Start of Spokes article... 2025–>2026 : What for Edinburgh Cycling Policy & Action? Will 2026 see Edinburgh City‘s new ‘Primary Cycle Network’ definition start to turn from policy into reality? And what of the City’s hugely ambitious 30% by 2030 traffic-reduction aims? What other decisions or actions may we see in the coming year?
Picture of a bollarded route due to be upgraded in 2026 as part of the main-road 'Primary Cycle Network'
Picture of Foot of Walk to Dock Street under construction - opening in 2026
![Huge amounts of precious time having to be spent by officers in reassuring & re-reassuring worried councillors on issues where evidence is already pretty solid...
In conclusion, a random thought
Looking back on the stories above, one has to be struck by the huge amount of precious officer time that is devoted to handling the concerns of councillors worried by objections which in the end often prove either irrelevant or largely unfounded. Time which could be spent far more productively. Here are some examples…
There is no better example than the saga of the Travelling Safely experimental Orders and the role of the TRO subcommittee (see ‘2025’ near the start of this article), resulting in additional meetings and literally hundreds of pages of reports [e.g. this 682-page download for their third meeting covering much of the same ground]
The Braid Estate story (see above) is another – huge amounts of time in meetings, massive reports, preparation of traffic orders, finding contractors, abortive costs – all in aid of a messy compromise experiment, unwanted by many, and which may now not happen
Most recently, the decision of TRO Sub to postpone a decision on whether to allow east-bound cycling in Rose Street, where westbound has been legal for decades. Officers now have to prepare a report on issues such as whether bikes may collide with cafe tables or get through any roadworks that might happen, even though the existing west-bound cycling works perfectly well.
Is there a solution to this tragic time-wasting, delaying projects which are far more safety and environmentally significant? Certainly, objections must be heard, and councillors must interrogate officers. Some objections do have real substance. But when evidence is clear, and plainly laid out by officers when questioned at Committee (as, largely, in the above examples) surely there must be a mechanism for making councillors think twice. Is yet another investigation, more reports, more meetings, mor…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2ood4k4wojq5jku2zl3myqco/bafkreigm4aqkvdzwcswswz2vo5x3ao7darvfnglbc72ymh7jldoeddezza)
Huge amounts of precious time having to be spent by officers in reassuring & re-reassuring worried councillors on issues where evidence is already pretty solid... In conclusion, a random thought Looking back on the stories above, one has to be struck by the huge amount of precious officer time that is devoted to handling the concerns of councillors worried by objections which in the end often prove either irrelevant or largely unfounded. Time which could be spent far more productively. Here are some examples… There is no better example than the saga of the Travelling Safely experimental Orders and the role of the TRO subcommittee (see ‘2025’ near the start of this article), resulting in additional meetings and literally hundreds of pages of reports [e.g. this 682-page download for their third meeting covering much of the same ground] The Braid Estate story (see above) is another – huge amounts of time in meetings, massive reports, preparation of traffic orders, finding contractors, abortive costs – all in aid of a messy compromise experiment, unwanted by many, and which may now not happen Most recently, the decision of TRO Sub to postpone a decision on whether to allow east-bound cycling in Rose Street, where westbound has been legal for decades. Officers now have to prepare a report on issues such as whether bikes may collide with cafe tables or get through any roadworks that might happen, even though the existing west-bound cycling works perfectly well. Is there a solution to this tragic time-wasting, delaying projects which are far more safety and environmentally significant? Certainly, objections must be heard, and councillors must interrogate officers. Some objections do have real substance. But when evidence is clear, and plainly laid out by officers when questioned at Committee (as, largely, in the above examples) surely there must be a mechanism for making councillors think twice. Is yet another investigation, more reports, more meetings, mor…
#Edinburgh #Cycling developments 2026 (?)
Our thoughts--> www.spokes.org.uk/2026/01/2025...
🤔 #MainRoad protected lanes
🤔 #Tram
🤔 #PrincesStreet
🤔 #BraidEstate
🤔 Plans: #CCWEL extension, #LothianRoad
🤔 #DemandManagement: #TrafficFilters #charging
🤔 #BusLanes
🤔 Use of officer time
... and much more
