A decision on making Covid-era traffic safety and calming measures in the east of Edinburgh permanent has been delayed.<\/p>\n
Councillors on Thursday said they were worried about the feasibility of introducing new road infrastructure to replace the current temporary barriers and other solutions in place.<\/p>\n
And they asked council officers to return to the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee on September 4 with information on how they plan to do it.<\/p>\n
The temporary order allowing the measures is in place until October 28, with officers saying that it would take about two months after a decision to get permanent orders in place.<\/p>\n
The changes were aimed at enabling social distancing while outdoors and making it easier to walk and cycle in the city.<\/p>\n
Some of the changes relating to limits on traffic, including bans on waiting and loading in some areas in the east of Edinburgh, have been kept since the pandemic ended.<\/p>\n
The decision has already been deferred once, from a meeting in May.<\/p>\n
In order to make the measures permanent, the committee will have to vote to set aside public objections, some of which relate to issues with the temporary infrastructure.<\/p>\n
Liberal Democrat councillor Kevin Lang asked council officer Andrew Easson how much making the temporary measures would cost.<\/p>\n
Mr Easson said that he could not provide a price estimate as decisions had not been made on which temporary infrastructure would be made permanent.<\/p>\n
Cllr Lang replied: \u201cWhen the committee met last time, the report said that consideration would be given to upgrade the infrastructure.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd then during the course of the meeting, it was explained to us that it would be upgraded. But it seems that we\u2019ve gone back to the fact that only consideration would be given.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have received objections on the basis of the temporary infrastructure.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m trying to understand what certainty or clarity this committee has as to whether it can set.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr Easson said that a \u00a3500,000 per year fund for upgrading Covid-era infrastructure across the city had been approved by the Transport and Environment Committee recently.<\/p>\n
He continued to say that the fund would have to be shared between five areas covered by different experimental orders, like the one in the east of Edinburgh.<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cWe don\u2019t know which schemes we are going to do, and we haven\u2019t yet begun looking at each individual scheme.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we have an objection to say that people are saying the temporary infrastructure is likely to be struck, or people are likely to trip over it, that could be a big concern, in a high street environment, for example.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the other hand, if you\u2019ve got a stretch of road that has virtually no footfall, and no frontages, and very few people cross the road, and it\u2019s a long, straight bit of road, it\u2019s probably not that likely it\u2019s going to get hit, and probably not that likely anyone\u2019s going to trip over it.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn some locations, we would look to go in and address that, because the risk is higher, but in other locations it might be that we decide it\u2019s a low priority to upgrade that particular part of the scheme.\u201d<\/p>\n
Council officer Dave Sinclair added that all of the temporary infrastructure would eventually be replaced, as all of it has a service life that will run out at some point.<\/p>\n
But he said that council officers wanted to look at all the temporary schemes in the city together before deciding how to prioritise replacing infrastructure.<\/p>\n
Later in the meeting, Cllr Lang said: \u201cI feel really disappointed that after almost three months, we\u2019ve not been given information that I think is kind of what we alluded to in May, in terms of what we needed to make us comfortable with making a permanent decision.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s not been work done on how much it would cost, we don\u2019t know where it would happen, and yet we are being asked to make a permanent decision today.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think that is an incredibly difficult thing for us to set aside objections, which is what we\u2019re being asked to do, and put faith in something that may or may not happen.\u201d<\/p>\n
Conservative councillor Phil Doggart added: \u201cI\u2019d back that up, because I think one of the other challenges is the fact that we have one ETRO covering a significant distance.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe challenge around that is that we\u2019re still giving a blanket approval to the whole ETRO when it may well be that it could be years before anything is done.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe know the financial challenges we\u2019ve got, and how quickly priorities can change. So I\u2019m really struggling to say that we do have full information in terms of being able to make a decision today.\u201d<\/p>\n
Green councillor Alex Staniforth said: \u201cI think I do have enough information to know whether to let the ETRO lapse or to make it permanent.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact is, we can\u2019t prevaricate much longer. I think we have to make a decision today. And while I understand that we might prefer to have more information, the timer has run out.\u201d<\/p>\n
Liberal Democrat councillor Hal Osler added: \u201cI am not comfortable with this situation. We\u2019ve had three years to get information on this.<\/p>\n
\u201cPeople have fed into a survey, there are still genuine concerns. We\u2019ve asked a number of questions, we\u2019ve delayed this committee already, we have not got any more assurity.<\/p>\n
\u201cMetaphorically having a gun to your head to be told, \u2018we\u2019re either going to agree or it\u2019s all out\u2019, is a very unfortunate situation to be in.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI feel enough chance has been given to gather the information. I unfortunately can\u2019t actually support making this decision positively today.\u201d<\/p>\n
Council officers then argued that a decision had to be made at Thursday\u2019s meeting in order to ensure a permanent traffic regulation order could be in place by October 28.<\/p>\n
But after being asked if a delay to the September 4 meeting was possible, officers said that it may be possible to keep the rules and infrastructure in place past October 28 with emergency orders for a short period of time if needed.<\/p>\n
Mr Easson told councillors that bringing costed plans for which parts of the scheme could be made permanent by September 4 would be extremely challenging.<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cThe quality of the information \u2013 it\u2019s going to have to be pulled together very quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEverything that\u2019s considered to be high priority, there is enough money to deal with that. What we can\u2019t say is that there\u2019s enough money to deal with everything, whether there\u2019s a pressing need or not.\u201d<\/p>\n
Committee convener and Labour councillor Margaret Graham said: \u201cI think we\u2019ve batted this around as much as we can, I don\u2019t think we can go any further.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy position is that we defer the decision to the committee on the fourth of September, and ask the officers to furnish us with more information as per the discussion today.\u201d<\/p>\n
The committee then agreed to back the delay.<\/p>\n
Councillors will make a decision on whether to make the traffic calming measures permanent at the next meeting of the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee on Wednesday, September 4.<\/p>\n
By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter<\/p>\n