Trending

#EdinWebcast

Latest posts tagged with #EdinWebcast on Bluesky

Posts tagged #EdinWebcast

Cllr Lang

Cllr Lang

Cllr Booth

Cllr Booth

Cllr Mowat's motion...

Motion by Councillor Mowat
Transport and Environment Committee
2 April 2026
RSAs and TROs
Supporting Information
1.1 Council notes:
(a) that Road Safety Audits (RSA) are often carried out as part of the Traffic
Regulation Order (TRO) process:
(b) that these have not been included as part of the pack of papers issued to the
TRO Sub Committee;
(c) that a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request submitted by the New Town and
Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) has demonstrated that often the
RSAs make recommendations about issues which increase the safety of the
change proposed; and
(d) that currently it is not clear whether the changes are required to make the
TRO safe and if passing the TRO without the changes means Councillors are
making TROs that aren’t safe.
Proposed Action/Decision
2.1 Council calls for a report detailing the following information:
(a) What does “safe” mean in Road Traffic Legislation;
(b) Whether any RSA recommendations need to be implemented to render the
TRO safe;
(c) Whether Roads legislation requires TROs to be implemented only when they
are safe;
(d) Why RSAs aren’t routinely published as part of TRO papers;
(e) What process is currently in place to address RSA recommendations and how
are these tracked and reported?
Moved by: Councillor Jo Mowat

Cllr Mowat's motion... Motion by Councillor Mowat Transport and Environment Committee 2 April 2026 RSAs and TROs Supporting Information 1.1 Council notes: (a) that Road Safety Audits (RSA) are often carried out as part of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process: (b) that these have not been included as part of the pack of papers issued to the TRO Sub Committee; (c) that a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request submitted by the New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) has demonstrated that often the RSAs make recommendations about issues which increase the safety of the change proposed; and (d) that currently it is not clear whether the changes are required to make the TRO safe and if passing the TRO without the changes means Councillors are making TROs that aren’t safe. Proposed Action/Decision 2.1 Council calls for a report detailing the following information: (a) What does “safe” mean in Road Traffic Legislation; (b) Whether any RSA recommendations need to be implemented to render the TRO safe; (c) Whether Roads legislation requires TROs to be implemented only when they are safe; (d) Why RSAs aren’t routinely published as part of TRO papers; (e) What process is currently in place to address RSA recommendations and how are these tracked and reported? Moved by: Councillor Jo Mowat

#EdinWebcast

Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social asks if it it's legally competent for the Cttee to consider this

Cllr @chasbooth.bsky.social happy for a report on the issue, but doesn't expect it will be recommended. The TRO sub's formal role is to consider objections, not RSA reports

Motion agreed

0 0 1 0
Cllr Mowat

Cllr Mowat

Motion by Councillor Mowat
Transport and Environment Committee
2 April 2026
RSAs and TROs
Supporting Information
1.1 Council notes:
(a) that Road Safety Audits (RSA) are often carried out as part of the Traffic
Regulation Order (TRO) process:
(b) that these have not been included as part of the pack of papers issued to the
TRO Sub Committee;
(c) that a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request submitted by the New Town and
Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) has demonstrated that often the
RSAs make recommendations about issues which increase the safety of the
change proposed; and
(d) that currently it is not clear whether the changes are required to make the
TRO safe and if passing the TRO without the changes means Councillors are
making TROs that aren’t safe.
Proposed Action/Decision
2.1 Council calls for a report detailing the following information:
(a) What does “safe” mean in Road Traffic Legislation;
(b) Whether any RSA recommendations need to be implemented to render the
TRO safe;
(c) Whether Roads legislation requires TROs to be implemented only when they
are safe;
(d) Why RSAs aren’t routinely published as part of TRO papers;
(e) What process is currently in place to address RSA recommendations and how
are these tracked and reported?
Moved by: Councillor Jo Mowat

Motion by Councillor Mowat Transport and Environment Committee 2 April 2026 RSAs and TROs Supporting Information 1.1 Council notes: (a) that Road Safety Audits (RSA) are often carried out as part of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process: (b) that these have not been included as part of the pack of papers issued to the TRO Sub Committee; (c) that a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request submitted by the New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC) has demonstrated that often the RSAs make recommendations about issues which increase the safety of the change proposed; and (d) that currently it is not clear whether the changes are required to make the TRO safe and if passing the TRO without the changes means Councillors are making TROs that aren’t safe. Proposed Action/Decision 2.1 Council calls for a report detailing the following information: (a) What does “safe” mean in Road Traffic Legislation; (b) Whether any RSA recommendations need to be implemented to render the TRO safe; (c) Whether Roads legislation requires TROs to be implemented only when they are safe; (d) Why RSAs aren’t routinely published as part of TRO papers; (e) What process is currently in place to address RSA recommendations and how are these tracked and reported? Moved by: Councillor Jo Mowat

Post image

#EdinWebcast

@cllrjomo.bsky.social motion asking that #RoadSafetyAudit reports should be given to #TROSubcommittee
--> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9...
Cllr Mowat says: cllrs should have known #ThistleStreet had poor road surface before agreeing to contraflow cycling

0 0 0 0
Improvements to the Council Website
4.3 Following approval of the 2026/2027 Transport Capital Investment Programme officers will arrange changes to the Council website to improve availability of accessible information relating to transport programmes across the service.
4.4 It is expected the design and navigation of the website will be revised to include annual capital works programmes, where available, and supporting information to explain how Council investment strategies defined and implemented. Ultimately, it would be desirable to provide website navigation that allows residents and businesses to search for planned and programmed works by location or specific search criteria.
4.5 The content of website improvements is expected to include, but is not limited to, information relating to:
•
Roads and footpath resurfacing and improvements;
Transport and Environment Committee – 2 April 2026
•
•
Street Lighting replacement and upgrades;
•
•
Bridges and flooding schemes;
•
•
Road Safety delivery programme;
•
•
Local Traffic Improvement programme (local traffic mitigation projects);
•
•
Traffic Signal schemes and upgrades;
•
•
Tram investment and renewals strategy;
•
•
Parking (bus lane camera upgrades);
•
•
Public Transport infrastructure investment (bus shelters/real time etc);
•
•
Active and Sustainable Travel Investment programmes; and
•
•
Bus Priority projects
4.6 It is expected the necessary changes and improvements to the website could take a number of months to complete, with a range of available information introduced in phases. It is expected the

Improvements to the Council Website 4.3 Following approval of the 2026/2027 Transport Capital Investment Programme officers will arrange changes to the Council website to improve availability of accessible information relating to transport programmes across the service. 4.4 It is expected the design and navigation of the website will be revised to include annual capital works programmes, where available, and supporting information to explain how Council investment strategies defined and implemented. Ultimately, it would be desirable to provide website navigation that allows residents and businesses to search for planned and programmed works by location or specific search criteria. 4.5 The content of website improvements is expected to include, but is not limited to, information relating to: • Roads and footpath resurfacing and improvements; Transport and Environment Committee – 2 April 2026 • • Street Lighting replacement and upgrades; • • Bridges and flooding schemes; • • Road Safety delivery programme; • • Local Traffic Improvement programme (local traffic mitigation projects); • • Traffic Signal schemes and upgrades; • • Tram investment and renewals strategy; • • Parking (bus lane camera upgrades); • • Public Transport infrastructure investment (bus shelters/real time etc); • • Active and Sustainable Travel Investment programmes; and • • Bus Priority projects 4.6 It is expected the necessary changes and improvements to the website could take a number of months to complete, with a range of available information introduced in phases. It is expected the

Improvements to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process:
4.14 A further action relates to a review of the TRO process to make it more understandable and accessible for people to understand what orders are being promoted and to make the information and drawings easier to understand.
4.15 The statutory TRO process is a formal legal exercise and requires specific documents to ensure it is competent and the Council recognises that documentation in plain English can be made available to better explain the scope of the planned order.
4.16 Officers in the Traffic Orders Team recently introduced a “List of Measures” document that provides a clear explanation of each element of the respective TRO.
4.17 To further improve public communications officers are currently preparing new pages to be included on the Council’s website. The information, that should be available within the next six months, will provide a better explanation of the process with clear links to appropriate pages containing the list of promoted TROs, supporting information describing clearly how to submit comments or objections and relevant drawings etc.
4.18 The final element of the action related to providing councillors access to all existing TROs. Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide information for all operational TROs at this time. The TRO team procured and commissioned a new map based TRO system called Mapper in early 2025 with the majority of “non-moving traffic” orders now shown on the Streets map-based system. Further TRO Consolidation Orders will be required to update remaining historical written orders.
4.19 A more detailed report describing proposed TRO improvements is expected to be available at the June 2026 meeting.

Improvements to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process: 4.14 A further action relates to a review of the TRO process to make it more understandable and accessible for people to understand what orders are being promoted and to make the information and drawings easier to understand. 4.15 The statutory TRO process is a formal legal exercise and requires specific documents to ensure it is competent and the Council recognises that documentation in plain English can be made available to better explain the scope of the planned order. 4.16 Officers in the Traffic Orders Team recently introduced a “List of Measures” document that provides a clear explanation of each element of the respective TRO. 4.17 To further improve public communications officers are currently preparing new pages to be included on the Council’s website. The information, that should be available within the next six months, will provide a better explanation of the process with clear links to appropriate pages containing the list of promoted TROs, supporting information describing clearly how to submit comments or objections and relevant drawings etc. 4.18 The final element of the action related to providing councillors access to all existing TROs. Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide information for all operational TROs at this time. The TRO team procured and commissioned a new map based TRO system called Mapper in early 2025 with the majority of “non-moving traffic” orders now shown on the Streets map-based system. Further TRO Consolidation Orders will be required to update remaining historical written orders. 4.19 A more detailed report describing proposed TRO improvements is expected to be available at the June 2026 meeting.

#EdinWebcast

Public communication report--> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9...

👍 Council promises improved
- website info (e.g. AT investment, resurfacing projects)
- TRO process
[see attachments]

But disappointing: "it's not possible to provide info for all operational TROs at this time"

1 1 2 0
Cllr Lang

Cllr Lang

Amendment by the Liberal Democrat
Group
Transport and Environment Committee
2 April 2026
Item 8.1 - Road Safety and Local Traffic
Improvement Delivery Programme Update
Committee
1) In 1.1.1 adds at end, “welcomes the significant progress made in terms of safety
road markings and VASS installation, but expresses it ongoing concern that:
a) None of the three ‘major’ projects were delivered.
b) None of the 16 planned pedestrian crossings were delivered.
c) of the 49 relating to schools, only 7 were delivered to completion.
d) of the 10 CIP projects, only 1 was completed with 7 removed from the
programme.
e) of the 17 LTI projects agreed in 2024/25 and 2025/26 only 2 have been
completed.
2) Deletes 1.1.4, and inserts:
1.1.4 agrees to the process as set out in paragraphs 4.20 - 4.22 on the possible
disestablishment of 17 school crossing patrol sites.
Moved by: Cllr Kevin Lang
Seconded by: Cllr Hal Osler

Amendment by the Liberal Democrat Group Transport and Environment Committee 2 April 2026 Item 8.1 - Road Safety and Local Traffic Improvement Delivery Programme Update Committee 1) In 1.1.1 adds at end, “welcomes the significant progress made in terms of safety road markings and VASS installation, but expresses it ongoing concern that: a) None of the three ‘major’ projects were delivered. b) None of the 16 planned pedestrian crossings were delivered. c) of the 49 relating to schools, only 7 were delivered to completion. d) of the 10 CIP projects, only 1 was completed with 7 removed from the programme. e) of the 17 LTI projects agreed in 2024/25 and 2025/26 only 2 have been completed. 2) Deletes 1.1.4, and inserts: 1.1.4 agrees to the process as set out in paragraphs 4.20 - 4.22 on the possible disestablishment of 17 school crossing patrol sites. Moved by: Cllr Kevin Lang Seconded by: Cllr Hal Osler

Pictures of ghostbike at Kings Road junction, site of 2 cyclist deaths

Pictures of ghostbike at Kings Road junction, site of 2 cyclist deaths

Appendix 1 – Road Safety Delivery Programme 2025/2026 Update
Scheme Name
Details
Comment
Project Position
Ward
Major Projects
Dalmahoy Junction
Junction Improvement
This project is progressing well with all agreements finalised October 2025 and drainage options complete. The project is due to be delivered in 2026/27
Ongoing
2
Davidsons Mains Mini Roundabout
Pedestrian crossing and junction improvement
Community consultation took place in December 2025 and January 2026. The zebra crossing upgrade will be delivered in April/May 2026.
Ongoing
1
Kings Road Junction, Portobello
Preferred design layout selected
TRO/RSO process progressing for delivery 2026/27
Ongoing
17

Appendix 1 – Road Safety Delivery Programme 2025/2026 Update Scheme Name Details Comment Project Position Ward Major Projects Dalmahoy Junction Junction Improvement This project is progressing well with all agreements finalised October 2025 and drainage options complete. The project is due to be delivered in 2026/27 Ongoing 2 Davidsons Mains Mini Roundabout Pedestrian crossing and junction improvement Community consultation took place in December 2025 and January 2026. The zebra crossing upgrade will be delivered in April/May 2026. Ongoing 1 Kings Road Junction, Portobello Preferred design layout selected TRO/RSO process progressing for delivery 2026/27 Ongoing 17

#EdinWebcast

#RoadSafety Update--> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9...

Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social concern re many delays including Major junctions

[NB: includes Kings Road jn, site of 2 cyclist deaths]

Cllr @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social accepts LibDem amendment (attached)

Report agreed

0 0 1 0
Post image

#EdinWebcast
#QuietRoute ctd

Cllr @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social says process has lasted 5 years, and clarity now needed, not another experiment

Vote:
Lab/Green/SNP - 7 for Option C
LibDem+Con - 4 for combined LD/Con motion

So now goes to TransportSubcttee for final decision on the #TrafficFilters

2 0 1 0
Post image Post image Cllr Cuthbert

Cllr Cuthbert

Amendment by the Conservative Group
Transport and Environment Committee
2 April 2026
Item - Late Reports – Greenbank to Meadows Quiet
Connection
Amendment to recommendation 1.1.3:
Delete "Approves proceeding with Option C as presented within the report" and replace
with:
"Approves proceeding with Option A, allowing TRO/21/29D to expire on 15 June 2026,
and instructs the Corporate Director of Place to bring forward a report to a future meeting
of this Committee on the longer-term transport needs of the Greenbank to Meadows
corridor, taking into account: the experience and evidence gathered during the trial
scheme; the views expressed by residents through the representations process; the
transport and road safety needs of the wider A702 corridor in south Edinburgh; the
absence of a dedicated park and ride facility on this route; and the impact of increased
traffic arising from residential development in Midlothian on the Edinburgh road network;
with a view to informing any future decisions on changes to the road layout in this area
with any measures to be constructed with permanent and suitable infrastructure."
Moved by: Councillor Neil Cuthbert
Seconded by: Councillor Iain Whyte

Amendment by the Conservative Group Transport and Environment Committee 2 April 2026 Item - Late Reports – Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Connection Amendment to recommendation 1.1.3: Delete "Approves proceeding with Option C as presented within the report" and replace with: "Approves proceeding with Option A, allowing TRO/21/29D to expire on 15 June 2026, and instructs the Corporate Director of Place to bring forward a report to a future meeting of this Committee on the longer-term transport needs of the Greenbank to Meadows corridor, taking into account: the experience and evidence gathered during the trial scheme; the views expressed by residents through the representations process; the transport and road safety needs of the wider A702 corridor in south Edinburgh; the absence of a dedicated park and ride facility on this route; and the impact of increased traffic arising from residential development in Midlothian on the Edinburgh road network; with a view to informing any future decisions on changes to the road layout in this area with any measures to be constructed with permanent and suitable infrastructure." Moved by: Councillor Neil Cuthbert Seconded by: Councillor Iain Whyte

#EdinWebcast
#QuietRoute ctd

@cllrbenparker.bsky.social says Option B delays action 18 months & is costly. Option C was not included in original consultn when B was supported

Cllr Cuthbert unhappy with entire process and wants new report on entire A702 north-south travel. But no longer supports A

0 0 1 0
cllr osler

cllr osler

Addendum by the Administration
Transport & Environment Committee
2 April 2026
Late Reports - Greenbank to Meadows Quiet
Connection
Adds:
1.1.4 Agrees that if the decision of the TRO Sub-Committee is to retain the modal filters
north of Cluny Avenue a permanent TRO will be advertised as a priority for a modal filter
at Clinton Road.
Moved by: Councillor Stephen Jenkinson
Seconded by: Councillor Conor Savage

Addendum by the Administration Transport & Environment Committee 2 April 2026 Late Reports - Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Connection Adds: 1.1.4 Agrees that if the decision of the TRO Sub-Committee is to retain the modal filters north of Cluny Avenue a permanent TRO will be advertised as a priority for a modal filter at Clinton Road. Moved by: Councillor Stephen Jenkinson Seconded by: Councillor Conor Savage

cllr lang

cllr lang

Amendment by the Liberal Democrat
Group
Transport and Environment Committee
2 April 2026
Late report – Greenbank to Meadows Quiet
Connection
Committee
In 1.1.3, delete “Option C” and insert “Option B”.
Moved by: Cllr Kevin Lang
Seconded by: Cllr Hal Osler

Amendment by the Liberal Democrat Group Transport and Environment Committee 2 April 2026 Late report – Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Connection Committee In 1.1.3, delete “Option C” and insert “Option B”. Moved by: Cllr Kevin Lang Seconded by: Cllr Hal Osler

#EdinWebcast

Cllr Osler asks re monitoring
A: officers will monitor any scheme chosen

@stephenjenkinson.bsky.social supports Option C, plus additional filter at #ClintonRoad

Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social says Option B was the most popular at TEC 2 years ago, so should be tried now for consistency

0 0 1 0
Officer

Officer

The options..

Option A - Abandon TRO/21/29D
4.5
This would entail removing the current scheme in its entirety. TRO/21/29D would expire on 15 June 2026 and there would be no requirement to report to the TRO Sub-Committee on the representations to the current trial scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D.
Option B - Advertise the new ETRO that has been drafted
4.6
This would entail changing the Clinton Road/Whitehouse Road and the Braid Estate sections of the current trial scheme, in line with the Committee decisions from March and April 2024 and commencing a new trial of the revised scheme. Other sections of the current trial scheme would be retained in their current form. The ETRO that has been drafted to implement the revised scheme as a new trial would be advertised and would revoke TRO/21/29D. There would be no requirement to report to the TRO Sub-Committee on the representations to the current trial
Transport and Environment Committee – 2 April 2026
scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D.
Option C - Refer objections to the current trial scheme to TRO Sub-Committee
4.7
All representations to the current trial scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D, would be referred to the TRO Sub-Committee for consideration as part of its decision-making process on whether to make TRO/21/29D permanent. The Sub-Committee could decide to make the Order permanent, in full or in part, or not to make the Order permanent. Depending on the Sub-Committee’s decision all, part or none of the current trial scheme would be retained.
4.8
If Committee approves proceeding with either Option A or Option C, this does not prevent the potential for future changes to the road layout. If a subsequent change were required, officers would re-engage with the local community and other relevant stakeholders over the potential for further changes to be made and report back to Commi…

The options.. Option A - Abandon TRO/21/29D 4.5 This would entail removing the current scheme in its entirety. TRO/21/29D would expire on 15 June 2026 and there would be no requirement to report to the TRO Sub-Committee on the representations to the current trial scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D. Option B - Advertise the new ETRO that has been drafted 4.6 This would entail changing the Clinton Road/Whitehouse Road and the Braid Estate sections of the current trial scheme, in line with the Committee decisions from March and April 2024 and commencing a new trial of the revised scheme. Other sections of the current trial scheme would be retained in their current form. The ETRO that has been drafted to implement the revised scheme as a new trial would be advertised and would revoke TRO/21/29D. There would be no requirement to report to the TRO Sub-Committee on the representations to the current trial Transport and Environment Committee – 2 April 2026 scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D. Option C - Refer objections to the current trial scheme to TRO Sub-Committee 4.7 All representations to the current trial scheme, received in response to the advertising of both TRO/21/29 and TRO/21/29D, would be referred to the TRO Sub-Committee for consideration as part of its decision-making process on whether to make TRO/21/29D permanent. The Sub-Committee could decide to make the Order permanent, in full or in part, or not to make the Order permanent. Depending on the Sub-Committee’s decision all, part or none of the current trial scheme would be retained. 4.8 If Committee approves proceeding with either Option A or Option C, this does not prevent the potential for future changes to the road layout. If a subsequent change were required, officers would re-engage with the local community and other relevant stakeholders over the potential for further changes to be made and report back to Commi…

Post image Post image

#EdinWebcast #Greenbank - #Meadows #quietroute

Report-> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9...

Option A - abandon scheme
B - remove filters & install N-S bike route
C - retain filters [but final decision will be by TRO subcttee]

Officer recommend C

NB: see deputations earlier in this thread

0 0 1 0

#EdinWebcast Maintenance plans (ctd)

Green amendt seeks..

1. for 🚶👩‍🦼, move £0.5m from road to footway
2. for 🚲, more clarity in future reports on 🚲 investment

Cllr @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social agrees (2) but says TEC shouldn't change (1) as budget was agreed at full council

2 0 1 0
Post image start of programme of renewals...

Proposed Capital Delivery Programme
April 2026 – March 2027
SCHEME NAME
TREATMENT
WARD NUMBER
TOTAL AREA
A701
Carriageway Strengthening
15
18999
Baltic Street
Carriageway Strengthening
13
1449.9
Crewe Toll Roundabout
Carriageway Strengthening
4
7530.4
Newcraighall Road
Carriageway Strengthening
17
3662.2
Riccarton Mains Road Roundabout
Carriageway Strengthening
2
1680
Newcraighall East Roundabout
Carriageway Strengthening
17
2851.2
Meadow Place Road
Carriageway Strengthening
6
6239
Balgreen Road
Carriageway Strengthening
7
10042
Long Dalmahoy Road
Carriageway Strengthening
2
3880.9
Blackie Road
Carriageway Strengthening
13
1140
Ashley Terrace/Polwarth Terrace Junction
Carriageway Strengthening
10
1276.4
Calder Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
2
2778
Liberton Brae
Carriageway Resurfacing
16
7206.9
Portobello High Street
Carriageway Resurfacing
17
5785.5
Frogston Road West
Carriageway Resurfacing
8
1449.3
West Port- Bread Street/Lady Lawson Street Junction
Carriageway Resurfacing
11
1994.9
West Port- Grassmarket/King Stables Road Junction
Carriageway Resurfacing
11
318.9
C157- Kirkliston to Burnshot
Carriageway Resurfacing
1
17994.6
Lovedale Avenue & Lovedale Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
2
11288.9
Greenbank Crescent
Carriageway Resurfacing
10
5817
Seton Place
Carriageway Resurfacing
15
1662
St Leonard's Hill, Lane & Bank
Carriageway Resurfacing
15
2502
McLaren Road & Ventor Terrace
Carriageway Resurfacing
15
3547
Salamander Street
Carriageway Resurfacing
13
13823
Strathfillan Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
15
515.9
Howden Hall Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
16
7566.7
Oxgangs Farm Grove
Carriageway Resurfacing
8
2396.9
South Gyle Wynd & South Gyle Mains
Carriageway Resurfacing
3
5197.3
Cramond Glebe Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
1
3882
Blinkbonny Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
2
1098.4
Oxgangs Road North
Carriageway Resurfacing
8
1268.8
Easter Drylaw Avenue
Carriageway Resurfacing
5
974.3
Ferry Road
Carriageway Resurfacing
5
1555.9
Kingsknowe Ro…

start of programme of renewals... Proposed Capital Delivery Programme April 2026 – March 2027 SCHEME NAME TREATMENT WARD NUMBER TOTAL AREA A701 Carriageway Strengthening 15 18999 Baltic Street Carriageway Strengthening 13 1449.9 Crewe Toll Roundabout Carriageway Strengthening 4 7530.4 Newcraighall Road Carriageway Strengthening 17 3662.2 Riccarton Mains Road Roundabout Carriageway Strengthening 2 1680 Newcraighall East Roundabout Carriageway Strengthening 17 2851.2 Meadow Place Road Carriageway Strengthening 6 6239 Balgreen Road Carriageway Strengthening 7 10042 Long Dalmahoy Road Carriageway Strengthening 2 3880.9 Blackie Road Carriageway Strengthening 13 1140 Ashley Terrace/Polwarth Terrace Junction Carriageway Strengthening 10 1276.4 Calder Road Carriageway Resurfacing 2 2778 Liberton Brae Carriageway Resurfacing 16 7206.9 Portobello High Street Carriageway Resurfacing 17 5785.5 Frogston Road West Carriageway Resurfacing 8 1449.3 West Port- Bread Street/Lady Lawson Street Junction Carriageway Resurfacing 11 1994.9 West Port- Grassmarket/King Stables Road Junction Carriageway Resurfacing 11 318.9 C157- Kirkliston to Burnshot Carriageway Resurfacing 1 17994.6 Lovedale Avenue & Lovedale Road Carriageway Resurfacing 2 11288.9 Greenbank Crescent Carriageway Resurfacing 10 5817 Seton Place Carriageway Resurfacing 15 1662 St Leonard's Hill, Lane & Bank Carriageway Resurfacing 15 2502 McLaren Road & Ventor Terrace Carriageway Resurfacing 15 3547 Salamander Street Carriageway Resurfacing 13 13823 Strathfillan Road Carriageway Resurfacing 15 515.9 Howden Hall Road Carriageway Resurfacing 16 7566.7 Oxgangs Farm Grove Carriageway Resurfacing 8 2396.9 South Gyle Wynd & South Gyle Mains Carriageway Resurfacing 3 5197.3 Cramond Glebe Road Carriageway Resurfacing 1 3882 Blinkbonny Road Carriageway Resurfacing 2 1098.4 Oxgangs Road North Carriageway Resurfacing 8 1268.8 Easter Drylaw Avenue Carriageway Resurfacing 5 974.3 Ferry Road Carriageway Resurfacing 5 1555.9 Kingsknowe Ro…

#EdinWebcast

Carriageway/footway maintenance plans 26/27
-> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9...

Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social seeks greater clarity of delivery dates, so the public is clearer

A: Many schemes complex + need local consultation, so some may stretch to next year unpredictably

1 0 1 0
Cllr Booth

Cllr Booth

Officer screenshot

Officer screenshot

Business Bulletin item re Roadworks Coordination forum

Road Works Co-ordination – Infrastructure Forum
Following agreement to create the Infrastructure Forum
(11.09.2026) officers contacted committee members to consider
additional membership.
Proposed membership is below:
Stakeholder attendees:
CEC Reps:
• Director of Transport and Mobility (Chair)
• Head of Network Management & Enforcement (Co-Chair)
• Head of Strategic Asset Planning (education estate)
• Head of Transport Strategy and Partnerships (Chair of Major
Projects Forum)
• Head of Roads and Infrastructure (Capital Programme PMO)
• Head of Planning and Building Standards
Contact: Dave
Sinclair
Wards Affected: All
Culture and Communities Committee – 2 April 2026 Page 3 of 9
Item Contact and Wards
affected
• Head of Major Projects Delivery and Commissioning
(Sustainable Development)
• City Regional Deal PMO Lead
• Public Safety and City Events
• Visitor Levy Lead
Partners / Stakeholders:
• Network Rail
• Edinburgh Tram
• Bus Operators
• SEStrans
• East/West & Midlothian (as appropriate)
• Taxi Operators
• Statutory Undertakers and Utilities
• Transport Scotland (as appropriate)
• Strategic Property Developers
• Chamber of Commerce
• Council’s Accessibility Commission
• Edinburgh Access Panel
All stakeholders will be invited to the first Infrastructure Forum
meeting, expected to be arranged for June 2026. The forum will
then meet on a quarterly basis.

Business Bulletin item re Roadworks Coordination forum Road Works Co-ordination – Infrastructure Forum Following agreement to create the Infrastructure Forum (11.09.2026) officers contacted committee members to consider additional membership. Proposed membership is below: Stakeholder attendees: CEC Reps: • Director of Transport and Mobility (Chair) • Head of Network Management & Enforcement (Co-Chair) • Head of Strategic Asset Planning (education estate) • Head of Transport Strategy and Partnerships (Chair of Major Projects Forum) • Head of Roads and Infrastructure (Capital Programme PMO) • Head of Planning and Building Standards Contact: Dave Sinclair Wards Affected: All Culture and Communities Committee – 2 April 2026 Page 3 of 9 Item Contact and Wards affected • Head of Major Projects Delivery and Commissioning (Sustainable Development) • City Regional Deal PMO Lead • Public Safety and City Events • Visitor Levy Lead Partners / Stakeholders: • Network Rail • Edinburgh Tram • Bus Operators • SEStrans • East/West & Midlothian (as appropriate) • Taxi Operators • Statutory Undertakers and Utilities • Transport Scotland (as appropriate) • Strategic Property Developers • Chamber of Commerce • Council’s Accessibility Commission • Edinburgh Access Panel All stakeholders will be invited to the first Infrastructure Forum meeting, expected to be arranged for June 2026. The forum will then meet on a quarterly basis.

Green addendum

Addendum by the Green Group
Transport and Environment Committee
2 April 2026
Item 6.1 Business Bulletin
Continental Crossing Legislation
Committee:
1. Notes the update on Continental Crossing Legislation and the reply from the Cabinet
Secretary included in the appendix;
2. Notes the suggestion in the reply from the Cabinet Secretary that Transport Scotland
is prepared to engage with CoSLA and SCOTS on this issue.
3. Further notes Transport for All’s research that reported 72% of disabled people
support giving greater priority and investment for low-cost solutions, such as zebra
crossings at side roads, and highlights the ‘Transforming Mobility: including disabled
people in transport planning’ report from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust who put ‘Prioritise
people crossing side roads’ in their top ideas to put disabled people at the heart of
transforming mobility.
4. Therefore agrees that council officers will contact CoSLA and SCOTS to express the
council’s support for a change in the legislation to allow continental zebra crossings, and
will engage with these organisations to try to move this work forward, and will provide an
update on progress in the business bulletin within four cycles.
Road works co-ordination – Infrastructure forum
5. Committee agrees to add Living Streets Edinburgh and Spokes, or other relevant
stakeholders to represent the interests of those walking, wheeling and cycling
Moved by: Cllr Booth

Green addendum Addendum by the Green Group Transport and Environment Committee 2 April 2026 Item 6.1 Business Bulletin Continental Crossing Legislation Committee: 1. Notes the update on Continental Crossing Legislation and the reply from the Cabinet Secretary included in the appendix; 2. Notes the suggestion in the reply from the Cabinet Secretary that Transport Scotland is prepared to engage with CoSLA and SCOTS on this issue. 3. Further notes Transport for All’s research that reported 72% of disabled people support giving greater priority and investment for low-cost solutions, such as zebra crossings at side roads, and highlights the ‘Transforming Mobility: including disabled people in transport planning’ report from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust who put ‘Prioritise people crossing side roads’ in their top ideas to put disabled people at the heart of transforming mobility. 4. Therefore agrees that council officers will contact CoSLA and SCOTS to express the council’s support for a change in the legislation to allow continental zebra crossings, and will engage with these organisations to try to move this work forward, and will provide an update on progress in the business bulletin within four cycles. Road works co-ordination – Infrastructure forum 5. Committee agrees to add Living Streets Edinburgh and Spokes, or other relevant stakeholders to represent the interests of those walking, wheeling and cycling Moved by: Cllr Booth

#EdinWebcast

New Council #Roadworks Coordination Forum

Q: Cllr @chasbooth.bsky.social asks for better active travel representation

A: officer agrees 🚲👩‍🦼🚶 should be represented

Green amendt proposes add @livingstreetsedi.bsky.social + @spokes.org.uk

👍 Cllr @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social accepts

4 1 2 1
Cllr Jenkinson screenshot

Cllr Jenkinson screenshot

#EdinWebcast

#Tram extension #Granton - #Bioquarter timescale update

Cllr @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social says..

June TEC - report on the 2025 consultation

September TEC - report on Business Case, and decisions on next steps

@edi.bike @thecockburn.bsky.social @johnrobson87.bsky.social

0 0 1 0
Post image Deputn written version...

TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2026 – WRITTEN DEPUTATION
Made on behalf of residents on Braid Avenue, regarding Item 9.2 on the agenda: Motion by
Councillor Booth - Implications of Standards Commission decision for Greenbank to Meadows
Quiet Route and the Late Report on the same matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Committee
This deputation is submitted on behalf of the residents of Braid Avenue. For the past 3 years we
have been subjected to distressing proposals and undue pressure from various lobbyist groups,
many based outwith the Braid Estate and Edinburgh. As residents living on the Quiet Route, we
have seen the significant positive impacts an LTN has on active travel and safety for all travellers,
including pedestrians. The benefits to the environment are also clear, and we would like to see
them extended to all residents within the Braid Estate and further afield.
We believe improvements can be made to the Quiet Route, in terms of better signage and wayfinding
signals, as well as more attractive permanent materials for the modal filters which play an
essential role moderating through traffic. The Braid Estate is an entirely residential area that was
not built to handle the growing amount of traffic in the area and since the implementation of
measures, a new primary school has opened on the Quiet Route and school bike buses have
started to use the local streets.
In 2022 most of the residents living on Braid Avenue were unaware of any engagement the council
might have been carrying out. No leaflets or notices were received, and no ward councillors
visited the residents on what is arguably one of the roads most impacted by the measures. In
2023, frustrated by lack of engagement from the council, local residents conducted their own
survey which resulted in approximately 90% of residents of Braid Avenue indicating that they
wished to …

Deputn written version... TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2026 – WRITTEN DEPUTATION Made on behalf of residents on Braid Avenue, regarding Item 9.2 on the agenda: Motion by Councillor Booth - Implications of Standards Commission decision for Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route and the Late Report on the same matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Committee This deputation is submitted on behalf of the residents of Braid Avenue. For the past 3 years we have been subjected to distressing proposals and undue pressure from various lobbyist groups, many based outwith the Braid Estate and Edinburgh. As residents living on the Quiet Route, we have seen the significant positive impacts an LTN has on active travel and safety for all travellers, including pedestrians. The benefits to the environment are also clear, and we would like to see them extended to all residents within the Braid Estate and further afield. We believe improvements can be made to the Quiet Route, in terms of better signage and wayfinding signals, as well as more attractive permanent materials for the modal filters which play an essential role moderating through traffic. The Braid Estate is an entirely residential area that was not built to handle the growing amount of traffic in the area and since the implementation of measures, a new primary school has opened on the Quiet Route and school bike buses have started to use the local streets. In 2022 most of the residents living on Braid Avenue were unaware of any engagement the council might have been carrying out. No leaflets or notices were received, and no ward councillors visited the residents on what is arguably one of the roads most impacted by the measures. In 2023, frustrated by lack of engagement from the council, local residents conducted their own survey which resulted in approximately 90% of residents of Braid Avenue indicating that they wished to …

#Edinwebcast

#Greenbank - #Meadows quiet route

Powerful deputation from #BraidAvenue residents seeking to retain safe conditions with the filters. Residents explain value to whole population including children and people with illnesses

More improvements possible, signage, permanent materials etc

8 2 1 0

#Edinwebcast

#Greenbank - #Meadows quiet route

Cllr @chasbooth.bsky.social - Traffic up on some roads - what solutions?
A: Council proposing other filters e.g. #ClintonRoad

Spokes Deputn (written only)--> bsky.app/profile/spok...

4 0 1 1
Ed Hawkins, deputation speaker

Ed Hawkins, deputation speaker

#Edinwebcast

#Greenbank - #Meadows quiet route

@blackfordsaferoutes.co.uk deputn

#ModalFilters must be retained for safety. Benefits includ traffic down greatly; no increase on parallel Morningside Rd. Many school travel trips, 6 primary schools on the route

Car access to all properties remains

5 2 1 0
Living streets deputation

The report on the Capital Investment Programme to Committee today (Item 7.1) proposes
yet another freeze in the footway maintenance budget - at £3.5 million for the fourth
consecutive year. At the same time, spending on carriageway maintenance has more than
doubled. Our calculation is that, allowing for inflation, the footway maintenance budget has
risen just under 10% since the administration came in - well below the 25% promised in the
Labour Party manifesto. So an increase of half a million ££ (up to £4 million) in the
footway maintenance budget would be required now, just to deliver that commitment.
We’ve also been told that there are:
• 17,000 missing or substandard dropped kerbs.
• 71 traffic signalled junctions with no ‘green man’ pedestrian facilities at one or more road.
• 40% of roads in the city with pavements narrower than the 2 metres minimum set out in
both national and local guidance (Sustrans WACI 2023).
To be fair, there is some progress in all of these areas, and we understand some TVL money
will go on fixing the pavements, but this change is incremental at best.
Investing more in better pavements and pedestrian crossings would benefit residents in
every ward in the city and would receive wide public support. Local street improvements can
also help deliver other transport priorities including buses and cycling. Far more so than the
expensive and often over-engineered projects which occupy so much of councillors and
officers time, perhaps exemplified by George Street.
When this Committee agreed project priorities for capital funding last May, there was one
programme which did focus on improving local streets: this was branded “Liveable
Neighbourhoods”. But it was ranked 71st in the list of priorities, so didn’t proceed. There are
two petitions before the Committee today - in Broomhouse and Portobello - whose concerns
would be directly addressed by this programme: are there really 70 other active travel and
public transport…

Living streets deputation The report on the Capital Investment Programme to Committee today (Item 7.1) proposes yet another freeze in the footway maintenance budget - at £3.5 million for the fourth consecutive year. At the same time, spending on carriageway maintenance has more than doubled. Our calculation is that, allowing for inflation, the footway maintenance budget has risen just under 10% since the administration came in - well below the 25% promised in the Labour Party manifesto. So an increase of half a million ££ (up to £4 million) in the footway maintenance budget would be required now, just to deliver that commitment. We’ve also been told that there are: • 17,000 missing or substandard dropped kerbs. • 71 traffic signalled junctions with no ‘green man’ pedestrian facilities at one or more road. • 40% of roads in the city with pavements narrower than the 2 metres minimum set out in both national and local guidance (Sustrans WACI 2023). To be fair, there is some progress in all of these areas, and we understand some TVL money will go on fixing the pavements, but this change is incremental at best. Investing more in better pavements and pedestrian crossings would benefit residents in every ward in the city and would receive wide public support. Local street improvements can also help deliver other transport priorities including buses and cycling. Far more so than the expensive and often over-engineered projects which occupy so much of councillors and officers time, perhaps exemplified by George Street. When this Committee agreed project priorities for capital funding last May, there was one programme which did focus on improving local streets: this was branded “Liveable Neighbourhoods”. But it was ranked 71st in the list of priorities, so didn’t proceed. There are two petitions before the Committee today - in Broomhouse and Portobello - whose concerns would be directly addressed by this programme: are there really 70 other active travel and public transport…

screenshot of Living Streets deputn David Hunter

screenshot of Living Streets deputn David Hunter

Cllr booth pic

Cllr booth pic

Cllr Lang

Cllr Lang

#Edinwebcast

@livingstreetsedi.bsky.social deputn says footway maintenance cash frozen since 23/24, but road maint cash doubled

Cllr @chasbooth.bsky.social asks if maintenance priorities correct?
A: No!

Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social asks what to cut to get the cash?
A: Decision is for councillors!

2 1 1 1
part of deputation..

DANGEROUSLY PITTED ROAD SURFACE: West Mill Road, Colinton
Recent History
Following many complaints from local residents about the deteriorating state of this carriageway
both to Colinton Community Council (Colinton CC) and to local city councillors, Cllr Neil Cuthbert
wrote to Transport Officers last September requesting action on a number of issues including:
“Conduct an urgent safety inspection of West Mill Road”,
“Prioritise emergency repairs for the most severe potholes” and
“Schedule comprehensive resurfacing for the worst-affected sections”.
He included a number of photographs at the time to illustrate the need for these actions.
In the light of further deterioration of the road surface and no apparent action, Colinton CC
approached the Senior Transport Team Leader in January 2026 to discover that although there had
been a professional assessment done shortly after Cllr Cuthbert’s request, the shocking result was
that no resurfacing work was programmed for West Mill Road for at least three years. We then
requested that the road surface be reassessed and a meeting take place with the inspection team to
understand why such a dangerously pitted surface was not considered high priority.
No such meeting has taken place and only after repeated requests was a safety inspector sent to
the site with the result that only four out of dozens of potholes have been dealt with on a
temporary basis. Moreover, the most dangerous stretch of badly pitted surface at the steeply
sloped section near Woodhall Road appears to have been completely ignored by the inspector.
Why is Resurfacing West Mill Road Important?
West Mill is far more than a normal side road. It provides access to the Water of Leith Walkway –
particularly for cyclists and pedestrians – and in the last 30 years has had a large number of flatted
accommodation units and other houses built on its first 300 metres or so. This has generated a huge
volume of traffic and wear on the road. A culvert u…

part of deputation.. DANGEROUSLY PITTED ROAD SURFACE: West Mill Road, Colinton Recent History Following many complaints from local residents about the deteriorating state of this carriageway both to Colinton Community Council (Colinton CC) and to local city councillors, Cllr Neil Cuthbert wrote to Transport Officers last September requesting action on a number of issues including: “Conduct an urgent safety inspection of West Mill Road”, “Prioritise emergency repairs for the most severe potholes” and “Schedule comprehensive resurfacing for the worst-affected sections”. He included a number of photographs at the time to illustrate the need for these actions. In the light of further deterioration of the road surface and no apparent action, Colinton CC approached the Senior Transport Team Leader in January 2026 to discover that although there had been a professional assessment done shortly after Cllr Cuthbert’s request, the shocking result was that no resurfacing work was programmed for West Mill Road for at least three years. We then requested that the road surface be reassessed and a meeting take place with the inspection team to understand why such a dangerously pitted surface was not considered high priority. No such meeting has taken place and only after repeated requests was a safety inspector sent to the site with the result that only four out of dozens of potholes have been dealt with on a temporary basis. Moreover, the most dangerous stretch of badly pitted surface at the steeply sloped section near Woodhall Road appears to have been completely ignored by the inspector. Why is Resurfacing West Mill Road Important? West Mill is far more than a normal side road. It provides access to the Water of Leith Walkway – particularly for cyclists and pedestrians – and in the last 30 years has had a large number of flatted accommodation units and other houses built on its first 300 metres or so. This has generated a huge volume of traffic and wear on the road. A culvert u…

screenshot of deputation speaker

screenshot of deputation speaker

photos from deputation, showing potholes and semi-blind bend

photos from deputation, showing potholes and semi-blind bend

#Edinwebcast

#Colinton Community Council want priority to resurface West Mill Rd which is used by cyclists accessing #WaterOfLeith path

Deputn--> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/b2...

@wolct.bsky.social @drscottarthurmp.bsky.social @sw20.info @edi.bike @edfoc.bsky.social

1 0 1 0
Post image

#SherrifhallRoundabout

Convener @stephenjenkinson.bsky.social says a letter on this has been received from #ScotGov

It will be circulated to councillors later, so we are left to speculate whether there will be a decision or, more likely(?) on hold till after #holyrood2026 election!

#Edinwebcast

1 0 1 0

#EdinWebCast

0 0 0 0
Cllr Graham

Cllr Graham

Edi.Bike posts table showing massive dangers of motor vehicles to pedestrians compared to minimal cyclist dangers

Naturally, rather than taking the opportunity to champion the rights of those travelling actively and noise up the council for less vehicular intrusion on Rose St, Living Streets Edinburgh have penned an objection to the proposed introduction of two-way cycling on Rose St, ignoring the many examples from across Europe where pedestrians and cyclists manage to coexist in the same space. Such spaces include, but are not limited to, the very street they're claiming shouldn't have two-way cycling access, on which cycling is already permitted.

Edi.Bike posts table showing massive dangers of motor vehicles to pedestrians compared to minimal cyclist dangers Naturally, rather than taking the opportunity to champion the rights of those travelling actively and noise up the council for less vehicular intrusion on Rose St, Living Streets Edinburgh have penned an objection to the proposed introduction of two-way cycling on Rose St, ignoring the many examples from across Europe where pedestrians and cyclists manage to coexist in the same space. Such spaces include, but are not limited to, the very street they're claiming shouldn't have two-way cycling access, on which cycling is already permitted.

Final perceptive comment from edi.bike

It's exhausting to see so much hand-waving from folks over something with so little impact.

Final perceptive comment from edi.bike It's exhausting to see so much hand-waving from folks over something with so little impact.

#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

13 5 5 3
Post image Post image Post image

#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Cllr Osler proposes to postpone Rose St for further consideration

Cllr Staniforth supports full Order. He uses Rose St & says no problems. Would like to consider restrictions on motor vehicles!

Cllr Lang supports the Order, given existing, it makes sense

2 0 1 1
Post image Post image

#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Q: Cllr Osler still worried re safety, e.g. when road narrowed for works
A: Safety Audit includes a 'stage 3' audit once scheme in place and if worried persist, then a 'stage 4'
The existing report already considered narrowings for works

0 0 1 0
cllr doggart

cllr doggart

cllr osler

cllr osler

#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Q: Cllr Doggart now says Rose St "looks like" pedestrian street; has safety audit considered this?
A: Officers confident safety audit is satisfactory. Note again that cycling is already allowed

Q: why the order?
A: Council policy to make 1-ways 2-way 🚲

2 0 1 0
Cllr Osler

Cllr Osler

Post image

#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Q: Cllr Osler asks re cyclists diverting to Rose St when busy elsewhere
A: Rose St not attractive as an E-W route and would not be promoted as such

Q: Cllr Graham - what about works like Jenners narrowing the street
A: If temp measures needed, will be done

1 0 1 0
Cllr Kayleigh Kinross-O'Neill

Cllr Kayleigh Kinross-O'Neill

Cllr Fullerton

Cllr Fullerton

#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Q: Cllr Fullerton worried re 3 or 4 cyclists side-by-side
A: Cycling already allowed, and no problems

Q: Cllr Kayleigh Kinross-O'Neill asks for signage to reassure mobility-impaired users & others
A: Will consider a 'shared space' campaign

1 0 1 0
Cllr Osler

Cllr Osler

Cllr Work

Cllr Work

#EdinWebCast

Cyclist one-ways exemption

Q: Cllr Osler concern re more conflict with tables/ chairs etc
A: Not expecting significant increase in 🚲. Safety Audit done. Busy areas contribute to cyclists being extra careful. Officers confident of safety

Cllr Work wants more signs
A: yes if needed

1 0 1 0
Officer proposes the report

Officer proposes the report

Cllr Doggart

Cllr Doggart

TRO Subcttee 16.12.25 #EdinWebCast

Cyclist exemption to one-way streets

Q: Cllr Doggart says #RoseStreet is pedestrianised, worries re pedestrian safety
A: Vehicles are allowed, including one-way cycling already

Q: Cllr Doggart says contraflow cycling dangerous due to delivery bikes

2 0 1 0

TRO Subcttee 16.12.25 #EdinWebCast

#TravellingSafely South area includes
#BuccleuchStreet
#MayfieldRoad
etc
--> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9...

Officers recommend making bollarded routes permanent (then upgrading)
North/East/West were agreed 4.9.25
--> www.spokes.org.uk/2025/09/edin...

2 0 1 0

#EdinWebCast #A701 / #A702

Time exhausted so just votes

🙄 Voted "to note Council supporting Midlothian A701 Relief Road and A702 Link Road as part of City Region Deal Joint Committee"
+ SNP amendt to improve public transport

🙄 Stronger Green amendt defeated

Spokes view-> bsky.app/profile/spok...

1 0 1 0
Cllr Booth

Cllr Booth

Amendment by the Green Group
Transport and Environment Committee
13 November 2025
Item 8.7 2030 Climate Strategy Update – referral
from the Policy and Sustainability Committee
Delete recommendations and insert:
1) Thanks officers for the report and ongoing work to tackle the climate emergency;
2) Notes that Transport continues to be the second largest emissions sector in the city,
representing 32% of the city’s emissions (para 4.10), and that more progress could be
made in reducing transport emissions through additional funding (para 4.15);
3) Therefore agrees that as part of the current budget process, officers will offer
suggestions for additional revenue raising which could allow improved emissions
reductions in transport, for each political group to consider as part of their budget-setting
process.
4) Welcomes the ‘supporting areas’ workstreams set out in paragraph 4.28, in particular
the ‘Sustainable Living’ proposal which will, amongst other things, give citizens an
opportunity to explore sustainable forms of transport around the city that might best suit
their needs, and agrees to provide further information on this work, through a written
briefing or business bulletin update as appropriate, to committee members.

Amendment by the Green Group Transport and Environment Committee 13 November 2025 Item 8.7 2030 Climate Strategy Update – referral from the Policy and Sustainability Committee Delete recommendations and insert: 1) Thanks officers for the report and ongoing work to tackle the climate emergency; 2) Notes that Transport continues to be the second largest emissions sector in the city, representing 32% of the city’s emissions (para 4.10), and that more progress could be made in reducing transport emissions through additional funding (para 4.15); 3) Therefore agrees that as part of the current budget process, officers will offer suggestions for additional revenue raising which could allow improved emissions reductions in transport, for each political group to consider as part of their budget-setting process. 4) Welcomes the ‘supporting areas’ workstreams set out in paragraph 4.28, in particular the ‘Sustainable Living’ proposal which will, amongst other things, give citizens an opportunity to explore sustainable forms of transport around the city that might best suit their needs, and agrees to provide further information on this work, through a written briefing or business bulletin update as appropriate, to committee members.

#EdinWebCast - #Climate strategy

Cllr Booth suggests new road capacity likely to induce more traffic

Green amendment seeks advice from officers on how party policies can help reduce emissions

Amendment passed 7-4

1 0 1 0