It’s “Wait and See for AT Projects” – #SpokesMtg report

A major report to the May 22 Transport & Environment Committee will lay out a 10-year prioritised programme of active travel and wider transport projects in support of the city’s Mobility Plan. Speaking to a crammed hall, Transport Convener Cllr Stephen Jenkinson said that when he came into post he found an ever-expanding list of ongoing projects which needed rationalised. They are being scored on a range of criteria, and will be presented on 22 May, as a robust and deliverable programme, with realistic implementation timescales.

The fact that our meeting, unfortunately, came before this report, meant that little was said about specific projects by the speakers. Nonetheless, many topics were raised by the audience in the QA, not least the highly controversial issues of road user charging, Granton tram extension options, and the Braid Estate traffic filters.

Indeed, it could almost be said that the meeting was less about the audience going away with answers, and more about the speakers going away with questions!

The meeting received extensive media coverage, with a front-page Scotsman article and a double-page spread in Edinburgh Evening News.

With around 100 people, this was one of our biggest meetings ever, showing the growing demand for improved cycling facilities and reduced car dominance. It was especially pleasing to see three other politicians take time from their busy lives to join the audience – Sarah Boyack MSP [Labour, Spokes member], Cllr Chas Booth [Green, Leith, Spokes member] and Cllr Ross McKenzie [Independent, Sighthill/Gorgie].

A full video of the meeting will be available soon.

Speakers

The speakers, Transport and Environment Convener Cllr Stephen Jenkinson, and the Council’s Head of Transport Strategy and Partnerships, Deborah Paton [formerly at Glasgow City Council], gave a joint presentation, with Cllr Jenkinson concentrating on policy and turning to Deborah to explain how this worked out in practice.

Although our meeting was titled “Cycling as Part of Edinburgh’s Transport Policy,” the presentation concentrated largely on the latter aspect, the wider transport context, and the structures in the Council which deliver this, with little about specific active travel projects – probably for the reasons above, but attracting a light-hearted “When are you getting to cycling?” heckle from one audience member!

The structures are explained in the speakers’ slides, so will not be elaborated here.

Deborah Paton also spent some time outlining a new Council guidance document and audit pro-forma, aiming to ensure that women’s safety is incorporated from the outset into design of active travel and placemaking schemes. Again, this is well explained in the slides provided.

The one-hour QA session

The session was chaired by Helen Todd, Spokes member, chair of Planning Democracy and former Ramblers Scotland policy manager.

For the full hour of discussion, see the meeting video. The following is a selection of important themes that emerged. We have combined questions on similar topics, paraphrased and added Spokes notes.

The hour passed rapidly, with many people still having their hands raised to ask questions when the meeting had to close at 21.30.

Road user charging / Congestion charging

Q: Cllr Jenkinson had confirmed in his presentation that Edinburgh was sticking to its target for car-km reduction, even though Scot Govt had said their own traffic-reduction commitment is ‘undeliverable.’ However, research commissioned (then sidelined) by Scot Govt had shown that substantial traffic reduction is achievable, but only by introducing one of several forms of road user charging. So, would Edinburgh implement charging?

A: Cllr J said that demand management is essential; and that charging is in the Mobility Plan as an option and must be considered seriously. However, more was needed from the Scottish Government before the Council could take charging further. Answering a follow-up, Cllr J said he would be pressing the Government on this. Cllr J also believed that charging would be more effective if it covered an area wider than just Edinburgh.

Spokes notes:

• For links to the Scot Govt commissioned research (from AECOM) showing that charging is essential to meet a 20% traffic reduction target, see here.
• Our understanding is that Councils do already have legal powers to introduce congestion charging. However, in its conclusions, the above research suggests it would not make sense for Councils to do so until Scot Govt produces a “Framework for Implementation” – this seems to tie up with what Cllr J was saying. So far, there is no sign of Scot Govt acting on this
• Cllr J’s statement that congestion charging remains a serious option received significant press coverage, including our meeting appearing on page 1 of the Scotsman, 2.5.25.
• In his presentation, Cllr J stated that 84% of Scotland’s population growth in the next 10 years is expected to be in Edinburgh and the Lothians, and that congestion would be horrific unless action is taken (although he did not mention congestion charging at that point). It is impossible to see how Edinburgh traffic can even be kept to existing levels, let alone cut substantially, in that context, without some form of road user charging.

Tramline extension / Roseburn Path

Q: Several questioners were concerned at the potential impact of tramline extension to Granton on the Roseburn path, should the tram use this corridor rather than an onroad option. One person seemed to imply that tram was not necessary at all. Another questioned why the path was now classed as part of the “secondary” cycle network, rather than “primary.”

A: The tram extension to Granton is essential. There is massive housing expansion underway and planned for the Granton brownfield sites, and this is predicated on high quality public transit to the city rather than expanding road capacity. There has been significant public consultation already, and a further major consultation on refined options will commence probably in August so as not to coincide with school holidays. The ‘secondary’ designation for most of Edinburgh’s offroad network is because the ‘primary’ network will be segregated onroad lanes as far as possible.

Spokes notes:

• Spokes accepts the need for the tram. Our position on route options is that there are big plusses and big minuses for cycling with both the onroad and offroad options, as discussed in our article here. Whichever option the Council selects, Spokes will argue for high quality cycling & walking conditions both onroad and offroad. Spokes held a major public meeting in June 2024 on the options as they were at that stage.
• Some questioners seemed concerned that if the tram uses Roseburn, the path would be lost. Spokes is convinced that a cycleable path would remain. Previous plans, which gained planning permission, incorporated a 3m path [see links in this article]; and the 1.2.24 Transport Committee, which OK’d continued tram options development, made clear to officers that such a path is vital. The question, therefore, is not will there be a path, but what will be the quality of the path and the impact of the tram on the corridor’s environment in terms of both nature and active travel.
• Regarding the “secondary” designation, the Council’s revised Active Travel Action Plan ATAP (now called Mobility Plan – Delivering Actions for Active Travel) made a major change, that the city’s Primary Cycle Network should largely be segregated lanes on main roads, “the most direct, flattest, most socially safe routes” – a decision which Spokes strongly supported. The offroad network, although largely designated “secondary” … “will continue to play a vital role, and we will seek to improve its comfort, safety and security.” Additionally, where there is no realistic main road option, a few offroad sections will form part of the primary network. There seems a strong case for Craigleith to the Canal to be thus designated, especially with the recent opening of Roseburn to Dundee Street, as it provides an incredible north-south link for which a direct, relatively level and segregated onroad alterative is quite impossible.

Braid Estate controversy

Q: Another heated question, raised by several people … Why is the Council intending to remove the existing modal filters, thus reintroducing significant traffic to a residential area? … and, as a result, spending a very large sum on mitigating measures to try and maintain cyclist safety on the north-south Greenbank-Meadows quiet route?

A: This issue has always been highly controversial with greatly differing views amongst residents and councillors. The previous Transport Committee (under a different Convener) in March 2024 voted for this outcome. It will use an Experimental Traffic Order designed to allow the Committee to reinstate the filters after a 6-month experimental period, without requiring a further Order, if experience and feedback point that way. Now that plans have been drawn up and consulted on for the experiment, the decision must be implemented, and the evidence then gathered for a final decision.

Spokes note:

• Spokes was very disappointed in the March 2024 Committee decision, which (experimentally) will remove the modal filters and will introduce a costly (and potentially temporary) north-south segregated cycle lane in Braid Road. In our view, main roads need segregated lanes, whilst residential areas in general require only the removal of through-traffic by modal filters. By retaining the modal filters here, the north-south segregated lane would not be required
• Also importantly, the filters are also hugely benefical for east-west cycling safety, and the new north-south segregated route will do nothing to ameliorate the expected big rise in east-west motor traffic
• Even at this late stage, retaining the filters and abandoning the proposed segregated bike lane would save a great deal of officer time and of capital funding, although it now seems unlikely as councillors do not wish to re-open the controversy
• An excellent factual summary of the story so far, by local councillor Ben Parker, is here.

Tour de France 2027

Q: The ‘Grand Depart’ start of the Tour will be in Edinburgh. Will this reduce funding and staffing for ongoing cycle infrastructure projects

A: Really unknown at present. The Tour is a massive event and undoubtedly Council resources will go into it, but where they will come from is as yet not decided. Some of the preparations will benefit local cycling – for example, some infrastructure plans may be brought forward, some roads resurfaced and it is hoped there will be a major legacy of events and citizen interest in getting about by bike.

Spokes note:

• This is a major issue which the Council needs to think about now if benefits are to be maximised and the dangers referenced in the question are to be minimised.
• As for the benefits, on the one hand, the inaugural 2023 UCI Cycling World Championships were claimed in an independent report (sponsored by UK Sport) to have delivered significant social, economic and environmental benefits for Glasgow. But, on the other hand, there is extensive evidence [e.g. 1, 2, 3] that big public sporting events in general do not bring the long-term public participation benefits which are often claimed in advance as justification for putting on (at considerable expense) the event.

Delays & Funding

Q: Several people asked about the very substantial project delays we have seen over the years. One person recalled that in 2009 the City signed the Charter of Brussels, which included a target for 15% of trips by bike by 2020! There were also concerns about funding, for example the £3.8m (??), largely government cash via Sustrans, which had been spent on the George Street project, with nothing on the ground, and so many other projects which could have used that money

A: Cllr J said he was focussed on delivery rather than generating further strategies. But on becoming Convener he had found a “huge and expanding” list of projects flowing from existing strategies. These needed to be rationalised and prioritised (see start of this article) to get delivery back on track. On top of that, the Scottish Government last year changed funding rules so that they now only provide funding one year at a time, making decisions on multi-year projects very difficult. Hence the projects review which is coming to the May 11 Committee, to provide “a realistic programme which is deliverable in a reasonable time frame,” and which would be used to fight to maximise Scot Govt funding.

On George Street, part of the delay was due to this being a World Heritage Site, the huge number of stakeholders and conflicting interests, and many stages of design. The current proposals were very costly in the present funding climate, and a further report would be coming to Committee soon, with cost reduction options.

Spokes note:

• We sympathise with Cllr J on the funding issues. Whilst Scot Govt active travel funding did rise significantly during 2020-2024, it appears to be on a non-transparent downward slide again. Moreover, Councils are informed very late in the day which of their bids are successful, and the change to only guarantee funding on an annual basis (a rule not applied to trunk road multi-year projects!) is maddening.
• In response to a request by Cllr Booth, officers provided a very useful report outlining project delays … and the reasons why
• George Street, however, is an incredibly frustrating Council mess – a saga of some 15 years, a bonanza for private consultancies, a continuing central gap in CCWEL, and ending up (so far) with a scheme which the Transport Committee has now realised is impossibly costly! Moreover, the massive delays and ever-growing costs mean that the multi-year funding for construction initially provisionally promised by Sustrans is lost, and there is almost zero chance of Scot Govt stepping in at anything like that level. This article (scroll down to the Maxi-Consultation section) lists what happened over the first 10 years, 2010-2019. Purely in terms of the George Street CCWEL gap, of course, excellent provision would be possible, and at far less cost, were it not for the huge tangle of competing ideas and interests involved in George Street, from the many and varied businesses through to the World Heritage aspects.

City Bike Hire

Q: When will long-overdue bike hire return to Edinburgh? The questioner was also concerned about safety for hire-bike users.

A: Cllr J hopes it could even be this summer – a report is expected at the May 22 Transport Committee. The Council is seeking a scheme with no ongoing costs to the City, and entirely e-bikes because of Edinburgh’s hilly nature. Two companies are interested on this basis, and have demonstrated their bikes [see photo of Cllr J trying a Dott e-bike]. Both firms already have bikes available in storage, hence Cllr J’s optimism that it could even happen this summer.

Spokes note:

• In terms of safety, whilst fears about safety are often expressed in advance of bike hire schemes, the data, to the extent it exists, suggests that bike hire users are significantly safer than people using their own bikes. Possible reasons are: bike hire tends to be used on roads with low traffic speeds; bike-hire cyclists may travel more slowly than the average; motorists may assume hire bike users are less competent, so give them more space; bike share is often introduced at the same time as improved facilities, and may encourage Councils to do more. An overview of available evidence (now a little dated), by the International Transport Forum is here, and includes the graph below.

Camera enforcement of ASLs & Bus Lanes

Q: Advance Stop Lines (‘bike boxes’) are often over-run by taxis and by buses. Can on-vehicle cameras be used to identify such cases? And why is no action taken by police, employers or the Council?

A: There are several bus & coach operators with routes in Edinburgh. As regards Lothian Buses, all are fitted with external cameras: one of the main intentions is to enforce bus lanes, as parked or moving cars can cause significant bus delays, though unfortunately Scot Govt has still not given the Council the necessary enforcement powers. As regards buses stopping in bike boxes, this will be discussed with the Council’s Network Management Team.

Public meeting resources

• Pre-meeting article & poster
• Slides from Cllr Jenkinson & Deborah Paton joint presentation
• Video of the meeting [to follow]
• Post-meeting bluesky link to this article [please re-post]
• Excellent meeting report in 5.5.25 Edi.Bike cycling news digest
• QA thread live during the meeting, by Cllr Chas Booth
• Evening News article on the ‘pausing’ of some projects [slightly alarmist headline]. The double-page spread also included an article on congestion charging … we can’t find a text link to that, but it was almost identical to the Scotsman article below
• Scotsman page 1 article on congestion charging possibilities.

Thanks & help!

• Many thanks to all who made our public meeting possible, notably our speakers, our audience, organisers Emma and Helen, technical expert Sam, and all other helpers
• Please help by passing on the link to this article and/or re-posting our Bluesky ‘tweet.’