Well done young @bakky for dismantling the Living StreetsEdnburgh’sarguments
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
TRO Sub-committee
(75 posts)-
Posted 2 months ago #
-
"The data collected shows that the measures have regular levels of use and the reallocation of road space as part of programme has not had a negative impact on general traffic journey times."
Posted 2 months ago # -
“
Cllr Graham (Lab) had the casting vote as Convenor. Sadly she decided that 2-way cycling on Rose St should be excluded from the orders. All despite very good reasoning from Cllrs Staniforth & Lang that 2-way cycling is a non-issue, & if anything further restrictions should be on motors
“
https://bsky.app/profile/blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk/post/3ma445r4e3c2z
Posted 2 months ago # -
“
The inexperience and overreach of the TRO subcommittee shows its ugly head again
“
https://bsky.app/profile/blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk/post/3ma44jnaa7s2z
Posted 2 months ago # -
“
Weird voting: 1 Libdem for, one against“
Posted 2 months ago # -
I believe the decision on Rose St was a continuance - delayed to another meeting - rather than an outright no.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Rose Street is a core path, so does a one way TRO currently override cyclists' non-motorised access rights from the opposite direction?
Posted 2 months ago # -
Yes, I believe it does.
@Morningsider can probably rattle off chapter and verse.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Interesting. Section 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) grants extensive access rights to cyclists. However, Section 6 of the 2003 Act states that these rights are not exercisable over land “to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted”. This means that access rights do not normally trump restrictions imposed by a Traffic Regulation Order or Redetermination Order (made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and associated regulations).
That said, Section 7 of the 2003 Act includes a provision stating that “Section 6 above does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is a core path” subject to two specific exemptions relating to outbreaks of animal disease or where a local authority has, by Order, exempted the land from access rights under powers set out in Section 11 of the 2003 Act.
In effect, this means that the exemptions that usually apply to access rights do not apply to core paths. One result could be that a TRO imposed prohibition on cycling a particular direction along a street probably does not apply to a street designated as a core path, but only where such cycling can be undertaken in a responsible manner. What constitutes “responsible” in such cases would ultimately be a matter for the courts. The fact that cycling one way along a street is considered acceptable by a Council would seem to blow up any argument that cycling on that street is in some way irresponsible, given that it is officially condoned. Although I'm sure some kind of argument could be made in its favour.
This may seem a bit of a legislative mess (it is), but I suspect the drafters of the 2003 Act never considered that a local authority would designate city centre streets as core paths. There simply isn't a need to do so as public access isn't a problem, unlike in many rural areas - which is where the law was really aimed.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Green councillors have an amendment at full council tomorrow which would have the effect of abolishing #edincouncil TRO Sub-committee.
This committee has been a block to progress on #activetravel & sustainable transport for too long, making decisions contrary to policy. It must go.
1/2This amendment is technical, but would mean that all TROs would be decided by council officers unless there is a statutory requirement for a hearing. This only occurs where there’s an unresolved objection to a loading restriction or a one-way street, or a couple of other rare cases.
2/2Posted 2 months ago # -
SNP will back this amendment
Will other parties be whipped to support TRO Sub-Committee??
Posted 2 months ago # -
Posted 1 month ago #
-
Green amendment fell. Long live the TRO-subcommittee.
Posted 1 month ago # -
On the plus side, I got my 20m of double-yellow on Eyre Place.
Posted 1 month ago # -
“
In total, Scottish government decisions have significant impacts on what happens in local council areas. Additional to funding, other examples are the lack of powers for councils to enforce bus lanes by bus-mounted cameras, and (see below) the lengthy delays incurred when certain traffic order objections legally have to be referred for government hearings.
…
After much angst and months of delay, the notorious TRO Subcommittee, only as the legal deadline loomed, finally made permanent the parking-restriction Orders* which enable Edinburgh’s ‘Travelling Safely’ main-road ‘bollarded’ routes to exist – previously the Orders were Experimental [*except a few South Edinburgh orders which are dated to be decided in 2026]. Now, over the next few years, these routes will progressively be upgraded to form a major element of the Primary Network. Appendix 27 of the massive report to TRO Sub lays out the provisional timetable, with north, west and east complete by 2028/29 but South not until 2030/2034.
“
http://www.spokes.org.uk/2026/01/2025-2026-what-for-edinburgh-cycling-policy-action/
Posted 1 month ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
