“I'd be looking for a refund”
That’s seriously good suggestion.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route (Inc Braid Road/Estate)
(733 posts)-
Posted 6 days ago #
-
Short thread with useful details
https://bsky.app/profile/edi.bike/post/3mlo366qgtc2s?ref=edinburghminute.com
Posted 5 days ago # -
Photo of yesterday’s demo
https://bsky.app/profile/edcriticalmass.bsky.social/post/3mlo3jdxpmc2d?ref=edinburghminute.com
Posted 5 days ago # -
Clearly the (E)TRO system isn't fit for purpose
There should also be a presumtion in favour of active travel added to the legislation - so that roads can easily be changed to make it easier to install walking, cycling and low-traffic infra, with a very high bar to cross for any objectors. Conversely, if parking or loading are to be added, there should be a rigorous process and justification to do that.
Posted 5 days ago # -
A second similar Edinburgh Live article, with more quotes:
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/our-edinburgh-childrens-safe-route-33931077
BTW, none of the people there were "furious" - the press asked us all not to smile, FFS
Posted 5 days ago # -
And a couple of better write-ups from the Edinburgh Reporter:
Posted 5 days ago # -
Ha, wee joked that we would be described as FURIOUS
Posted 5 days ago # -
First one looks a bit furious
Posted 5 days ago # -
“
Asked if there was "absolutely no way" the measures affected by the wording errors could be retained, she said: "We are not aware of any way we can retain them."
However, following the sub-committee decision, Morningside Green councillor Ben Parker said he believed the council's transport committee had the power to correct the wording and make the measures legal.
“
Posted 5 days ago # -
Pussycat
Posted 5 days ago # -
An update from Blackford Safe Routes:
https://blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk/braid-estate-and-whitehouse-loan/
Posted 5 days ago # -
Was just about to post that link!
“
Thank you to everyone who wrote to councillors about the traffic filters outside the school! Your emails made a difference, and we’re delighted to say that the council voted to make the filters on Whitehouse Loan permanent – the one outside James Gillespie’s Primary school, as well as the one at Strathearn Road.
“
Rest worth a read too
Posted 5 days ago # -
I have seen official confirmation / comms that it's now a full report coming to TEC on 18th June instead of the promised/minor Business Bulletin item.
Posted 5 days ago # -
That's positive at least. I had been hopeful they can pull the date forward but at least this gives officials time to actually form a plan, I imagine it was a mad scramble preparing for the TRO Sub. Still going to be an interesting timing challenge with the 6 month fallow period, and then a 6 month consultation period that will likely clash with council elections.
Posted 5 days ago # -
If they do a permanent TRO, there should be only 3 weeks for objections. No need to do another consultation
Posted 5 days ago # -
“and then a 6 month consultation period“
Perhaps some of our new MSPs (especially the ones who are still Cllrs) could whizz through a useful amendment banning perpetual consultations…
Perhaps not
Posted 5 days ago # -
“
ANOTHER QUIET ROADS U-TURN: Councillors on the local authority’s TRO (traffic regulation orders) sub-committee voted 5-4 to remove large parts of the five-year-old Meadows to Greenbank Quiet Route as we covered last week (Low traffic streets: Five years, two censured councillors, and endless uncertainty). An amendment from Green councillors preserved the traffic filter on Braid Road. However, after further “legal errors” were identified, all filters between Hermitage Drive and Grange Loan will now be removed, allowing cars to travel along the roads again. That includes the filters on Canaan Lane, where the Royal Blind School and Canaan Lane Primary School (opened after the quiet route was installed) are located.“
https://www.edinburghinquirer.co.uk/p/monacos-artist-to-the-stars-his-125k?
Posted 4 days ago # -
Huge if true.
Honestly, is CEC just utterly incompetent or actually malicious towards active travel?
Posted 4 days ago # -
I know I keep banginig on about this, but I think a temporary Redetermination Order could be used to keep the filters in place. The Council report stated that this could not be used as it requires the same consultation process as a full Order. This is incorrect. Section 152 (3A) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states:
(3A) Where an order under subsection (2) above states that it has effect only for such period not exceeding 18 months as is specified in the order, the order shall have effect during that period notwithstanding any failure to comply with—
(a) any regulations made under subsection (1) of section 71 of this Act; or
(b) subsection (2) of that section.The Regulations mentioned above are The Stopping Up of Roads and Private Accesses and the Redetermination of Public Rights of Passage (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1986, which sets out the process for approving a Redetermination Order - including public consultation. However, as you can see from the above quote, a temporary Redetermination Order has effect even if those Regulations are not complied with. Similarly, an Order will also have effect if the public notification and consultation requirements set out in subsection 2 of Section 71 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 are not followed.
I honestly think this might be worth pushing again - at least to get the Council to explain why they think it cannot be used. A temporary Redetermination Order could potentially be imposed within days, as it appears there is zero requirement for public consultation.
Posted 4 days ago # -
I believe TRSO was ruled out due to the timeline - Officers claimed they could not complete it by the ETRO expiry.
Posted 4 days ago # -
@bakky - I don't see how that could be the case. The Order could be drafted in a matter of hours. Officials have plenty experience drafting TTROs and Trafic Regulation Notices at very short notice, this should be no different.
Although not actually required, site notices could be posted, emergency services advised the filters remain in place (after five years - not an issue), and the Council website updated.
The Council then have 18 months to get a full TRO in place.
If keeping these filters in place is any way a priority then this is how it could be done, until a permanent legal soultion is in force.
I suspect the Council simply don't want to use an untried approach in the face of opposition from well informed anti's and with lukewarm political support for the measures.
Posted 4 days ago # -
Edinburgh roads: Call for urgent meeting to save controversial traffic filters is rejected
Posted 4 days ago # -
@ M
“but I think a temporary Redetermination Order could be used to keep the filters in place”
Just consulted another expert
“Actually I think I agree”
Posted 4 days ago # -
What to do?
FOI the council for why they think the TRSO can't be used? Would take a long time and they'd probably just come back with "information not held". By which time it's too late.
Demand a meeting with councillors? Probably best coming from ward residents though I am not one.
Of my own ward councillors I have two transport committee/TRO sub members. Dan Heap is obviously sympathetic, Denis Dixon presumably not since he voted against retaining the Braid Road filter. So not sure what would be achieved.
Lawyer-up ourselves -- Crowdfunder time? Might take too long as well.
Critical Mass through the Braid Estate every week (complete with bangin' jungle X acid-techno mix at earsplitting volume) until antis beg for mercy?
Posted 4 days ago # -
Green councillors are leading the charge on this and believe that focus on the legal instrument at use is a ‘red herring’, and that focus needs to be on a) immediacy of action and b) filters remaining in place in the interim.
While I don’t doubt TRSO would be a valid instrument and probably exactly the right choice, I do think both officers and administration are likely not going to be receptive to further calls for a specific approach, so I think the pressure being kept up on the two points above is the key. As such, deputations at TEC from Canaan Lane Primary (parent council) and Royal Blind School might well be the trick…
Posted 4 days ago # -
Cool. I agree that local activists are most likely to be able to punch through the bureaucratic indifference and I don't fall into that category.
If further letters to councillors may help I'm happy to take advice on timing. Presumably sometime shortly before the next Transport committee meeting?
Posted 4 days ago # -
When you stand back and consider it, "Council removes effective road safety measures outside school for blind and partially sighted children" really is an unbelievable state of affairs.
bakky, https://www.daddydaycareedinburgh.com/after-school-clubs/morningside-club is another one to bear in mind for deputations, and I'm happy to contact them too. They're an after school/holiday club for children who are based in the Royal Blind School (who used to run their own after school club). They walk I think ~30 children a day from SMPS at Comiston Road up to the Blind School (all in adorable little orange high vis vests) and I imagine will also be unhappy to the filter on Canaan Lane being removed.
Posted 4 days ago # -
@pringlis excellent knowledge, thanks.
@MediumDave it's really hard to know right now. The thing I keep trying to remind all those involved is; Officers are genuinely embarrassed by this state of affairs, and both they and the administration (and TRO Sub / TEC councillors) have all had a deluge of email about it. Assumedly, the longer it drags on, the more email there is. And all of this is off the back of their plan (Option 3) being literally a ready-to-publish ETRO and then the standards hearing leading to it being canned.
Factor in a 'politically sensitive time' around the election, during which everything goes very tight-lipped and officers are clearly uncomfortable commenting on anything at all - and then TRO Sub leading to a bit of a bashing and profuse apologising, including a vote against one of their recommendations - and we're looking at a pretty bruised group of people.
Jenkinson now has Greens publicly gunning for immediate action in the press - and they're not wrong to, but there will be many more emails flooding his way and I worry that potentially we are pre-empting Officers recommending something entirely reasonable in their report and risk alienating Labour in such a way that whatever we're proposing doesn't make it through TEC. Remember Option 3 was a Lab/Con/Lib vote to put it through, to the shock and dismay of the rest of us.
Spokes put a very measured missive to him - I will seek their permission to publish it here.
Posted 4 days ago # -
I absolutely agree that the arguments in favour of retaining the filters should be led by those most affected by their removal, that processes must be followed, and that officers and Councillors are all people trying to do their best.
However, what happens if administration Councillors simply say in response to any delegation "We agree. Unfortunately, our hands are tied by TRO procedures. The filters simply have to come out. Don't worry, we will come back to this at some point in the future".
I think it is worth having a strong case for a TRSO (even as a fall-back position) as a means of preventing the filters from being removed in the first place.
In my experience, promises about permanent replacements for 'temporary' cycle infrastructure that is removed at the end of an ETRO in Edinburgh are worth little. Think of Geroge Street cycle lanes/pedestrianisation, or the Meadows-George Street cycle lanes. Years later and still nothing.
Honestly, who would be a museli knitting, cycling campaigner type? Must be so much easier being a [rule 2] living in the Braid Estate happy to see road safety features outside a primary school and a school for blind people removed so you can get home 20 seconds quicker.
Posted 4 days ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
