#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Cllr Graham proposes postpone Rose St decision, seconded Cllr Osler

🙄 Vote 4-4 then casting vote postpones Rose St

Weird voting: 1 Libdem for, one against

Spokes view:
🙄 crazy lengthy debate re 🚲'dangers' despite existing cycling; no talk of the 🚘🚚dangers

The TRO subcommittee fret on details and believe they are working to improve the city - they are not. They merely serve to filibuster and delay progress on a more people oriented city. They also overstep their mark, as they’ve only supposed to approve the reports as a legal formality

Shame on them

The crazy thing is, that Rose St is a destination, not a through-route for bikes. So enabling 2-way cycling would have likely reduced interactions with pedestrians, as bikes could then take the shortest route. And the street already has 1-way cars on it!

In detail, there were 2 positions: one to support the orders as is, the other to exclude Rose St

There were 4 votes for each position, Cllr Graham had the casting vote as Convenor. Said she felt very strongly about Rose street and voted through the amendment to delete Rose Street from the orders

The inexperience and overreach of the TRO subcommittee shows its ugly head again

On average, there is a one-to-one
relationship, so a 10% increase in road capacity will be followed, within a few years, by a 10% increase in vehicles being driven.3 A major study commissioned by CPRE "The Impact
of Road Projects in England” 4 examined Highways England reports on road developments

Induced demand

The fundamental assumption of the proposal is that congestion can be relieved by increasing road capacity. This assumption is categorically incorrect. Instead, it has been well
known for a long time that increasing road capacity will induce demand

…to switch to using sustainable modes of transport.

The time, money and other resources being allocated to this project should instead be spent on projects which will actually help solve these problems, such as improving the public and active travel networks in Midlothian and south Edinburgh.

Whilst there are some notable improvements for cyclists included in the latest plans, the scheme as a whole will create a more dangerous environment for cycling in Midlothian and Edinburgh. It will also further entrench the dominance of car use, making it even more difficult for future generations

Summary
Spokes strongly objects to the principle of the A701 Relief Road and A702 Link Road proposals, and therefore to this planning application. If built, these roads will aggravate the
issues they are supposed to alleviate.

A701 Relief Road and A702 Link Road 2025

Motion by Councillor Cuthbert - Support for Midlothian Council's
A701 Relief Road & A702 Link Road Project

Spokes deputation - 13 November 2025

Yes, there are other things to be worrying about in the world but, as a historian, I find this editing of history to be deeply flawed. John Grimshaw was not one of the founders of Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, he was one of the founders of Sustrans!

Is it normal for a re-named org to edit history in this way?

@stephenjenkinson.bsky.social
@chasbooth.bsky.social
@cllrconorsavage.bsky.social
@ehyslop.bsky.social

@joangriffiths236.bsky.social
@leftwing66.bsky.social
@fionahyslop.bsky.social

@lezleymarion.bsky.social
@cllrbenparker.bsky.social
@markruskell.bsky.social

… for better junctions, nature gardens, placemaking, play facilities, etc

What a way to tie up busy parents for years and years. All for it to be potentially taken out

Absolute shame on Edinburgh council

With the experimental traffic order to run from January for 18 months, that’ll be SIX & A HALF YEARS before the scheme is made permanent

6.5 years during which we’ve been battling to keep the scheme in place, for the benefit of the community

6.5 years we could have spent campaigning for…