The future of several Edinburgh cycle lanes is at risk, with campaigners calling it a big week for safe cycling infrastructure in the Scottish capital, that after months of delay and deferral on a decision to make temporary bike lanes permanent which means next month’s deadline for a decision is now uncomfortably soon.
It is an ongoing saga, a committee having twice postponed a decision on making temporary cycle lanes in the east of Edinburgh permanent. The infrastructure in question was introduced during the pandemic, but with the Experimental Traffic Order (ETRO) set to expire on 28 October it is expected a meeting this Thursday (4 September) will be the final chance to secure approval to make the bike lanes permanent.
There have been warnings that if there is no approval, or enough time to process a permanent order, the current protective wands would have to be removed entirely.
It is a frustrating situation for cycling campaigners who feel, despite support overall from the council and its transport committee, the meetings of the TRO Sub-Committee (formed fairly recently and who take the final decision on traffic orders) have “kicked the can down the road” for months. Previous meetings in May and August saw no decision made, councillors having raised concerns about the cost of making cycle lanes permanent and the segregating bollards being a trip hazard.
Campaigners point out that a rolling programme of £2.5m over the next five years to upgrade materials has already been approved by the council’s Transport Committee, something they say should be more than enough for the committee to “overturn objections about the current materials in use, and preserve the essential segregated and safe routes in place and used by thousands across the city every day – in line with the council’s own City Mobility Plan”.
Currently, the lanes use wands/bollards that will be familiar to cyclists across the UK, the segregating wand attached to a base. While the safety of this design has been questioned in previous meetings, leading to the concerns about cost of upgrading the infrastructure to a design which is not viewed as a trip hazard, Edinburgh cycling campaigners Edi.Bike point out the council’s own stats show no injury claims as a result of rubber kerbs since 2023, with the majority occurring when the schemes were brand new.
There have been 28 claims for personal injury and three claims for vehicle damage relating to them since 2020. Eight of these claims relate to incidents that occurred in 2020, 17 to incidents in 2021, five to incidents in 2022 and one to an incident in 2023. No claims have been received for any incidents occurring since 2023. Eighty percent of claims therefore relate to the 2021-22 period when most of the units were being installed and there has only been one claim received for an incident occurring within the last three years.
As Edi.Bike also pointed out when penning an open letter to the committee, alongside fellow cycling campaign group Spokes and other Edinburgh cycling groups, the £2.5m rolling programme to upgrade materials used in such schemes “should be more than enough for the Sub-Committee to overturn objections about the current materials”.
Speaking to us this morning, Edi.Bike called it “astounding” that the committee is not taking into account the thousands of people who use and enjoy the cycling infrastructure, instead getting bogged down with statutory objections, of which “many are from angry motorists who perceive yielding a metre and a half of carriageway space an attack on their personal freedoms”.
“It’s astounding to me that there are thousands of people in Edinburgh using these successful and well established protected cycleways every day, with no idea that they’re not a permanent feature of the streetscape — only cycle activists and naysayers pay any attention to the legal orders underpinning them,” a spokesperson told us.
“The TRO Sub-Committee doesn’t consider notes of support from the families, visitors, children, care workers, delivery riders and many others who use these lanes to get their journeys completed safely. They only attend to statutory objections, of which some are from people with real concerns, but many are from angry motorists who perceive yielding a metre and a half of carriageway space an attack on their personal freedoms.
“In reality, every bike passing in the lanes could have been another car in front of you making congestion even worse, and is it not brilliant that folk have a choice not to do that and move differently? Of course the committee involved needs to consider each objection on its merits, and any safety issue in our streets should be taken seriously. But the council’s own data shows that while there were a small number of incidents attributed to the rubber cycle lane defenders when first introduced in 2021-2022, there was only a single claim in 2023 and nothing since; and what’s being asked of the Sub-Committee is to approve making waiting and loading restrictions permanent, not to reach outside of its statutory remit into the materials used.
“The council has already approved a significant budget for the replacement of these lane defenders with stone kerbs across the city — the Sub-Committee could easily accept that, or the outcomes of its own road safety audits, to overturn the generalised objections to the lane defenders.
“The rubber cycle lane defenders in question aren’t a temporary material, so there will be some places across the city that retain them for longer — for example in areas of lower footfall, or outside of our World Heritage Site where changes are sought on a more aesthetic basis. But they’re also approved in Scotland for use in the carriageway on a permanent basis, and both safety audits and the council’s own data about claims for vehicle damage or injury show they’re not a danger to the public.
“The only issues with them remain that folk don’t like the look of them, or feel that rising congestion due to the growth of the city is somehow attributable to protected cycleways — which monitoring data clearly shows is not the case.”
The ETRO expires on 28 October, making this week’s meeting perhaps the last chance to approve a permanent solution before the deadline passes and the current infrastructure risks removal. Fellow campaign group Spokes has argued the temporary cycle lanes have had no measurable negative impact on congestion, traffic flow, and have not caused a rise in injuries to pedestrians, cyclists or drivers.
The open letter also highlights that several of the cycle lanes in question pass schools, the infrastructure having made children’s journeys to school safer and more accessible.
Much will be decided at the latest committee meeting on Thursday, Edi.Bike summing up the mood — “it’s a big day for us up here”.
15 thoughts on ““Every bike could be another car making congestion worse”: Cyclists fight to save cycle lanes facing removal due to looming deadline to make temporary bollards permanent”
The TRO subcommittee sound
The TRO subcommittee sound like a bunch of petrolheads. I’m assuming that Edinburgh council has pro-active travel policies, pollution policies, road danger reduction policies, sustainability policies etc. But only the views of the anti-cyclists count.
Presumably, if the TRO committee turns it down, it can be taken to full council, but I suspect that may be after the expiry of the ETRO. Sounds as if it might be useful to have an extension of the ETRO until the subcommittee can make up its mind.
Having just resigned from one committee because the BS was literally driving me mad, I know just how bad they can be.
Eburt,
Eburt,
From my interactions with Edinburgh council over the years for various reasons, before jumping to conclusions about petrolheads or conspiracies best consider the obvious. They’re completely incompetent!
Safety wrote:
You just need to look at the bungled tram project to grasp the incompetence at council level in Edinburgh. Yes, it got built (finally) but very late and massively over budget.
I like how they’re still
I like how they’re still simultaneously referring to the “tram network” (it’s one line…) and their odd shibboleth of always using “tram” and not “trams” or “the tram(s)” as in “This route is planned to be used by tram”.
The issue wasn’t so much their incompetence – councils aren’t tram builders and any institutional knowledge from the historic, real network has long gone. It was their bunker mentality when challenged on the fact and what seemed to be a refusal by them and their arms’ length company to listen to any outside opinion, even as it grew more and more apparently that they could desperately use some guidance. (Although perhaps by that stage they were already committed and any money to fix stuff was already spent…)
Anyway, unless the supporters of hedgehogs and bats and pleasant quiet green space win out * they’ll have it marginally easier this time – in the north they’ll mostly be building in a “free” space (only used by walkers and cyclists) so there will be (slightly) fewer howls from motorists, residents and businesses. And on some of the roads I believe the plan is to bin any protected cycle lanes (far from perfect of course) in favour of … shared use paths (so “cyclists on the footway” again, AFAICS).
* It’s the “nature” folks against the large majority of the public, who probably couldn’t give a stuff either way, but certainly don’t want disruption on the streets again (so if they bother voting will probably choose “as little as possible on the streets” which the council want also) … Sadly I’d guess that Active travel enthusiasts are an insignificant minority comparatively. Animals, “lovely trees” and recreation are probably an order of magnitude more important – to far more people – than “active travel / mobility network”.
Not related to Edinburgh: but
Not related to Edinburgh: but through a series of frustrating administrative disasters, I had to drive my commute yesterday for the first time in three years. It took me 45 minutes to drive my 35 minute cycle commute. Why do people do it?! I sat staring at the tail lights of the cars in front of me for 45 minutes. Stuttering along between traffic lights and roadworks.
And the schools haven’t yet
And the schools haven’t yet gone back yet down here, but there was more traffic today than a week back. Thursday for the kids, later for collages, then the private kids. They will all hope it’s different this time…
Several of these were already
Several of these were already removed.
For example George IV Bridge – before (with lanes), after (gone)
The responses to “Spaces for people” surveys which informed things (and have been debated…) generally went the same way: residents said “no” to any changes, businesses said “NO” (more strongly) and “market research” was generally in favour.
Those who might think of Edinburgh as a “cycling-friendly city” might get a shock (or maybe not, compared with the rest of the UK…).
Remarkably residents were only just in favour of measures to make it safer around schools. Business respondents were pretty strongly against most changes, certainly not cycle lanes! They only felt less strongly against shopping streets. Yes – having people walking about shopping will kill your business dead, say Edinburgh’s businesspeople…
As an aside – anyone who’s
As an aside – anyone who’s remotely interested in transport in Edinburgh (whichever way) – now is your chance to set the tone for the next decade or several. The consultation on the North / South tram route is now open (until November 17th 2025). Main pages here, dates / locations for drop in sessions here, consultation link here (also with interactive maps with visualisations).
Currently your options are to change the northern part only – “pick route A or B but we *really* want you to pick A”. This is happening (barring them running out of cash again). If you don’t feel either is good your boat may have sailed – at minimum you will have to make a truly massive din (get organised and get everyone writing to their councillors).
This will affect transport as soon as construction starts (which may be some time…) BUT this will be ongoing on the order of years – if other line is any guide. It will also set the pattern for future transport and development. Including whether we get an active travel network or not.
Both routes have some serious compromises. Both will impact current active travel routes, the preferred one massively (see below). Both are compromised because the on-street parts are shared with motor traffic and there doesn’t seem to be much addressing of that (so “why use the tram, it’s slow because stuck in traffic”). The preferred route avoids some of that – but at the expense of not going where people are and want to go e.g. the *streets*. (And stuffing active travel).
Councillors have stated (e.g. former transport convener Scott Arthur) that a major justification for the preferred route is not having to deal with all the public outcry at works affecting their driving / parking space / business. (Of course, not digging up an existing road is much cheaper…)
FWIW the planned route – even allowing for the breezy detail at this stage and plenty of “but you’ll love it!” assurances – will involve turning the key section of the current “mini network” into in places a sub-2-metre-wide shared use path. At best. And with no concrete promises of as good or better in exchange. The alternatives seem to involve “well you’ve got wands and paint on an indirect route, which is busy with motor traffic, has two roundabouts (one multi-lane) and involves a steep hill”.
(Not that this makes any difference to anyone but the path here is part of the NCN (NCN1). But perhaps converting it for a tram route / narrow footway would be in keeping – after all it’s not an A road…)
Not that it seems the council have exactly been rushing to move away from motor transport but this may put an end to any thoughts of a decent city-wide active travel network for decades. (TBF the ones who are keen may be moving as fast as they can, given the staunch antis. And indeed the “not my street / car parking space” attitude of the majority of residents, never mind the businesses…)
Wouldn’t surprise me if some
Wouldn’t surprise me if some on the committee are playing for time and let this quietly expire. Or at least – it would be no particular bother to them if it does.
OTOH “cock up” or just “not enough hours in the day for everything that’s important to others” are probably far more general explanations than “conspiracy”.
Instead of fighting a
Instead of fighting a defensive war, against the constant pinpricks of cycle lanes being cancelled or removed, the much vaunted cycling lobby needs to focus on getting one simple law passed: if a cycle lane is removed the pavement next to it must become a Shared Path.
The fear of a constant barrage of residents complaining about “cyclists on the pavement” will probably stop many councillors from voting to remove them.
I got barraged by a couple
I got barraged by a couple with a baby who I slowed down to let past on a shared cycle path stating I should be on the road because they had a baby. I quickly pointed out to them the sign she was stood under, yep, the shared path sign. The annoying thing for me was I actually slowed to an almost stop and still got shouted at.
This strategy of trying to
This strategy of trying to take pedestrians hostage by holding a pistol to our own heads and standing next them is doubly futile. First if we carry out the threat we all lose (and cyclists most of all – there are far more people walking currently…). Second – how far do many authorities care about the vast majority of vulnerable road users (e.g. pedestrians) as opposed to mildly inconveniencing motorists? Not much, which many have already demonstrated by “building” a bunch of cycle infra by sticking a sign on a narrow pavement!
Edinburgh’s got plenty of “shared use”. Some of it even “works” – albeit because rather few people are cycling and walking *. Having more in lieu of proper cycling infra isn’t going to help “active travel” and certainly not cycling.
* The North Edinburgh paths, including the mini-network with the Roseburn Path. Demonstrating the usual joined-up thinking this link that they only recently extended is slated to be reclaimed for a tram line.
The “war” needs to be on many
The “war” needs to be on many levels. (The crucial and frustrating one is “one person slowly won over – a little bit – at a time).
As Chris Boardman pointed out there are several bureaucratic metrics embedded in our government systems which give positive scores to provision – if not priority – for motor traffic capacity. (Some is mandated I think). While a council may have policies written for improving active travel, “sustainability” etc. projects are (and should be) run through the various departments for evaluation. And thus all return “no” for those reasons (“not value for money” or “doesn’t meet policy goals to reduce congestion” or “negative impact on disabled / old people who need cars?” etc).
Getting councillors on-side is great but not only are their advisors going to tut (see metrics above) but proposed changes will run into a population which is apparently generally unsupportive (at least – the ones who make noise…) Even amongst the “might give it a go” types they’re easy to lose if their parking space is at risk, and isn’t congestion is bad enough…
And of course there is rarely political support from national politics (sometimes the opposite).
i’ve said it before, we need
i’ve said it before, we need a national drive-to-work day/week. imagine the bleating.
Drivers just don’t want other
Drivers just don’t want other road users to exist. Even segregated cycleways are derided.