CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route (Inc Braid Road/Estate)

(729 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. bakky
    Member

    That is some sage advice. It also chimes with a worst-case I expressed to @neddie where officers say 'well the best we can do for now is monitoring and bring this back to TEC in three cycles'.

    The question there is - what form does that fall-back position take? I assume it's essentially a motion from another party at TEC to amend the officers report to e.g. 'Instructs officers to urgently implement a TRSO for these measures and retain the existing filters, a method that has not yet been used by this Council but is legislatively very much at its disposal'.

    Cllr Savage is going to follow whatever Jenkinson does, Jenkinson is going to follow Officer recommendations - though the window of opportunity here is assumedly compelling deputations on the matter. We're then at the mercy of the Leb Dims at TEC siding with that argument. The party of Dodgy Debbie the Integrity candidate could do the right thing, but at least they're predictable and we know they won't.

    The more I think about this the more I think pressure from Canaan Lane Primary and the Royal Blind School is the key here. We've heard from affected residents on Braid Ave at TEC - how about schools that with filters in place still have safe driving issues now, never mind introducing more through-traffic.

    Posted 2 days ago #
  2. Morningsider
    Member

    Ideally, officers could include a TRSO as an option for the TEC to consider in a formal committee paper. Highlighting that it could be used to keep the filters in place while a full TRO is worked up.

    Next, as you suggest, it's consideration could begin as a motion from (lets face it) the Greens.

    Failing that, the option could be presnted to the committee in writing - ideally in a joint letter from as many locals and organisations as willing to sign up to it. Any supportive delegation could simply reference the written representation, so as not to dilute the emotional impact of their message.

    I do understand people's reticence in relying on legalese and techncial workarounds. However (as I only half jokingly) mentioned in my prevous post, the anti's have no qualms in using this approach. Nor should we at his point in the game. The filters are about to be removed, and may never come back (at least not for this current generation of kids).

    Posted 1 day ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    As I understand it the current situation is that that nothing will be removed any time soon as CEC doesn’t have the staff to do it (strange but true apparently), so it can’t be done without a contract

    I’m sure it’s not, particularly, a priority for officers - but at the same time they can’t deliberately stall things

    It’s unfortunate they thought that removing a legal piece of infrastructure was a good idea, and fortunate that a cross party grouping was willing/able to deliver an amendment and get it passed

    I also believe the motion and arguments were ‘influenced’ by ‘campaigners’

    I think that there is a feeling on this thread that sending even more emails won’t be helpful

    I think the officers have got ‘the message’ - though perhaps not the one about what may be possible (as per careful reading of the legislation)(?)

    Officers (generally), have to pay attention to what the Administration/Committee Chairs want done. Perhaps some pressure needs to be put on Labour Cllrs?

    At the moment ‘everything’ depends on the next report to the next TEC

    It may contain everything ’we’ want - or not

    I hope all the people involved in organising the deputations, demos and publicly keep going - and book a slot for appearing again!

    With luck it’ll be ‘we thank the Council for listening and hope the new report will be passed unanimously’…

    I wonder if any of the ‘illegals’ will mysteriously disappear like cameras have in some places. I really hope not, as that would just make things messier

    Additionally, this saga has stirred things such that some MSPs what the whole business of TROs looked at with some urgency by SG

    Posted 1 day ago #
  4. bakky
    Member

    Spokes have agreed for this to be shared here, but not beyond - i.e. will not be for Social Media (here excepted) nor for edi.bike's newsletter.

    Dear Councillor Jenkinson,

    I'm writing for Spokes Planning Group regarding the next steps for the Greenbank to Meadows Quietroute at TEC on 18th June.

    I'm sure you will agree that this is an important issue, but one that needs concluding, so thank you for requesting that officers prepare a report.

    We've seen the challenges with ETROs and believe that, instead, a new TRO should be made for the missing modal filters.

    Following an ETRO with a TRO was the established practice for trials prior to the 2021 regulations.

    We also note that, earlier this year, a wording error present within the Central ETRO at S St David St was similarly rectified by a new TRO.

    We would suggest that following this procedure should be included in the options within the report.

    Importantly, these streets are part of the Council's Primary Cycle Network and these safety measures should not be abandoned due to paperwork mistakes.

    Secondly, we are extremely concerned that road safety should be maintained in the interim.

    Canaan Lane is a popular route for active travel and is part of the School Travel Plan for its 2 primary schools.

    It would be deeply regrettable to remove this traffic reduction measure in particular, when it has been so successful.

    The council has a responsibly to ensure road safety and to minimise the legal risk exposure inherent to the TRO process. There is a balance to be struck between these responsibilities.

    Spokes believe the traffic reduction measures remain a clear safety benefit to the quiet route, even if they are not enforceable.

    For this same reason, there are other unenforceable signs and speeds limits in Edinburgh without an order, such as on Duddingston Rd West.

    Additionally, between 20/05/2024 and 16/12/2024, these modal filters were previously left in place without any order covering them.

    It seems right that TEC has a say in this balance or at least has a chance to discuss the matter.

    I have raised with officers that Section 62 of the Roads Scotland Act allows a short temporary order for up to 7 days for matters of public safety or convenience.

    As the trial is due to expire on 15/06/2026, this could bring the date of removal of the filters beyond TEC.

    We hope you will consider these points.

    Kind regards,

    Spokes Planning Group

    Posted 1 day ago #
  5. gembo
    Member

    Officers will need to explain all of this to councillors…….

    Posted 1 day ago #
  6. bakky
    Member

    In terms of the ETRO vs TRO stuff? Don't believe so - there was a back and forth at TEC on 2nd April where KLang asked whether we'd learned anything from all of this stuff and the answer was less ETROs in future. I think the Transport committee are more across the possibilities than the average bear.

    However the fact this will be taken seriously vs. a random email is it coming from Spokes Planning Group - so will be a clear indicator to Cllr Jenkinson that there's a good route through this mess if desired.

    Posted 1 day ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    Braid Road ‘modal filter’ survives long-running traffic-calming saga

    THE long-running saga about traffic-calming measures and car parking restrictions between the Braids estate and James Gillespie’s Primary School - taking in also Comiston Road - appears to have come to an end, with a decision to retain some ‘modal filters’, such as Braid Road, and remove some, such as Canaan Lane.

    On Tuesday, members of the city council’s Traffic Regulation Orders sub-committee met (report to committee) to ‘finally’ consider which measures to remove, keep temporarily, modify or make permanent.

    To be retained: Whitehouse Loan at Warrender Park Road, Whitehouse Loan at Strathearn Road and Braid Road at Hermitage Drive. Meanwhile, being removed: Canaan Lane, Hermitage Gardens and Braid Avenue.

    ‘Finally’, insofar as the deliberations thus far have been mired in, among other things, wording errors, consultation exercises that have been met with scepticism, a seeming reversal of earlier decisions by elected members, a censure of two councillors and highly polarised views among the general public.

    The decision to retain the Braid Road filter followed a 5-4 vote in favour of a verbal amendment suggested in the room.

    It is understood the decisions regarding the filters to be removed will be reviewed in six months’ time.

    https://buildedinburgh.substack.com/p/in-the-news-we-may-15

    Posted 1 day ago #
  8. gembo
    Member

    Cllr Lang has not learnt that he needs to recuse himself severely?

    Posted 1 day ago #
  9. bakky
    Member

    Not unless that’s a euphy. Only from quasi-judicial TRO Sub, not TEC.

    (This is a thing I was realising recently - the same issues with who can vote on these filters will come around when TRO Sub have to ratify whatever long-term order. Unless all those who recused due to having kids at Gillespies can take part again because the filters there are now permanent?)

    Posted 20 hours ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin