CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 17years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
If I comment here, will that fix pagination being broken? Maybe this is what caused the seemingly 'disappeared' comments...
EDIT: It did. Page 23 didn't show any comments or pagination, until this comment was made, now it only shows this comment until the conversation continues. This may account for the perceived disappearance of comments prior, or may be unrelated.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: [redacted]
Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 at 14:31
Subject: Recusal from TRO Sub-committee?
To: <cllr.kevin.lang@edinburgh.gov.uk>, <committee.services@edinburgh.gov.uk>, <gavin.king@edinburgh.gov.uk>Dear Councillor Lang,
I am writing to you as a resident of EH10 with young children, who frequently uses the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route to reach the city centre with my children cycling independently on the route.
I am concerned that given the quasi-judicial nature of the TRO Sub-committee that many comments and actions from yourself throughout the many years of the Travelling Safely programme could be taken, individually or as a whole, as pre-judgement on the scheme.
As such I would ask that you seek the advice of committee services as to whether the comments below could be construed as pre-judging the quiet route as 'contentious', 'traffic order sleight-of-hand', 'controversial' and the source of 'far and away... the most negative feedback' — and subsequently mean you may need to recuse yourself from the decision on 12th May?
In the 2024 meeting, you also made the case the consultation on options for the Braid Estate "has a clear majority in favour of one option" when no single option in that consultation extended beyond 47% of the respondents' vote.
Additionally to the meeting references below, in June 2023 you were quoted publicly in the Edinburgh Evening News as saying "We think it is time to think again on those schemes which were clearly the most controversial."
It is vital that the schemes can be heard for permanence without the possibility of further standards commission intervention and possible censure for a code of conduct violation, plaguing what is already a long-running and sorry saga for those of us in the south of the city and its relative dearth of safe cycling infrastructure prior to these schemes.
Regards,
[name redacted]
- - - - - -
2021-06-17 3:53:50 into webcast recording, item 7 a) Potential Retention of Spaces for People Measures
“I’m glad that the report was changed to automatically refer it to Full Council; I think it's right that something as high-profile as this and in many ways as contentious as this is is decided by all the councillors that had been elected”
“…I am concerned, I am deeply concerned at the fact that the ETRO process itself is being viewed as a rather convenient traffic order sleight-of-hand way of meaning temporary schemes are going to be in place for three years.”
2023-06-15 5:00:42 into webcast recording, item 9.1 Motion By Councillor Lang - Travelling Safely Schemes
“That's why we think in the Liberal Democrats that it is time to think again on those schemes which were clearly the most controversial Convener, and we have been consistent in the approach that we took last year and identifying four schemes that by far and away created the most negative feedback in the consultation that we ran.”
2024-03-07 4:07 into webcast recording, item 7 c) Travelling Safely Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Connection – Public Engagement and Next Steps
At this meeting, you voted in favour of a motion that would remove the filters now up for discussion for permanence in the Braid Estate.
In seconding the Liberal Democrat position,
“I often hear the 'consultation is not a referendum' phrase used.
“I think it is difficult, though, when you run a consultation like has been done, and you effectively ask people to vote for one of three options and people respond on that basis… that when you took into account second preferences of option 2, which was clearly the least favoured option, it actually ended up about 60-40 in favour of option of option 3.
“And I do think that if it had been the other way around, some members of the Committee would respectfully be saying ‘but most people wanted option 1’.
“And I think I have made this point before as well, I actually I agree with Councillor Bandel, that there is a bit of an issue in terms of consultations being self-selecting audiences, I worry that we do sometimes run a risk of making that worse, because people feel there is no point responding to consultations because councils have already made up their minds. And so I do think there are consequences when you run a consultation, you get a significant response back, that has a clear majority in favour of one option and to then go against that option, we need to recognise that has an impact as well in terms of confidence on this Council.
“My other point is this, and I am surprised that it feels like we've had a debate today as to whether segregated cycle lanes are good or not. This has felt really odd to me because it's constantly been drummed into me about how important and how valuable segregation ism and when I go to Cycling UK, one of the very first things that comes up is separated cycle lanes are good for business, reduce congestion, are fantastic value for money, get more people cycling and are what the public want.
“But I think what we actually have before us today, on option 3, is an option that most people said they wanted and actually delivers segregated cycling that, I think, will make it safer for those cyclists.”
people feel there is no point responding to consultations because councils have already made up their minds.
That sounds like a variation on a referendum. The consultation should be about the best way to achieve the outcome that has already been decided upon. If there were ever options ranging from "keep it and make it amazing!" to "remove it entirely", then that isn't a consultation, that's a vote.
An updated report for TRO Sub-committee finds a THIRD erroneously worded filter to remove on on Canaan Lane:
Without a doubt, this MUST come back to the Transport Committee and not just be thrown away by TRO Sub:
4.45 Given the information that has since been identified regarding the written descriptions of the prohibitions of motor vehicles at Braid Avenue, Hermitage Gardens and Canaan Lane in ETRO/21/29D, this decision could potentially be reconsidered by Transport and Environment Committee. However, the next meeting of that Committee is scheduled for 18 June 2026, by which time ETRO/21/29D will have expired.
Given measures were on the ground for seven months in 2024 without legal backing, between orders - surely a minor delay while the mistakes are taken to TEC and then referred back to TRO Sub is at least feasible?
We cannot lose miles of safe route to paperwork incompetence. The south of the city has too little else for safe cycling.
The current game plan appears to be to hope / lobby for TRO Sub making the measures they can permanent, and then push for the incorrectly worded features to come back to TEC - while seeking reassurance from officers that between 15th (expiry) and 18th June (TEC) filters will not be removed.
I believe omnishambles is the correct term. I have some others but they violate Rule 2.
I have heard the phrase "a travesty of incompetence" used too.
It looks like they want to abandon the proposed permanent Clinton Rd filter as well
The Canaan Lane filter has nothing to do with the Clinton Rd one, it’s on the other side of Newbattle Tce, and there is no interdependency
As others have pointed out, all smells fishy
Here's the relevant text from the report, given that I'm now locked-out of my Flickr account from the web, and the app is useless for getting the static image:
5.1.5 Transport and Environment Committee approved an Addendum on 2 April 2026 instructing that, if the decision of the TRO Sub-Committee is to retain the modal filters north of Cluny Avenue, a permanent TRO would be advertised as a priority for a modal filter at Clinton Road. As the Canaan Lane prohibition of motor vehicles needs to be removed from the final order, this process cannot progress until the matter is reconsidered by Transport and Environment Committee
Current understanding is that we might be able to save the Canaan Lane filter -
The current prohibition of motor vehicles is, on paper, more onerous than the implementation. The council has within its powers the ability to amend the order to make it less stringent, so it could reduce the 32 metres in the written order to the 2m that are actually required (between the Royal Blind School exit and the car parking for the housing further north, i.e. where the filter currently is).
This in turn unlocks the Clinton Rd filter as per their stupid terms above.
The Braid Rd and Hermitage Gdns measures at this point just seem lost, unless questioning Officers about the wider legal competence proves fruitful when TRO Sub meet.
Final (?) map update; Canaan lane re-colour-coded, and update to the position of the proposed Clinton Rd filter.
(Please use links for download, not hotlinking):
PDF for download:
https://edi.bike/files/2026/05-G2M-Map-Update/G2M-Map-Update-2026--v2.pdf
3000px wide PNG export:
https://edi.bike/files/2026/05-G2M-Map-Update/G2M-Map-Update-2026--v2.png
Keep Our Kids Safe Rally
On Tuesday 12th May, the council will make a decision whether to make all, some or none of the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route permanent. This route protects children travelling to 6 primary schools and James Gillespie’s High School.
We’re asking everyone to join us at lunchtime on Tuesday 12th May outside the City Chambers at 12:30pm to show the strength of community support for these road safety measures. Our message being “Keep Our Kids Safe”. We know a show of community support outside the meeting venue works, so let’s get this crucial route for kids made permanent!
Not able to join us on the day? Then please write to your ward councillors, copying-in the TRO councillors, by Tuesday to ask for the entire route to be made permanent.
https://blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk/keep-our-kids-safe/
There is a QR code on the website to automatically draft a blank email to all of the TRO councillors
Welp I've written to my councillors, 2 of whom sit on TRO subcommittee.
I've stressed in particular that the correctly permitted Braid Road filter should not be removed as even without the rest of the route it makes it possible to use the tiger crossing without being run down by speeding motons.
@bakky, many thanks for the very helpful diagram. It was extremely hard to understand the dogs' breakfast of orders without that!
Here's an update that has been sent to TRO Sub councillors too.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16fq4ingt7tYOKVzDIIdYs0_i5imbVtoU/view?usp=sharing
(Easiest downloaded and zoomed around).
Makes the case for retention of Braid Rd filter and Canaan Lane filter on Tuesday, and the return of Braid Ave and Hermitage Gdns filters via TEC (these cannot be made permanent as-is on Tuesday due to how extreme the changes to the ETRO wording would need to be for these measures, as we understand it).
I have emailed the TRO councillors - thanks for the link
“
And a spokesperson for cycle campaign edi.bike said the council should be looking to preserve the successes of the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route and argued the council had powers to vary the restrictions in the ETRO and allow the filter to be kept
“
Amendment
Cllr Stanford accept report except for Braid Road filter
Seconded Cllr Key
Amendment 5
Motion 4
Shame that the Canaan Lane filter couldn't be salvaged too, but officers seemed quite firm on that.
I guess keeping the Braid Road filter is at least a symbol that the anti's haven't won, and that the battle isn't over yet...
Painful though to think how things could have gone if the paperwork had been correct, certainly felt like the vote would have been to retain in entirety if the wording had allowed.
Convenor Councillor Margaret Arma Graham -
“What’s in front of us isn’t in the spirit of the order”
Cllr Dan Heap
“Very disappointed with where we’ve got to”
Seems that today’s decision means that the things to be removed have to be removed for 6 months
Unclear if any new TRO process could be done in 6 months
BUT seems nothing will be removed until there’s a tender process and contract
Great Spokes thread
Let's imagine that the filters could be removed on the ground today. If they can't bring forward an alternative proposal for six months, that takes us to just before Christmas, and less than six months from the next council election in May 2027, so the current administration/committees won't be in place for even a six month evaluation period of /those/ measures.
Does this make it very unlikely that it will move forward again until after the next election, subject to the makeup of the council at that time?
Further questions: does the remaining filter now become permanent? Or is it still subject to further antics?
Was in the room today, for the first time.
Canaan Lane came down to issue of reference point - “access to Newbattle Terrace” not a street name / erroneous.
Officers repeatedly said report to fix will come back to TEC.
Comiston Rd and Braid Rd lanes now permanent.
Filters: Whitehouse Loan at both Bruntsfield Links and Strathearn now permanent, so is Braid Rd thanks to a Green amendment (Staniforth) backed by Heap (green) Gardiner (SNP) and Key (SNP) with Jack Caldwell showing us that some Lib Dems are in fact of sound mind and heart and casting the deciding vote, vs. a timorous administration with a bovvered Mowat and a virtual Davidson (LDs) who did not manage to move report as is.
Another battle won - let’s see what comes of TEC papers for June 18th.
Mowat is Tory
Hope it was ‘fun’ in the room
On line sound was terribly - worsened by external tourist entertainment
Also the video was weird - constant moving split screens between two and three feeds - not always on the speakers!
I wonder if the fact that they were “only” removed because of an error in the wording will make it easier or harder to bring another scheme forward. On the one hand you could say that the decision to have a permanent filter has already been made (by TEC) and the next scheme will just align with that, but on the other hand are we now looking at a laborious “from first principles” approach where the whole principle would have to be re-litigated in front of the 2027 committee
I think there will be a whole load of ‘behind the scenes tightening up of processes and checks.
It may be a result of lack of staff or Covid hangover or constant meddling/misdirecting/flipflopping by the likes of SA
I hope there will be a better class of councillors generally, but that may well be severe wishful thinking in the ‘modern world’
Unless there is a Reform takeover of the Council, unlikely but not impossible, I think current policies will remain mostly the same.
“Another battle won - let’s see what comes of TEC papers for June 18th.“
Yes
But but but
This should never have happened
See above for some of the (probable) contributory reasons.
Someone somewhere messed up. More than once, maybe not the same person, maybe not a CEC employee (I don’t know)
It’s clear that there are officers who put in stressful time to try and fix things before today’s meeting
I suspect some may be pleased/relieved that the report was amended and they will work to follow today’s decision
It’s also good that there are Cllrs from various Parties that care about road safety, children’s safety, community safety etc
If you know any of them, or they are your councillors, please say thank you - they need it (and deserve it)
ALSO thanks to anyone CCEers (or not) ppl from Spokes and a wide range of ‘interest groups’ - active travel, neighbourhood, school communities etc etc who have done stuff (tiny or continuous)
‘We’/you/they SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD TO
If you have, thank you. If you haven’t, don’t worry - (unfortunately) lot’s more to do
Come to PoP, that’s doing something (perhaps offer to marshal - other thread…)
An achievement in itself and a celebration of bits of ‘progress’ and a reinforcement of the reason why all sorts of activities are still necessary
Clearly a lot of copy/pasting going on with the filter wording over the years through various ETROs/TTROs/TROs/etc and no-one actually noticing that the wording didn't match the drawings or the reality on the ground.
Presumably external consultants worked on this as well as council staff? I'd be looking for a refund.
Clearly the (E)TRO system isn't fit for purpose. Two minor tweaks should be made as a matter of urgency:
1. TROs should be map based - proposed restrictions should be set out on a map/diagram instead of using written descriptions. This already happens for some Orders.
2. Councils should have the power to amend errors in draft orders up until approval, where this would not change the extent of proposed restrictions previously consulted on.
I think this is all within the power of the Scottish Government to change, probably via secondary legislation.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts