I’d love to hear from folks about what they understand the role and remit of the TRO Sub-committee to be, including what it can and can’t do. I’ll post more thoughts on yesterday’s meeting at a later point but they seemed to be e.g. asking for implementation costs as part of making an ETRO permanent and it felt out of scope?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
TRO Sub-committee
(30 posts)-
Posted 1 week ago #
-
“asking for implementation costs“
From?
Posted 1 week ago # -
The Council's Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions states that:
26.6 Power is delegated to the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) Sub-Committee to:
The TRO making process set out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, as amended, does not include any consideration of financial matters.
26.6.1 Exercise the statutory element of Traffic Regulation Orders.I would argue that decisions to allocate funds for any traffic scheme are political, rather than purely procedural. Possibly splitting hairs here, but funding issues look like a matter for the Transport and Envrionemt Committee.
Posted 1 week ago # -
Is there a route by which TRO Sub overreach could be raised? Would it be by flagging to the conveners of both committees? I need to review the meeting again but I was surprised to see costs and details being requested when the ask is about approving permanent waiting and loading restrictions.
£2.5m budget across 5 years to make permanent whichever aspects of the schemes are deemed to be the highest priority. You’d think that would be straightforward enough.
Posted 6 days ago # -
Would it be by flagging to the conveners of both committees?
I don't know for sure, but that certainly seems like a sensible starting point. If no dice, then possibly try council leader and some senior council officers (Director of Place and Chief Executive).
Posted 6 days ago # -
Approaching the convenors seems like the best way forward in the first instance. Ultimately, I suspect it would be a matter for the full Council, which is responsible for how its statutory powers are delegated to committees and officers.
Posted 6 days ago # -
I'm definitely going to keep poking at this but I might even go as far as suggesting a co-signed letter from some of our bigger orgs, whoever we can get on board, so it's taken seriously enough.
In the meantime if anyone is able to find record of meetings discussing / deciding to form TRO Sub in the first place, that might help point out the council's own definition of the remit. I think there's already enough to express concern over, but it would be good to be able to pinpoint more.
Posted 4 days ago # -
The TRO sub-committee was officially formed at the 27 June 2024 meeting of full council (minutes - it's item 9). Webcast is here (item 7c, starting at 1:36:48).
That followed "agreement in principle" to do so being reached at the 9 May meeting of full council (minutes - it's item 8). Webcast is here - it's item 7b, starting at 1:51:08.
Posted 4 days ago # -
The TRO Committee was established at the full Council meeting on 27 September 2024. The recording is available here. It's very short and no substantive matters are discussed. More information is set out in the relevant Council paper.
The full (super short) remit is as posted above "Exercise the statutory element of Traffic Regulation Orders."
Might be worth emphasising in any contact with the Council that the sub-committee is "quasi-judicial" and exists solely to make decisions on TROs within the statutory framework. This does not include consideration of financial matters.
Posted 4 days ago # -
That is some incredible fact-finding and simultaneous posting, thanks both!
Posted 4 days ago # -
I tried to write something short for the digest covering TRO Sub's Thursday meeting.
I failed. Brevity (nor skipping background info, nor trying to curb my acidity) not my strong suit.
Posted 4 days ago # -
The East ETRO scheme road safety audits were recently released through a FOI request (Request: 54983).
I've been through them and found only one reference to trip hazards, refuted by designer AECOM:
The units were approved for use on the highway in the manner in which they are deployed under this scheme. As such we are not proposing any changes.
Road authority CEC agreed, stating further:
Agree with designers response & also note that the segregation units are commonly used on arterial routes across Edinburgh and are generally recognised as established temporary street furniture. All segregation units are delineated and identified by highly visible reflective bollards
Posted 3 days ago # -
@bakky I thought you were remarkably restrained with your write up.
Personally, I was livid about that committee meeting. How can one individual disrupt the process like that? How can schemes that keep children safe be filibustered like that?
I've said it before, but the council committees should operate on a "3 strikes and you're out" principle - 3 attempts to filibuster a scheme, without providing a viable alternative, and you're kicked off the committee.
Posted 3 days ago # -
This is what I notice when I watch Cllr Lang in these sessions - my take on his positions:
- He, being someone in the legal profession, knows how to set up an argument, and clearly state his position;
- This style is not particularly well suited to asking questions of officers, as what it calls for is a similarly robust and argumentative response - outside of their wheelhouse and also outside of how considered they need to be in responding (including the power dynamics of Cllr > Officer)
- He clearly takes the 'quasi-judicial' stuff seriously, and by conducting himself in a particularly lawyerly/officious way, seems to set all the non-law-professional councillors on edge a bit
- He was also visibly frustrated by the logical problem of how the ETROs are packaged (per area) and how the pot and prioritisation for making permanent are set up; which is now the square peg he's trying to hammer into a round hole by asking more of officers ahead of September 4th
I don't personally think it quite goes as far as deliberately filibustering; I think we saw that from questions and attempted gotchas from Cllr Doggart. Fortunately, Cllr Doggart is not good at those. I think what we see from Lang is he's willing to gamble the possibility of losing the infrastructure to be seen to be defending the voices of the objectors and trying to uphold the process of the TRO Sub to seek reassurances in order to turn over those objections, and isn't getting the reassurances he's decided are needed.
As is typical of the Lib Dems, it doesn't matter if those voices are saying something reasonable or provable - it matters that they're saying something loudly and the Lib Dems can sidle up and pretend to be fwiends in order to win votes.
I'm still trying to get my thoughts distilled down to something useful, but I think it's along the lines of:
- TRO Sub is not responsible for the costs or implementation details of schemes, it's responsible for the letter of the TRO, which is about loading and waiting restrictions - as per Morningsider above
- The ask of Officers to do design and prioritisation work for a single scheme before it's approved is subverting the 'rolling programme' that was approved by TEC and how it is structured, and that's not something TRO Sub should be doing
- Officers provided very strongly worded reassurance that it was very likely the highest footfall areas of the East ETRO would get permanent infrastructure
- It continues to be ridiculous to hold up making infrastructure permanent because you're worried about the nature of temporary materials
- As Robbie has provided, the designers and council officers have both refuted that there are significant trip hazard issues with rosehill defenders
I have an FOI in for whether or not there have been specific trip incidents that the council has data for, or whether all objections regarding this are general ('they could be a trip hazard'). Whether that comes in time is another question.
I've had three rider testimonials in by email thus far about using the routes.
Are the objections provided as an appendix somewhere? I haven't yet dug through the paperwork side.
Posted 3 days ago # -
To boil down to even more high level:
- We think that the TRO Sub are reaching outside of their role and subverting process
- We think that the objections being considered are not strong enough to merit the amount of scrutiny being placed
- We believe the level of information being asked for is counterproductive given the way the funding is already approved by TEC and the nature of the statutory process
- We believe there is a right of continued use for people already using the infrastructure in place - who probably don't even realise it's temporary - and that ripping it out would be a hugely backwards step
Posted 3 days ago # -
isn't getting the reassurances he's decided are needed
my bold
The trouble is, he keeps shifting the level of reassurance required, so that it can never be met. Shifting the goalposts, if you like.
There is no question in my mind, that the LibDems want all the temporary infrastructure removed
And why is a single individual allowed to have so much sway?
Posted 3 days ago # -
I mean, didn't everyone expect that this was the whole point of taking TRO stuff away from TEC in the first place? The TRO Subcommittee is *intended* to be an anchor on the process, allowing the council to continue to be "ambitious" rhetorically but have a useful excuse for delaying practical implementation of their aspirations. Every delay they can manage here is that many more months where they don't have to admit
we'd rather spend the money on potholes and bins, and the SG would rather spend it building new roads, so we could never afford to do all the things we claim to be planning anyway
Posted 3 days ago # -
@bakky - that's a good summary of the key points.
Taking a step back from all this detail. It is clear that there is no evidence to support the objections to the travelling safely schemes. They have been in place for almost five years. There is no measurable impact on congestion or traffic flow. There is no epidemic of tripping pensioners. No litany of parked cars being rear ended by passing traffic. No record of cyclists being hit by people reversing out of their driveways.
It's all nonsense and should be treated as such. Anyone who still "has questions" is not acting in good faith.
Posted 3 days ago # -
Meeting transcript:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MgTxWouHu5IF7HuXoAoxHj9WQZYfgSPTziqI7Z15_TQ/edit?usp=sharing
Posted 2 days ago # -
From my loose understanding of TROs, road safety is in scope. Dave Sinclair seems to agree with this at 18:12. However, I don't believe a TRO approves road materials.
It should be enough to say that the carriageway changes have been subject to a road safety audit. No inherent safety issues have been identified with the types of road materials used, and location specific issues are being monitored with improvements actioned if necessary.
This could perhaps be supported by the credentials of the audit team, which consisted of 3 pairs of auditors across 3 organisations ensuring they didn't audit their own designers.
The regulation of the traffic is being made permanent, not the road materials - which will change as nothing lasts forever.
Posted 2 days ago # -
Also - London Rd isn't really in the world heritage site. Is the aethetic value of road materials really a valid objection to a TRO?
Officers could have been much more dismissive of the objections.
Posted 2 days ago # -
“Officers could have been much more dismissive of the objections.“
Yes
Q is
How much lobbying/interference by certain Cllrs?
Posted 2 days ago # -
I don't personally think Cllr Lang is deliberatly obstructing the approval. He's been presented with reports on Corstorphine, Leith and now East SfP asking for objections to be resolved by upgrading materials. Only this time, there's no guarantee.
He's definitely being given more standing than other councillors, arguably more than the convenor, and has a mixed record on active travel at TEC. However, the purpose of the TRO subcommittee is to protect the council from legal challenges and he's not filibustering to seek a watertight position.
The issue lies with how the subcommittee operates and the complexity of the ETRO system. Objections must be considered, potentially extending the scope into many areas outside their remit. In this way, it stacks the odds against change. There is no requirement to consider points raised by supporters when deciding to remove the temporary order, even when it is current Active Travel infrastructure which they rely on in daily life.
Perhaps a letter could be styled as an psuedo-objection to the handling of the ETRO to make this point.
Posted 1 day ago # -
I think that sounds about right - taking more issue with the fact that there is a significant difference in how funding has been organised and how the ETROs are coming up individually, and asking the council to task officers with looking at their prioritisations and having them signed off by TEC, so that at the very least they could be saying whether or not sections are being made permanent (and also include testimonials from folk making use of East routes to underscore this is not just about pulling out defenders but folks safe routes to work/school/etc).
It wouldn’t do any harm to point out along the way the road safety audits and the will of TEC surely being to have these made permanent if they’ve assigned funds…
Posted 1 day ago # -
The chance of a successful judicial review of a decision to approve the TROs must be almost nil, even if the current materials and layout were never changed.
The current set-up has operated safely for almost five years. A review by independent consultants has confirmed the set-up is safe and rejected the concerns raised in objections. This assessment is supported by Council officers.
How could someone successfully argue that a decision to approve was illegal or irrational? The correct process appears to have been followed. The cycle lanes are supported by national and local policy and years of real-world safety evidence. Approving these is hardly irrational.
Continued "concerns" about materials, detailed layouts and future budgets appear to be a smokescreen for running the clock down on the ETROs and the eventual removal of the cycle lanes. The Council regularly authorises lists of road schemes without full budgets in place (inc. new traffic signals, and road resurfacing). I have never heard of Councillors being involved in detailed decisions on materials and layouts for other road schemes.
I really hope I'm wrong and will happily receive any "I told you so" if that is the case.
Posted 23 hours ago # -
I popped in a wee email to Cllr Lang expressing my...disappointment, and apparently he very much respects my strength of feeling but, alas, the TRO Subcommittee is quasi-judicial and as the public comment period for the ETRO has closed he cannot consider additional feedback, nothing he can do dontcha know, rules you see. Nevermind that I wasn't commenting on the ETRO but on his behaviour at the committee...
Anyway: Lib Dem In Disingenuous Guff Shocker, More At 11 etc.
Posted 2 hours ago # -
You can't see it, but this is my surprised face.
The route into this I think is the other parties flagging with their representatives that the Sub-Committee has been hijacked beyond its remit, and to ask questions to that effect about what's in bounds. I know that for Greens a conversation is already taking place.
Posted 1 hour ago # -
I wonder if it would be possible to crowdsource funds to apply to the Court of Session for a judicial review, if the subcommittee irrationally refuses to approve the TROs in time based on "not being able to set aside objections to the materials without a fully costed plan to replace all the materials"?
I mean it would be possible to challenge, I think, but not sure about the potential costs exposure.
You plainly don't have to be able to demonstrate a plan to replace materials to set aside an objection to the materials because otherwise I could object that it's not red, and they would have to have a plan to make it all red to set my objection aside
Posted 1 hour ago # -
Perhaps it would be cheaper, quicker and more effective to assemble the basic points of why it’s thought the committee is either not acting lawfully or in accordance with CEC policies/decisions (or both) and deliver a letter (paper not email - with URGENT on the outside!) to Paul Lawrence.
Posted 1 hour ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
