Latest news with #TrafficRegulationOrdersSub-Committee
Edinburgh Reporter
5 days ago
- Politics
- Edinburgh Reporter
Covid-era traffic safety and calming measures decision delayed
A decision on making Covid-era traffic safety and calming measures in the east of Edinburgh permanent has been delayed. Councillors on Thursday said they were worried about the feasibility of introducing new road infrastructure to replace the current temporary barriers and other solutions in place. And they asked council officers to return to the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee on September 4 with information on how they plan to do it. The temporary order allowing the measures is in place until October 28, with officers saying that it would take about two months after a decision to get permanent orders in place. The changes were aimed at enabling social distancing while outdoors and making it easier to walk and cycle in the city. Some of the changes relating to limits on traffic, including bans on waiting and loading in some areas in the east of Edinburgh, have been kept since the pandemic ended. The decision has already been deferred once, from a meeting in May. In order to make the measures permanent, the committee will have to vote to set aside public objections, some of which relate to issues with the temporary infrastructure. Liberal Democrat councillor Kevin Lang asked council officer Andrew Easson how much making the temporary measures would cost. Mr Easson said that he could not provide a price estimate as decisions had not been made on which temporary infrastructure would be made permanent. Cllr Lang replied: 'When the committee met last time, the report said that consideration would be given to upgrade the infrastructure. 'And then during the course of the meeting, it was explained to us that it would be upgraded. But it seems that we've gone back to the fact that only consideration would be given. 'We have received objections on the basis of the temporary infrastructure. 'I'm trying to understand what certainty or clarity this committee has as to whether it can set.' Mr Easson said that a £500,000 per year fund for upgrading Covid-era infrastructure across the city had been approved by the Transport and Environment Committee recently. He continued to say that the fund would have to be shared between five areas covered by different experimental orders, like the one in the east of Edinburgh. He added: 'We don't know which schemes we are going to do, and we haven't yet begun looking at each individual scheme. 'If we have an objection to say that people are saying the temporary infrastructure is likely to be struck, or people are likely to trip over it, that could be a big concern, in a high street environment, for example. 'On the other hand, if you've got a stretch of road that has virtually no footfall, and no frontages, and very few people cross the road, and it's a long, straight bit of road, it's probably not that likely it's going to get hit, and probably not that likely anyone's going to trip over it. 'In some locations, we would look to go in and address that, because the risk is higher, but in other locations it might be that we decide it's a low priority to upgrade that particular part of the scheme.' Council officer Dave Sinclair added that all of the temporary infrastructure would eventually be replaced, as all of it has a service life that will run out at some point. But he said that council officers wanted to look at all the temporary schemes in the city together before deciding how to prioritise replacing infrastructure. Later in the meeting, Cllr Lang said: 'I feel really disappointed that after almost three months, we've not been given information that I think is kind of what we alluded to in May, in terms of what we needed to make us comfortable with making a permanent decision. 'There's not been work done on how much it would cost, we don't know where it would happen, and yet we are being asked to make a permanent decision today. 'I think that is an incredibly difficult thing for us to set aside objections, which is what we're being asked to do, and put faith in something that may or may not happen.' Conservative councillor Phil Doggart added: 'I'd back that up, because I think one of the other challenges is the fact that we have one ETRO covering a significant distance. 'The challenge around that is that we're still giving a blanket approval to the whole ETRO when it may well be that it could be years before anything is done. 'We know the financial challenges we've got, and how quickly priorities can change. So I'm really struggling to say that we do have full information in terms of being able to make a decision today.' Green councillor Alex Staniforth said: 'I think I do have enough information to know whether to let the ETRO lapse or to make it permanent. 'The fact is, we can't prevaricate much longer. I think we have to make a decision today. And while I understand that we might prefer to have more information, the timer has run out.' Liberal Democrat councillor Hal Osler added: 'I am not comfortable with this situation. We've had three years to get information on this. 'People have fed into a survey, there are still genuine concerns. We've asked a number of questions, we've delayed this committee already, we have not got any more assurity. 'Metaphorically having a gun to your head to be told, 'we're either going to agree or it's all out', is a very unfortunate situation to be in.' 'I feel enough chance has been given to gather the information. I unfortunately can't actually support making this decision positively today.' Council officers then argued that a decision had to be made at Thursday's meeting in order to ensure a permanent traffic regulation order could be in place by October 28. But after being asked if a delay to the September 4 meeting was possible, officers said that it may be possible to keep the rules and infrastructure in place past October 28 with emergency orders for a short period of time if needed. Mr Easson told councillors that bringing costed plans for which parts of the scheme could be made permanent by September 4 would be extremely challenging. He added: 'The quality of the information – it's going to have to be pulled together very quickly.' 'Everything that's considered to be high priority, there is enough money to deal with that. What we can't say is that there's enough money to deal with everything, whether there's a pressing need or not.' Committee convener and Labour councillor Margaret Graham said: 'I think we've batted this around as much as we can, I don't think we can go any further. 'My position is that we defer the decision to the committee on the fourth of September, and ask the officers to furnish us with more information as per the discussion today.' The committee then agreed to back the delay. Councillors will make a decision on whether to make the traffic calming measures permanent at the next meeting of the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee on Wednesday, September 4. By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
Edinburgh Live
6 days ago
- Politics
- Edinburgh Live
Decision on making east of Edinburgh traffic changes permanent delayed for second time
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 A decision on making Covid-era traffic safety and calming measures in the east of Edinburgh permanent has been delayed. Councillors on Thursday said they were worried about the feasibility of introducing new road infrastructure to replace the current temporary barriers and other solutions in place. And they asked council officers to return to the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee on September 4 with information on how they plan to do it. The temporary order allowing the measures is in place until October 28, with officers saying that it would take about two months after a decision to get permanent orders in place. The changes were aimed at enabling social distancing while outdoors and making it easier to walk and cycle in the city. Some of the changes relating to limits on traffic, including bans on waiting and loading in some areas in the east of Edinburgh, have been kept since the pandemic ended. The decision has already been deferred once, from a meeting in May. In order to make the measures permanent, the committee will have to vote to set aside public objections, some of which relate to issues with the temporary infrastructure. Liberal Democrat councillor Kevin Lang asked council officer Andrew Easson how much making the temporary measures would cost. Mr Easson said that he could not provide a price estimate as decisions had not been made on which temporary infrastructure would be made permanent. Cllr Lang replied: 'When the committee met last time, the report said that consideration would be given to upgrade the infrastructure. 'And then during the course of the meeting, it was explained to us that it would be upgraded. But it seems that we've gone back to the fact that only consideration would be given. 'We have received objections on the basis of the temporary infrastructure. 'I'm trying to understand what certainty or clarity this committee has as to whether it can set." Mr Easson said that a £500,000 per year fund for upgrading Covid-era infrastructure across the city had been approved by the Transport and Environment Committee recently. He continued to say that the fund would have to be shared between five areas covered by different experimental orders, like the one in the east of Edinburgh. He added: 'We don't know which schemes we are going to do, and we haven't yet begun looking at each individual scheme. 'If we have an objection to say that people are saying the temporary infrastructure is likely to be struck, or people are likely to trip over it, that could be a big concern, in a high street environment, for example. 'On the other hand, if you've got a stretch of road that has virtually no footfall, and no frontages, and very few people cross the road, and it's a long, straight bit of road, it's probably not that likely it's going to get hit, and probably not that likely anyone's going to trip over it. 'In some locations, we would look to go in and address that, because the risk is higher, but in other locations it might be that we decide it's a low priority to upgrade that particular part of the scheme.' Council officer Dave Sinclair added that all of the temporary infrastructure would eventually be replaced, as all of it has a service life that will run out at some point. But he said that council officers wanted to look at all the temporary schemes in the city together before deciding how to prioritise replacing infrastructure. Later in the meeting, Cllr Lang said: 'I feel really disappointed that after almost three months, we've not been given information that I think is kind of what we alluded to in May, in terms of what we needed to make us comfortable with making a permanent decision. 'There's not been work done on how much it would cost, we don't know where it would happen, and yet we are being asked to make a permanent decision today. 'I think that is an incredibly difficult thing for us to set aside objections, which is what we're being asked to do, and put faith in something that may or may not happen.' Conservative councillor Phil Doggart added: 'I'd back that up, because I think one of the other challenges is the fact that we have one ETRO covering a significant distance. 'The challenge around that is that we're still giving a blanket approval to the whole ETRO when it may well be that it could be years before anything is done. 'We know the financial challenges we've got, and how quickly priorities can change. So I'm really struggling to say that we do have full information in terms of being able to make a decision today.' Green councillor Alex Staniforth said: 'I think I do have enough information to know whether to let the ETRO lapse or to make it permanent. 'The fact is, we can't prevaricate much longer. I think we have to make a decision today. And while I understand that we might prefer to have more information, the timer has run out.' Liberal Democrat councillor Hal Osler added: 'I am not comfortable with this situation. We've had three years to get information on this. 'People have fed into a survey, there are still genuine concerns. We've asked a number of questions, we've delayed this committee already, we have not got any more assurity. 'Metaphorically having a gun to your head to be told, 'we're either going to agree or it's all out', is a very unfortunate situation to be in.' 'I feel enough chance has been given to gather the information. I unfortunately can't actually support making this decision positively today.' Council officers then argued that a decision had to be made at Thursday's meeting in order to ensure a permanent traffic regulation order could be in place by October 28. But after being asked if a delay to the September 4 meeting was possible, officers said that it may be possible to keep the rules and infrastructure in place past October 28 with emergency orders for a short period of time if needed. Mr Easson told councillors that bringing costed plans for which parts of the scheme could be made permanent by September 4 would be extremely challenging. He added: 'The quality of the information – it's going to have to be pulled together very quickly.' 'Everything that's considered to be high priority, there is enough money to deal with that. What we can't say is that there's enough money to deal with everything, whether there's a pressing need or not.' Committee convener and Labour councillor Margaret Graham said: 'I think we've batted this around as much as we can, I don't think we can go any further. 'My position is that we defer the decision to the committee on the fourth of September, and ask the officers to furnish us with more information as per the discussion today.' The committee then agreed to back the delay. Councillors will make a decision on whether to make the traffic calming measures permanent at the next meeting of the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee on Wednesday, September 4, which you can view here.
Edinburgh Reporter
12-05-2025
- General
- Edinburgh Reporter
Council defers approving permanent traffic measures on London Road
Some of the measures introduced under Spaces for People during the pandemic are still not officially permanent after a decision was deferred by councillors on Monday. At a meeting of the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee, two Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETROs) were included on the agenda for the sub-committee to declare the arrangements permanent. But councillors approved only one – that affecting Cockburn Street, High Street, South St David Street, Victoria Street and West Bow and Waverley Bridge. In respect of the other – ETRO 21/28A which includes segregated cycling measures (the black and white wands) introduced on London Road – a decision has been deferred until the next meeting of the sub-committee, as funding still has to be allocated. A council officer confirmed that the actual arrangements on the road may be changed in response to the objections received. The council report states that 'consideration will be given to upgrading the temporary materials used during the trial to permanent materials'. An officer confirmed this will be a rolling programme, and he explained that given the number of schemes and the extent of them they could not yet say what will be done at every location, but that they intend to have money allocated each year over the next five years for upgrading. Convener Cllr Margaret Graham asked about the objections to the cycle lane on London Road in particular, and how the officers had monitored traffic there. The council officer confirmed there had been cycle counts on London Road with cameras, and said the council has also carried out monitoring of the volume of traffic, looking specifically at the build outs at bus stops where cyclists have to move out into the middle of the road. He confirmed that in a permanent scheme the council would remove the bus build outs and the cycle lane would then continue straight avoiding the need for cyclists to 'weave in and out' to improve safety. One of the objections raised by New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) in the autumn of last year was the impact on road safety for cyclists – where the cycle lane has gaps – meaning that cyclists have to rejoin the carriageway at several points. Cllr Kevin Lang said: 'I am very conscious of the objections which we have had, which relate to safety, which I think we need to take seriously. We do not have clarity yet as to whether there will be the funding allocated to upgrade the infrastructure to respond to the objections. It strikes me as sensible to defer a decision on these matters until we, as a committee, can be satisfied that there will be a response to the objections. I feel the funding package is a material consideration for me as to whether the objections are being adequately responded to.' After Cllr Lang asked what the budget for this year would be it became clear that the funding had not yet been fixed – and would not be until the Transport and Environment Committee met on 22 June to agree the new ten year capital programme. The committee also heard from Dave Sinclair, Locality Transport & Environment Manager, that the highest spec of bollard was chosen at the point of delivery – the black and white wands which NTBCC has suggested are inappropriate for the World Heritage Site. Given the uncertainty of how much money there will be for delivery, and so how these wands could be replaced, councillors agreed to defer making any decision until their next meeting. Watch the webcast of the meeting here. Like this: Like Related
