely to be concerned about driving, potholes etc. than any other issues’.
This is unlikely to be true, but if it is, it’s up to politicians to lead/persuade/educate about CEC’s various policies and at a time when ‘the Climate’ is getting worse, there’s talk of petrol rationing and speed reductions it’s vital that any attempt to reverse the most minor of measures to actually improve the lives of Edinburgh residents - some too young to drive/vote - should be rejected unanimously.
This is just another bit of SA’s (attempt at) populism and its toxic consequences.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Other highlights include:
reducing city emissions by 48% since 2005 and halving per capita emissions in the same time period
And how much of that, CEC, would have happened regardless, as a consequence of the national decarbonisation of electricity generation?
Posted 1 month ago # -
Hearing rumours that officers will, after all, bring a Late Report on options to TEC 2nd April.
Posted 1 month ago # -
“officers will, after all“
Is that likely to be ‘good or bad’?
Posted 1 month ago # -
My opinion - anything at all getting in front of TEC to kick the process up the behind before status quo ETRO is ripped out is a good thing.
They’ll make recommendations and along with Green motion should mean that at the very least, the route isn’t just timed out and ripped out; it’s one of make status quo permanent via emergency TRO Sub, or re-take vote on the options from consultation and implement accordingly (but there’s not really time for this one), or say that vote was fine and advertise the new ETRO that’s ready to implement with cycle lanes on Braid Ave etc. The third is the worst possible option but at least includes the ability to revert and make permanent based on residents feedback during trial period.
And if the late report recommends just ripping the whole thing out, the Green motion is the tool to vote against that, and the deputations can speak to the storm in the teacup this is as far as how bedded in the measures are and the benefits we stand to lose.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Thanks
Posted 1 month ago # -
!! Late report from Officers just dropped:
Posted 1 month ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
