Latest news with #TROs
Leader Live
7 days ago
- Business
- Leader Live
GoSafe U turn on 30mph reversal road monitoring North Wales
Two weeks ago, Wrexham Road, Johnstown became the first in North Wales to be reverted back to 30mph. Welsh Government introduced the default 20mph speed limit on restricted roads across Wales on September 17, 2023. The decision was met with mass opposition and in April 2024, Welsh Government announced a review of the 20mph scheme. Following extensive member engagement and public consultation, a list of 52 sections of highway which met the Welsh Government criteria for reversion back to 30mph was presented to the Executive Board in February 2025. The council was successful in applying for funding from Welsh Government and received a sum of £400,000, with hopes all 52 will be reversed by the end of June. Flintshire County Council confirmed that they are hopeful the process of reverting roads back to 30mph across the county borough will begin in July. MOST READ: Planning application submitted for huge new housing development in Wrexham Jealous thug headbutted ex after 'asking about her sex life with new man' Wrexham man to hike mountain range - carrying fridge freezer! Earlier this week, GoSafe issued a statement saying that with roads in the process of changing back to 30mph, there would be a three-month grace period where roads will not be monitored. However, today (June 3), they corrected themselves, stating that there will be no grace period, and any monitoring will be done on a road-by-road basis. A spokesperson said: "GoSafe will be reviewing enforcement activity on roads that have reverted back to 30mph. "We will work closely with local authorities to ensure that the correct road signage and Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are in place. We will also assess whether the risk to road users remains present." GoSafe added that the sites with the highest risk historically will be prioritised.
Scotsman
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Edinburgh parking: Angry public meeting over plans for Controlled Parking Zone in Portobello
An angry public meeting in Portobello town hall left council transport bosses in no doubt about the strength of feeling over a proposed parking scheme for the area. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Portobello/Craigmillar Conservative councillor Tim Jones said council officials were shouted down and transport convener Stephen Jenkinson struggled to control the meeting as locals voiced their opposition to the scheme. The council wants to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) stretching from King's Road to Joppa, operating from 8.30m to 5.30pm seven days a week. Residents would pay for parking permits to be able to park in or near their street and others would have to use pay and display machines. Campaigners against the CPZ leafleted cars in Portobello | TSPL Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) have been published and the formal consultation closes on May 23. Cllr Jones said more than 500 people packed Portobello town hall for Tuesday night's meeting. "The main seating area at ground level was completely packed and people were sitting in the gallery. They were queuing for about 45 minutes beforehand to get in. I was just amazed at the number of people there." He said it was a highly-charged meeting with "relentless questioning" from the audience. "The officers and the chair were jeered, hissed at and booed. The officer wanted to do a 10-minue introduction, but he spoke for about a minute and people started shouting out 'We don't want to hear your council speak'. He tried to struggle on but they wouldn't let him. What followed was two hours of intense questions from the audience. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "The atmosphere was electric. It was controlled rage. It was very difficult for Cllr Jenkinson to keep control." Cllr Jones said the concerns most often voiced were that Portobello did not need a CPZ and that people did not feel they were being listened to. "People kept shouting out 'We don't need a CPZ, stop imposing this on us'. "They pointed out the parking problem was only from May to September, why are you imposing these parking restrictions all year round when there's not a problem outside those months? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "And people were saying they were not being listened to. The council had already made up their mind, and this was just a tick-box exercise." He said people had raised the controversy over the closure of nearby Brunstane Road. "There were three consultations over that and the overwhelming majority opposed the closure of Brunstane Road, but the council didn't listen, they overrode the wishes of the people. People were saying 'This is just another Brunstane Road'.' Cllr Jones said businesses were unhappy and said they were going to have to close because their clientele just couldn't afford the parking charges. "Throughout the evening people shouted out 'We don't want your CPZ, leave us alone. we don't need a CPZ'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "Near the end, a woman shouted out 'How many people here oppose the CPZ?' and over 500 hands went up. Then someone shouted out 'There are people here who do want a CPZ' and a few hands went up." Cllr Jones said the Brunstane Road closure had left people distrusting the council. "A clear majority of people objected to the Brunstane Road closure and they have been ignored. People have come to this meeting full of anger about that and they believe the same is going to happen here. 'I fully support the majority of residents who oppose the CPZ in Portobello and I made that clear in my election leaflet in 2022. This is a political decision made by the previous SNP/Labour administration and perpetuated by the present Labour administration. The Scottish Conservative group have consistently opposed any traffic regulation which does not have the support of the majority of residents." And he called for an independent traffic management study of the area worst affected by parking. "There is a problem with parking during that busy period from May to September, but I don't think just imposing a model from the city centre on Portobello is the answer." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Cllr Jenkinson said the meeting had been called by council leader Jane Meagher as one of the Portobello/Craigmillar councillors but he had stepped in to chair it because she was out of town. And he said the meeting had been 'fairly hostile'. 'There were very clear views from the audience. However, the purpose of the meeting was really for council officers to explain the process and answer general questions. 'We are seeking views on the CPZ, positive, negative and neutral. But we reiterated a number of times that the way to engage with the consultation is through the formal process. To dtae there have been 1,300 comments and every single one of these comments will be responded to as part of the report that goes to committee. Officers will bring a suite of proposals, which the committee will vote on.'
Wales Online
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- Wales Online
'Total waste of money' - North Wales councils consider 20mph changes
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Councils throughout Wales are evaluating the potential reversal of speed limits on hundreds of roads from 20mph to 30mph following revised guidance from the Welsh Government regarding exceptions to the 20mph default limit. Although Transport Secretary Ken Skates had expressed hopes for the alterations to begin this spring, no North Wales roads have seen their limits changed back to 30mph so far. North Wales Live readers are fed up with the situation. Councils in Wrexham and Flintshire lead the way in implementing this transition. In contrast, Cyngor Gwynedd was ahead of others, having already designated over 70 'exception' roads upon introducing the new limit, surpassing the combined total of all other counties in North Wales. Before enforcing any speed limit changes, local councils must issue Transport Regulation Orders (TROs) and engage in public consultations on the proposed adjustments. When queried about their current standing, councils provided updates. The responses can be seen here. Anglesey council reported: "The Authority received a number of requests during the national listening period (Apr-Oct 2024), which resulted in a list of 44 different sections/roads being requested. A number of these locations failed to meet the criteria to return the speed limit to 30mph, therefore the final list of possible sites was reduced to 26. We will need to review the feedback from the public on the proposals before any changes on the ground can commence." Conwy is still analysing the situation, while Flintshire is making good progress to reduce speed limits back to 30mph on certain roads. The pace in Gwynedd seems more measured, with a council spokesperson revealing: "Work is ongoing before any TRO consultations are held, therefore there is no list to share at this point." Meanwhile, Cllr David A Bithell, Deputy Leader of Wrexham Council and Lead Member for Strategic Transport, showcased their progress, commenting: "Wrexham was the first authority in Wales to complete the review. The TRO consultation was conducted on 52 roads and the Exec Board then approved these to revert to 30mph. We will be issuing further details on the changes in a report due next week." Denbighshire did not reply before our deadline, but a list of roads being assessed can be found on the council website. Commenter Thewokearefastasleep complains: 'Conwy doing nothing as usual except wasting money on unused cycle paths and unused travel routes. It's a pity they didn't conduct surveys about usage before they started digging up miles of countryside and edges of existing roadways, forcing cars closer together, installing traffic lights all over the place for them to lie there totally unused. What an appalling waste of money.' Jeff2509 thinks: 'There's no need to change any speed limits. 20mph is having a major positive impact on reducing accidents, injury and death.' Paul Gareth agrees: 'I can't understand why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. The 20mph has reduced serious accidents by over 25%.' Vaux08hall retorts: 'It hasn't made any difference at all except to increase road rage and frustrated drivers and an increase in dangerous overtaking.' Statistix asks: 'If 20mph is doing such a good job in reducing accidents, why are there reports on at least a daily basis on other roads? Is it perhaps that to avoid the road rage on 20mph roads, many drivers are speeding elsewhere?' Morpick says: 'The reality appears to be that N Wales councils have done very little, as they did when the initial proposal was rolled out and they were supposed to have done an assessment of need for change in their areas. Consequently the Welsh Government will now blame councils for the ongoing shambles and vice versa.' Pcplod wonders: 'When is Conwy council going to ask residents their opinion regarding changing speed limits back to 30mph? I live on the B5106 at Tyn Y Groes. We do not want the speed to be increased through the village, why would anyone think that's a good idea, obviously a council chief who does not live here watching cars speed through at 50 mph. Get out of the office and look at reality.' Keithclubsteward thinks: 'They should make an open statement to the fact that ALL 20mph roads are to revert to 30 mph immediately and that no speeding fines be issued unless one exceeds the 30 mph limit. The 20mph rule is probably the most hairbrained and costly idea this Government has ever had, it is only a matter of time before emergency services will be affected due to tailbacks, double parking and Lorries parked randomly. Parking issues are a far more urgent issue right now.' Do you think the 30mph speed limits should be reinstated? Have your say in our comments section.
CNN
16-02-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Federal appeals court queues up first test of Trump's power for Supreme Court
A federal appeals court on Saturday allowed the head of a government ethics watchdog agency, whom President Donald Trump fired last week, to stay on the job. It's a decision that will likely tee up the fight over similar dismissals for the Supreme Court. The appeals court decision let stand a restraining order that permits Hampton Dellinger to temporarily remain in his post as special counsel. Dellinger, who was serving a five-year term, was appointed by President Joe Biden. The Office of Special Counsel — which is distinct from the special counsels appointed to oversee politically sensitive Justice Department investigations — handles allegations of whistleblower retaliation and is an independent agency created by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said the temporary order in Dellinger's favor was not appealable. Reviewing such order, the court said, 'would be inconsistent with governing legal standards and ill-advised.' Granting a stay of a temporary restraining order, the court ruled, 'would set a problematic precedent. If we were to accept the proposition that a party's bare assertion of 'extraordinary harm' for fourteen days can render a TRO appealable, many litigants subject to TROs would be encouraged to appeal them and to seek a stay.' Two Biden appointees, Circuit Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, voted to dismiss the Trump administration's request for a stay. US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump nominee, said he would have granted the government's request. 'The extraordinary character of the order at issue here — which directs the president to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed — warrants immediate appellate review,' Katsas wrote. The decision is likely to bring the first appeal, in a flurry of legal challenges surrounding Trump's second term, to the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice had already indicated in court papers that it intended to appeal. The case raises broader questions about Trump's effort to consolidate power within the executive branch by summarily dismissing government employees who serve on independent boards, many of whom who are protected from the whims of the White House with provisions in law that require a president to show cause before firing them. Dellinger's lawsuit is one of at least three brought by officials fired by Trump that test a president's power to oust heads of independent agencies. The lawsuits rely in part on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, that allowed Congress to include for-cause protections for members on independent federal agency boards. But several conservative justices have signaled an uneasiness with the decision in recent years, and the Department of Justice under Trump has said it believes the protections are unconstitutional. CNN's Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
CNN
16-02-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Federal appeals court queues up first test of Trump's power for Supreme Court
A federal appeals court on Saturday allowed the head of a government ethics watchdog agency, whom President Donald Trump fired last week, to stay on the job. It's a decision that will likely tee up the fight over similar dismissals for the Supreme Court. The appeals court decision let stand a restraining order that permits Hampton Dellinger to temporarily remain in his post as special counsel. Dellinger, who was serving a five-year term, was appointed by President Joe Biden. The Office of Special Counsel — which is distinct from the special counsels appointed to oversee politically sensitive Justice Department investigations — handles allegations of whistleblower retaliation and is an independent agency created by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said the temporary order in Dellinger's favor was not appealable. Reviewing such order, the court said, 'would be inconsistent with governing legal standards and ill-advised.' Granting a stay of a temporary restraining order, the court ruled, 'would set a problematic precedent. If we were to accept the proposition that a party's bare assertion of 'extraordinary harm' for fourteen days can render a TRO appealable, many litigants subject to TROs would be encouraged to appeal them and to seek a stay.' Two Biden appointees, Circuit Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, voted to dismiss the Trump administration's request for a stay. US Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump nominee, said he would have granted the government's request. 'The extraordinary character of the order at issue here — which directs the president to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed — warrants immediate appellate review,' Katsas wrote. The decision is likely to bring the first appeal, in a flurry of legal challenges surrounding Trump's second term, to the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice had already indicated in court papers that it intended to appeal. The case raises broader questions about Trump's effort to consolidate power within the executive branch by summarily dismissing government employees who serve on independent boards, many of whom who are protected from the whims of the White House with provisions in law that require a president to show cause before firing them. Dellinger's lawsuit is one of at least three brought by officials fired by Trump that test a president's power to oust heads of independent agencies. The lawsuits rely in part on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, that allowed Congress to include for-cause protections for members on independent federal agency boards. But several conservative justices have signaled an uneasiness with the decision in recent years, and the Department of Justice under Trump has said it believes the protections are unconstitutional. CNN's Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
