So, from a quick scan... kicking the can down the road until TRO Sub Committee meets on the 2nd of June and then likely a decision between Keep As-Is, or Remove Entirely? Or maybe tweak to remove the Braid Estate but keep the Whitehouse Loan section... sounds like the segregated lanes, etc are off the menu?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route (Inc Braid Road/Estate)
(733 posts)-
Posted 1 month ago #
-
@ pringlis
Now down to politicians at TEC and the dodgy sub
“
4.11
Taking into account all relevant considerations, acknowledging the balance of representations received to the current trial scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D and recognising the short length of time before the TRO/21/29D expires, officers feel that Option C is the most appropriate course of action. This would allow all objections and representations to be considered in a quasi-judicial committee.
“
(Link from previous page)
Posted 1 month ago # -
Right, but if Councillors go with the recommendation of Option C then that only considers the current scheme as-is though, from my read. The proposed changes with the segregated lanes/etc are off the table. So with Option C it'd be:
* Keep scheme exactly as is but with permanent materials
* Remove scheme in entirety
* Remove part of scheme (probably the "Braid Estate" section, but keep northern sections)I'm not sure what outcome of this meeting I prefer! I don't like that it turns into a high stakes all or nothing for the southern section, but equally if they go with Option B of advertising the new scheme then many parts of the current scheme that I do like would definitely be removed.
I suppose one advantage of moving to TRO Sub Committee meeting is that there's more time to campaign...
Posted 1 month ago # -
How has it come to this? Really, how? In a country and city that have declared a climate emergency, with policies to reduce car use and increase cycling and walking, tackle record levels of inactivity and obesity, reduce air and noise pollution, and develop 20-minute neighbourhoods.
We have a super low cost intervention (just six modal filters), proven to reduce total traffic. Welcomed by many residents and with no meanigful negative impact on business or public services. In place for five years...and it could be removed!?
This is the only meaningful active travel intervention south of the Meadows/Bruntsfield Links I have seen in my lifetime. Myself and my family have directly benefitted from this. Micro-Morningsider took her first solo cycle to the Meadows just a couple of weeks ago - only possible due to the quiet route.
The thought this could be removed makes me sick. Doubly so as there is no upside - just a moments gratification for a handful of car-brained dinosaurs, before they move on to their next facebook induced bloodvessel buster from the "clowncil".
Posted 1 month ago # -
And why are The Braid Estate's modal filters so contentious when there are plenty of other examples in Edinburgh that are permanent? Most examples I can think of were put in to benefit road noise and safety by preventing drivers circumventing major traffic light controlled junctions.
Posted 1 month ago # -
A bit more for you;
Option C: Officers have implied that there is no strong basis for removal of measures within the objections that TRO Sub would consider.
TRO Sub has been a pain in the past, but there's also no party whip there for votes. While it's quasi-judicial, external groups can still be applying scrutiny, comms campaigns and pressure in the run-up to the vote.
Option B: This is what we would have had if the Standards Commission stuff hadn't happened - the 'Option 3' cycleways on Hermitage Gdns and Braid Ave. But this would leave council open to judicial review as the very plans are perjured by the involvement of councillors with a vested interest. Most legally risky route.
Option C would need follow-up work to try and establish the tweaks that improve the Braids LTN and leaks in the northern end, namely:
- The filter for Clifton Rd
- Rotation of Braid Avenue filter to reduce persistent rat running through
- Introduction of north end Braid Rd filter to discourage traffic passing south end Braid Rd filter then turning left-left down Hermitage Gdns then Braid Cres to reach Braid Rd and rat-run it to Morningside.All of these are not in current ETRO but would have been in new one (along with some road marking renewals and additions for the Buckstone shops to Hermitage end of Braid Rd).
Posted 1 month ago # -
“How has it come to this? Really, how? In a country and city that have declared a climate emergency, with policies to reduce car use and increase cycling and walking, tackle record levels of inactivity and obesity, reduce air and noise pollution, and develop 20-minute neighbourhoods.“
Valid Q and good summary of many issues
Valid Q and good summary of things that have informed CEC POLICIES
In short (I suggest) primarily lack of Leadership by Cllrs.
I DO blame SA for a lot of this - particularly in relation to the ‘Braid Estate’
Also the aftermath of the last election where ‘anyone but SNP’ was the imperative of some of the Cllrs
The (notionally) ruling group is (to a large extent) subject to the wishes of the Ts&LDs
But apart from such dubious ways of ‘running’ the City, there’s the decades long acceptance of car use as normal, sacred even, and drivers, largely, seen as more important than those who can’t afford (or choose not to demand unfettered use of) cars
Imagine Edinburgh without 50 years of Spokes or all the activist hours spent on this tiny inconvenience to a tiny minority
Well done to all involved in this campaign that shouldn’t need to exist
And shame on all those who play selfish games and don’t consider others
Posted 1 month ago # -
“
What’s clear is that in addition to better, safer infrastructure, riding a bike as a child is a key predictor of riding later in life. And we believe that riding can be a great complement to other sports and physical activities in children’s lives. Organisations getting more kids on bikes are incredibly important to the future of cycling and young people’s long term health”
“
Posted 1 month ago # -
Some amendments proposed to the officer report:
Labour:
Agrees that if the decision of the TRO Sub-Committee is to retain the modal filters north of Cluny Avenue a permanent TRO will be advertised as a priority for a modal filter at Clinton Road
Greens:
Agrees to receive a report following the meeting of TRO sub-committee on 2 June 2026, setting out the decision of that committee and any implications arising therefrom
Tories:
Delete "Approves proceeding with Option C as presented within the report" and replace
with:
"Approves proceeding with Option A, allowing TRO/21/29D to expire on 15 June 2026,
and instructs the Corporate Director of Place to bring forward a report to a future meeting of this Committee on the longer-term transport needs of the Greenbank to Meadows corridor, taking into account: the experience and evidence gathered during the trial scheme; the views expressed by residents through the representations process; the transport and road safety needs of the wider A702 corridor in south Edinburgh; the absence of a dedicated park and ride facility on this route; and the impact of increased traffic arising from residential development in Midlothian on the Edinburgh road network; with a view to informing any future decisions on changes to the road layout in this area with any measures to be constructed with permanent and suitable infrastructure.Posted 1 month ago # -
LibDem one too:
In 1.1.3, delete “Option C” and insert “Option B”.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Almost comical
“
instructs the Corporate Director of Place to bring forward a report to a future meeting of this Committee on the longer-term transport needs of the Greenbank to Meadows corridor,
“
Ok
“
taking into account: the experience and evidence gathered during the trial scheme; the views expressed by residents through the representations process;
“
I.e ‘the ones who didn’t like it
“
the transport and road safety needs of the wider A702 corridor in south Edinburgh;
the absence of a dedicated park and ride facility on this route;
and the impact of increased traffic arising from residential development in Midlothian on the Edinburgh road network; with a view to informing any future decisions on changes to the road layout in this area
“
Long report then tying up officials for years…
“
with any measures to be constructed with permanent and suitable infrastructure.
“
More things they can complain about
Posted 1 month ago # -
Amendments to the Late Report have been published;
- Conservatives (2 votes): Support Option A (p33) (quelle surprise)
- Lib Dems (2 votes): Support Option B (p31)
- Greens (2 votes): Support Option C (p32)
- SNP (3 votes): Rumoured to support Option C
- Labour (2 votes, Convening): Amendment (p30) does not express support for a particular option, but instead says if TRO Sub make the north end of the route permanent, the promised filter for Clinton Rd that would have come with the new ETRO will be implemented.
So - this will come down to how the administration looks to vote on this matter. Rumoured to support Option C.
Posted 1 month ago # -
the absence of a dedicated park and ride facility on this route;
If after this they'd like to divert their energies into campaigning for a dedicated park and ride that serves the A702 that is something I'd support!
Posted 1 month ago # -
Ooops missed the other update posts, should have refreshed first!
Posted 1 month ago # -
If after this they'd like to divert their energies into campaigning for a dedicated park and ride that serves the A702 that is something I'd support!
100%. This would do far more for the congestion on the route than any other currently available option - especially if paired with an eventual congestion charge.
Posted 1 month ago # -
and the impact of increased traffic arising from residential development in Midlothian on the Edinburgh road network
Well, this is Midlothian you're talking about. We peaked by converting the Edinburgh, Loanhead and Roslin Railway to walking and cycling, and we've done nothing since other than a bit of resurfacing on the route between Rosewell and Penicuik. Midlothian has essentially done absolutely nothing meaningful to improve active travel options into Edinburgh, especially along the A702/A703 and A701, or even enncourage greater active travel uptake.
It might have been a CEC-led thing but not only did the AECOM staff not turn up to the A702-and-beyond morning travel survey back in November, the AECOM rep who did turn up in the evening never replied to me for further data gathering. @bakky, did he reply to you?
with any measures to be constructed with permanent and suitable infrastructure.
Ah yes, the famous wish list that keeps consultants well paid for years.
Posted 1 month ago # -
@Arellcat I have never had any further contact from them; but through the process of trying to chase up their existence after the morning no-show, I did end up with the email addresses for both the Midlothian Active Travel team lead and his deputy, if anyone wants to noise them up!
Posted 1 month ago # -
Lib Dem and Tory alliance defeated 7-4 at TEC; Quiet Route ETRO/21/29D will go to TRO Sub to be made permanent.
Does the following public statement calling the route ‘controversial’ rule Mr. Lang out from participating?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsIuclWTEr1JlfWCbVNa1n6bfR62-Axs_osgLOqLwlk/edit?usp=drivesdk
Posted 1 month ago # -
Didn’t he pull out of the meeting on the Corstorphine LTN after similar comments?
Posted 1 month ago # -
Councillor Ben Parker’s comments:
https://cllrbenparker.substack.com/p/update-6-greenbank-meadows-quiet
Posted 1 month ago # -
I know the TRO Sub Committee isn't meant to be whipped, but I thought it interesting to note the party makeup.
2 Labour
2 SNP
2 Lib Dem
2 Green, 1 of whom who the Council website lists as independent but joined the Greens in December which I wasn't actually aware of. https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-independent-councillor-ross-mckenzie-joins-greens-5432908?utm_social_post_id=618003816&utm_social_handle_id=34580330
1 Conservative5 votes for a majority. Presumably SNP and Greens are a definite Retain, and then I'd hope at least one Labour would go with their Labour colleagues on the Transport Committee's vote. Do officers make a recommendation for the TRO Sub Committee group too?
Posted 1 month ago # -
I believe the wording in these reports is usually; notes the comments and objections, recommends setting them aside and making permanent. Recent example here.
The issue that I see with TRO Sub - and I probably have a Travelling Safely areas debacle chip on my shoulder - is that it's Lang's (and to some degree, Osler's) place to grandstand and gotcha over officers in trying to make a case - essentially, grandiose concern-trolling.
Officers have implied there is nothing substantial enough in the objections to warrant removal. So potentially this organ behaves itself.
Some aspects I'm interested in;
- Whether any public comment rules any particular participant out;
— When the time window for comments on ETRO/21/29 ('South' before it was split into A (General South) B (Braid Rd) C (Comiston Rd) and D ('Da' Quiet Route)) was, i.e. which half-year were objections from;
— There are 0 objections from the scheme-specific ETRO/21/29D as they were all carried forward from South; there are 13 general objections and 148 scheme-specific ones. We haven't managed to lay hands on all of them yet; they seem to have only been released partially;
— Whether out of the objections there are, any of them pertain to aspects that don't exist or are outside of the ETRO. In particular, complaints about the junction at Hermitage Dr & Braidburn Ter, which isn't in the scope of the ETRO (waiting for confirmation) but is a source of contention for those who enjoy both roasting and mini-roundabouts. If they don't mention the Braid Rd planter or access to Braid Rd, it's not relevant to the quiet route - and the junction here was very likely reconfigured with parallel crossings etc _after_ the ETRO objection window so is completely different now anyway following road safety works on Braidburn Ter that saw it modernised.
- Whether officers can be encouraged to include the 'Enhanced Option 1' items (rotation of Braid Avenue filter and additional Braid Rd filter near northern end) as recommendations in report to TRO Sub. These would either plug LTN leaks, or at the very least give the antis something to focus on and shoot down;
— Whether there will be any new monitoring data, estimates of impact if removed, etc to bring the case for the quiet route up to date.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Braid Estate Safety First, which represents residents of Midmar Gardens, Midmar Drive, Midmar Avenue and Hermitage Gardens, is unhappy with the current measures, claiming traffic is now worse across much of the area.
He continued: “We disagree with the regularly used description of the current layout as ‘much-loved’. It is certainly not much-loved by a majority of the Braid estate, where it is the narrower streets that have become rat runs, speeds have increased to due driver frustration, and there are regular bumps between cars.
“The reality for those of us living here is that, compared with pre-pandemic, traffic has increased everywhere in the Braid estate other that on the main, widest, straightest, traffic light controlled road – ie. Braid Avenue.”
Isn’t this claim at odds with the traffic monitoring?
Posted 1 month ago # -
Unfortunately archive.ph has been ‘unreliable’ recently
Original here (if you subscribe or are prepared to tick for cookies/sdverts)
Posted 1 month ago # -
Ah, those famously narrow streets in the Braid estate, such as:
Midmar Gardens: 8.5 metre wide carriageway
Midmar Drive: 8.5 metere wide carriageway
Midmar Avenue: 8.5 metre wide carriageway
Hermitage Gardens: 8.5 metre wide carriagewayAny driver who finds it frustrating to drive along such streets might want to hand their licence back.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Bit devoid of any facts or evidence, that article
With the EEN manufacturing false controversy and false balance, all because of a handful of drivers, versus the 1000s of parents and children who love the route.
Traffic on Midmar Gardens has increased from 5 cars per hour to 10. Still very low absolute figures, but a doubling as seen by residents
Anyway, if your problem is too much traffic, the solution is more modal filters
Posted 1 month ago # -
“all because of a handful of drivers, versus the 1000s of parents and children who love the route”
Probably
But could be where the ‘silent majority’ lose out…
Posted 1 month ago # -
A little bit of devil's avocado from me, here;
TRO Sub is quasi-judicial
Officers have 'implied' there is not 'strong grounds' for removal at TRO Sub
EEN and the weird wee men / motoring lobby can be as butthurt about this as they like, but the democratic executive committee responsible at the council has taken a vote to make it permanent.
Is the rest not just noise? Yes, EEN and angry letters are going to make some impression on the councillors involved (even though in theory, quasi-judicial means objective and not open to lobbying). Their own biases will come along for the ride; but the process is, officers are going to recommend the route is made permanent and a new filter at Clinton Rd (possibly more if they're bold enough); so if there's not grounds in the objections, is there a big risk of this falling?
Posted 1 month ago # -
(I have faith in the impotence of these groups. Who turned up at TEC, who wrote deputations, who were talking to officers and councillors ahead of the vote, in number? Where's the deputation from grumpy Paul up the road? They are observers, not do-ers. And they're too late - I hope)
Posted 1 month ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
