Edinburgh's Transport Chief has defended the 'Spaces for People scheme' and said she is simply sticking up for 'the 45 per cent of the city's residents' who don't have access to a car.
Edinburgh City Council’s transport convener, SNP councillor Lesley Macinnes, has frequently been accused of 'targeting people' who commute by car, as the council’s SNP/Labour administration installed new temporary cycle lanes, widened pavements and implemented road closures.
The schemes have been installed as part of the Scottish government’s Spaces for People programme, which gave the council £5m at the start of the pandemic to install temporary traffic measures that would allow people to walk and cycle while maintaining social distancing, the Scotsman reports.
> Majority of people support building more cycle lanes
Cllr Macinnes was scathing in her attack on critics of the scheme and highlighted how important the plans were for facilitating travel for families who need low-cost ways of getting around the city.
She said: “This is a thing that really gets me, about how the opposition to these changes play this out...
“Conservative Cllr John McLellan, for example, has been regularly banging on since the beginning of this administration about how we’ve got a ‘war on cars’.
“I would flip that around, and say what we’ve got is a campaign to give people more choice, because 45 per cent of the people in this city do not have access to a car - so when we only have policies that support car use, what we’re essentially saying is that 45 per cent don’t matter - well, they matter to me.
“Now, some of those 45 per cent will be a matter of choice - if you live in Marchmont, and you live one of the tenement flats, where it can be hard to park - the choice to say ‘well I don’t need a car’ is quite strong, as you live close to the city centre and it’s all pretty easy.
“But there’s a lot of that 45 per cent who sit in real pockets of deprivation in this city, and where owning a car, because they feel they have to, is a heck of a drain on family finances.
“So I want to get to a situation where we’ve got safe infrastructure which means those families can say, ‘well I’ve got a teenage kid who is switching from school to go to Edinburgh College - how can we get them there in a way that isn’t going to cost the family a fortune for the next few years?’.
“Well, let’s give them a choice to buy them a cheap second hand bike and get them safely onto the roads.
“You then have a very low cost way of getting around. Same thing with walking facilities, same thing with trying to keep public transport costs down and making sure that it goes where people need it to go.”
The council first installed the Spaces for People measures using Temporary Traffic Regulations Orders (TTROs,) which allowed them to install temporary bike lanes, wider pavements and road closures for a maximum of 18 months.
City planners are now looking at extending the Spaces for People schemes for another 18-month period using Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETROs)..
Councillor Macinnes continued: “All of those things are driving this really positive agenda to make this a place where you can breathe the air a little better, where you can get around without having to always make the choice to drive.
“There will always be some people in this city who need to use cars, whether that’s people who are disabled or who live with chronic pain, or for other reasons.
“But that’s the kind of thing that opening up safe cycling, walking and wheeling infrastructure gives people – real choice .
“There is a regular argument in opposition to change and choice that comes forward about, for example, ‘my 89-year-old mother can’t get on a bike’, well, of course not. We’re not expecting everyone to get on bikes.
“We just want to make it much easier for those who can and want to, and the same for those who want to walk or wheel in a better, much friendlier environment.”
In response, councillor John McLellan said: “It's noticeable that councillor Macinnes has not denied she and her administration are engaged in a war on cars, so I'm grateful to her for confirming that they are.
"The Conservative group has never said that we only back policies which support car use, but have repeatedly called for a more balanced approach to transport issues which is sensitive to the needs, knowledge and views of the people her administration's policies affect.
"I welcome councillor Macinnes' acceptance of the principle of choice, but the problem with much of the current approach is that in prioritising cycling above all else at key locations actually reduces choice by adversely affecting the attractiveness of our much-valued bus service.
"If proof was needed, it is now known that freedom of information requests to find out more about the issues raised by Lothian Buses with the council have been blocked because of the sensitivities involved.
"And as the Edinburgh Access Panel has forcefully pointed out, the choice of disabled people has been adversely affected by schemes which have removed safe parking, and run cycle lanes behind floating bus-stops.
"Councillor Macinnes and council leader Adam McVey accused the Conservative group of populism, but if the accusation is that we are standing up for local people who feel ignored and patronised by his administration then we are guilty as charged."
Add new comment
26 comments
Note it's 45% who have "don't access to a car", not 45% who "don't usually drive" or something like that. The number who actually use the car in town is likely much lower than the this value would suggest.
From own experience, many people I know have access to a car (some own a car, others are car club members), but they all mostly use the bicycle or bus to get around in town, or walk shorter distances.
Even in neighbourhoods with high car ownership (like my neighbourhood), a surprising number of households don't have a car, and those who do often have only one per household, so as soon as they go out individually not all are actually able to use the car that they nominally "have access" to.
However, if you casually look at my neighbourhood you see cars everywhere, so one can very much get a wrong impression.
By the way, the disability issue is more complex than McLellan makes it appear. He's not a disability campaigner and in other contexts he's not been supportive at all about accessibility issues. Indeed many disability campaigners support the Space for People changes in general (although of course with a lot of debate about improvements to specific aspects or specific locations, which are often a bit experimental to see how they work).
Also note that McLellan was actually the editor of the Edinburgh Evening News (EEN) for quite a while and still writes a column several times a week where he rails against the "transport taliban" and "zealots" (his words). Another EEN columnist, Hayley Matthews, recently proudly declared that she drove into the SfP bollards because she didn't pay attention, and that she bullied a parking attendent when she parked illegally on the grass in the park.
The EEN isn't exactly the most unbiassed source when it comes to transport matters in Edinburgh, and, perhaps more importantly, they are not very good at capturing the complexity of the considerations around the whole programme and frame it as a simple yes/no popularity contest.
Thanks, some very useful context there.
seems pretty simple, about half the population use cars and about half can't. So we take the roads, and allocate half of them for cars, and the other half for non cars. Works best with a grid system, but less ordered arrangements will just take more thought.
What's that? half the space isn't enough for the half the people using cars? they need more thn half the space? Not the fault of everyone else that certain people want to use the least space efficient means of transport possible.
Disabled parking vs bike lanes is a difficult one, especially in a historic city centre with narrow streets. But it is likely to be soluble, perhaps by allocation of more space away from cars. I'm not sure that's what Cllr McLellan wants.
The idea that cycling is prioritised above all other modes is just risible though. Things have improved but there are still huge numbers of places where cycling is really difficult to do safely at peak times. I would cheerfully ride my commute with McLellan to demonstrate this, but I'm not sure he'd take me up on the invitation.
Edinburgh's public transport is really quite decent, because the buses are very good. Trams are a bit of a cul de sac, but overall, unless you have mobility issues, there's not much reason to drive into the city centre, I guess except if you think all bus passengers smell bad.
Wasn't there something, I forget what, where the needs and wishes of 48% of a population were told that their views didn't count and could just be forgotten/ignored...?
No. Grow up.
Go see a doctor, I think you may be suffering from amnesia.
No, I remember the incident being mischaracterised that way. It just wasn't what he claimed.
Five years of being told to grow up, to shut up, and to get over it by the 52% of the people who bothered to vote on the matter at hand...
A decision pushed by people who appear to be happy to say anything so they can say they got it done, but who are happy to then break any agreement if it helps them achieve their ends (which the original agreement they signed did not). But again, criticise that and you're just moaning.
Alrighty then, DD: how would you characterise it?
"War on cars"
You know what, I'm beginning to think it really might be a war. In the hundred year war of the cars against the humans, the humans are just beginning to fight back. As so often in war, their fiercest opponents are not the cars themselves, the cars' human stooges and collaborators.
Was thinking something very similar as I read the article.
The 45% of Edinburgh resident without a car (plus a large number of those who do and perhaps the millions of tourists who visit the city to see the sights, not a traffic jam) have been poorly served over the years. Time to redress the balance.
It's so silly to polarise transport into "car-users" and "everyone else", when in reality people are a lot more flexible if they have decent alternatives.
If you design cities around cars and make them hostile to cycling/walking/scootering then you're going to get a lot of people thinking that car is the only safe way to travel. Provide some cheap, frequent public transport and people will start to use it. Provide some safer cycling facilities and more people will choose to cycle.
If you think logically about how to transport large numbers of people around cities, then you soon come to the conclusion that private motor vehicles can only be a small part of the solution as they do not scale well - they're more suited for occasional, less typical, transport. To use an over-sized vehicle that puts pollutants into the air for the majority of journeys is obviously not the way forwards.
I'm afraid your sensible, logical approach would be too radical for Cllr McLellan, who perceives balance as at least maintaining the status quo.
Isn't it strange how progressive changes to society are always opposed by people who make money from the current situation and have no interest in what's best for everyone?
"Isn't it strange how progressive changes to society are always opposed by people who make money from the current situation and have no interest in what's best for everyone?"
Isn't it strange how old-fashioned conspiracy theories still have so much grip on the minds of the delusional?
We're talking about a legal challenge to the changes _by disability activists, based on discrimination law_. But to you it's all a conspiracy by 'the rich'.
If you think one politician here is lying, and the other is telling the truth, you're just plain naive. Both are liars and cheats who will say anything that wins them votes. On has decided disabled people can go sod themselves, while the other couldn't care less about cyclists. Neither are people we should be supporting, except with lamp-posts and rope.
Just coincidence, I'm sure.
"If you think logically about how to transport large numbers of people around cities, then you soon come to the conclusion that private motor vehicles can only be a small part of the solution "
Nonsense. E-scooters are 'private motor vehicles'.
Oh come off it Dave, when arguing semantics that's a stretch even for you....
It's not a stretch at all. They meet the definition, as do many things that are not cars.
Ooh Dave, now you're just showing off.....
The only legal ones currently are not 'private' so a bit of an own goal there.
What does current legislation have to do with anything?
Hmm, I would have thought that current legislation has a great deal to do with many things....
You're not the only one who can do obtuse semantics!
Well as they are fully banned from Public highways unless in a hire scheme, then we shouldn't be using them in as arguments about 'private' motor vehicles for getting around cities.
If and when they do come into lawful use, I would argue they would also be made into their own category to get around the helmet, pavement, licence requirement and MOT needs that are currently needed. Probably be more into the Mobility scooter categories instead.
While Cllr Lesley Macinnes is clear about what is needed and why, the response from Cllr McLellan is so utterly weaselly that I'd be surprised if he didn't have fur and whiskers:
"“It's noticeable that councillor Macinnes has not denied she and her administration are engaged in a war on cars, so I'm grateful to her for confirming that they are."
"The Conservative group has never said that we only back policies which support car use, but have repeatedly called for a more balanced approach to transport issues which is sensitive to the needs, knowledge and views of the people her administration's policies affect."
Still, it doesn't matter how far from the truth he strays, not while his party leader is Boris the Liar.
Simply Follow the logic
45% less pivileged >>> Public Transport, Bikes
55% more privileged >>> Money >>> Cars >>> Conservative >>> Votes >>> Hypocrisy