I suppose, given the lack of mention of active travel in other manifestos, it is more positive than most. However, it really is the bare minimum and, as long experince shows, when it comes to actual implementation in Edinburgh - local Lib Dems are very much "we support active travel, just not here".
I think you have been too generous to the Lib Dems. The "transport - more detail" section of their manifesto does not mention active travel, but does highlight speeding the dualling of the A9 and setting a target for A96 dualling - projects with a likely combined outturn cost of around £10 billion.
Please excuse the typos - quite under the weather at the moment. Hopefully it all makes sense.
Just thought it worth highlighting this, as I imagine this figure will feature in quite a few transport discussions in the run-up to the election.
However. The "balanced pathway" sees a lower increase, 4% lower in fact. That lower increase is being interpreted as a 4% reduction in car use. Except it isn't - it's just a lower increase than the predcuted baseline increase.
Well - the UK Climate Change Committee has prepared two sets of figures for car use over this epriod. A baseline (where there is no policy action) and a "balanced pathway" (where there is policy action). Both these scenators see an increase in car use.
How is this possible?
Thanks for the heads up. I think it worth emphasising that the Scottish Government's "car use reductiion target" (which you wil, be told is "a 4% reduction between 2025 and 2030") will see annual car use in Scotland grow by between 0.9 billion kilometres and 1.75 billion km by 2030.
Great to hear - as a fellow (non-electric) Gazelle owner it doesn't surprise me that the puny legs of the typical bike thief couldn't cope with the stately heft of your bike.
The Bill of Rights 1689 was an Act of the pre-union English Parliament. Surprisingly, it doesn't mention Scotland, roads, cars, speed limits, or even East Dunbartonshire Council.
A chart showing the increase in driving within the City of Edinburgh Council area between 1993 and 2004.
Here was me thinking the congestion was due to all that extra driving! (DfT Stats roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-author...)
This is Britain. You are on a train operated by Trenitalia/First Group, owned by Angel Trains, and maintained by Alstom. Don't worry, heater maintenance will be specified in a contract somewhere! As long as its a KPI, I'm sure it will be sorted in due course.
2019 Edinburgh Council artist impressions of a redesigned Picardy Place roundabout showing a small pavillion and outdoor cafe.
This is what the Council told us to expect in 2019 - a place to loiter, possibly with an open air cafe, perhaps a spot for fringe shows. (See democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/g3...)
Sneaking it in through the back door? The law requires a public consultation and approval by Scottish Ministers, who can require a public inquiry to be held (the promoting authority can also volunteer to hold one itself).
Both reasonable points. Neither of which would be undermined by adding the original project start dates announced by the Council to the existing chart. It could be argued that many of the most delayed projects are also the most significant, e.g. Canal-Meadows, Meadows-George Street, George Street.
If you could add such a column to your chart then I am happy to get digging - all dates used would be backed with some sort of evidence.
Not being the sort just to criticise. I am happy to try and track down the 'real' start dates of projects listed if you need a hand. Drop me a DM (or whatever they are called here).
Thank you - this is amazing. However, some of the original start dates are far too recent - probably due to the source documents not including the start dates as first announced. One example is Canal-Meadows, which was originally due to start construction in "early 2016".
Those same DfT figures used by Cllr Whyte, from the full 156 count points in the city, show that vehicle mileage increased by 7.4% between 2002 and 2025. roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-author...
To be fair to Edinburgh Council, they actually refused permission for this development. It was only granted approval on appeal to Scottish Ministers.
Rather than reserach looking at tweets or posing hypothetical situations people know will never be implemented, consider the 'natural experiment' of what happens with actual cycling proposals in Edinburgh. It could certainly be argued that more consultation is the last thing we need.
Which means for every pound invested, it is predicted to produce benefits of between 52 pence and 81 pence. Even when you include the "courageous" assumption that removing driver frustration produces a monetised benefit of £228 million.
It includes this incredible nugget "The A9 Dualling Programme demonstrates a BCR [Benefit-Cost Ratio] of 0.52 that rises to 0.81, when including Driver Frustration and Wider Economic Impacts, which equates to Low Value for Money."
Given the recent announcements about the A9 dualling, I had a quick dig to see if a revised Outline Business Case had been published. Nothing recent that I can see, but I did spot a November 2023 version, released under an FoI request that I haven't seen before.
Don't worry, you can rest easy that the trunk road budget has increased by £109,900,000 (a 12.5% increase - this is minus the figure for 'trunk road depreciation' as that isn't actual cash).
Great road safety advert from Victoria (Australia) based on just this premise: www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2tO...
Excerpt from an Edinburgh Evening News article that states "The response says Living Streets Edinburgh supports the provision of alternative routes for cyclists to the congested Union Canal towpath, but suggests this should be achieved using traffic-free and quiet streets in Shandon and North Merchiston rather than Dundee Street".
This sounds good. Can describe the cycle route you have in mind, say between Harrison Park to Lothian Road, that avoids both the canal and Dundee St and uses only traffic free or quiet streets? Thanks.
So Ministers can approve vehicle mounted cameras. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the vehicle couldn't be a bus. In all likelihood, the front facing cameras on Lothian Buses probably meet the technical requirements for approval - assuming video is time stamped and geo-referenced.
and:
The key parts are: