Pete’s view on the decision not to compensate Roseburn traders: “I speak as a cyclist and Roseburn resident; the CCWEL from Roseburn to Haymarket is a white elephant that does little to help cycling. We already have NCR1 running by the tramline which is a far nicer way to cycle into town. We just don’t need this scheme. The Council have been driven by Spokes and some Council Cycling officers, abetted by the Greens, SNP Leaders and blinkered Labourists such as Scott Arthur into foisting this madcap scheme on us. There must be at least £12 Million being blown in something which has caused nothing but harm to the 60 or so traders unfortunate enough to be on the CCWEL route. The scheme will never justify the problems it has caused, whilst cycling in the rest of the city has suffered- so many resources have been ploughed into this mess. We have a Council led by officers and a few cycling Councillors who have not a clue about the Roseburn economy, so driven are they by confused ideology and a poor grasp of basic economics. Our City depends on small traders; by ignoring their needs, in favour of a scheme that will do nothing to drop emissions, we lose grasp of what really matters.”
Edinburgh businesses hit by cycle route works make final plea for compensation – Edinburgh Live
Edinburgh shop owners fear going bust after more than a year of roadworks – Edinburgh Live
And older posts:
May 2019: Banned Pollution Speech: The Transport Committee met on 16th May to discuss pollution and heard from the Roseburn Vision members George Rendall and Pete Gregson. Before the meeting, Pete recorded what he was going to say in the City Chambers quad. See his sarcastic 5-minute speech at https://youtu.be/WsFqVh0kShg The Transport chair, Cllr Leslie Macinnes stopped Pete from delivering this piece of black humour, in which Pete claims the Council were knowingly increasing pollution levels in Roseburn. If you want to see him being expelled after he started delivering it at the meeting, on the Council telly , go to www.tinyurl.com/pollutionscandal [Pete later apologised to Ruth Davidson for bringing her baby into the matter, and to the Committee for going “over the top”, but his stunt sprang from his frustration with the Council, following months of effort in trying to get the pollution matter addressed- calls which the Council refused to consider (see “invalid” petitions below)].
May 2019: Council Petition- declared invalid by CEC Call for Independent Air Study Analysing the likely Impact of CCWEL Road Layout Changes on Roseburn Terrace NO2 Pollution Levels – The City of Edinburgh Council Council declare it “contains false or defamatory statements”.
May 2019: Roseburn Plume video released- https://youtu.be/n_jkUmMGi8I “The Council won’t discuss rising Nitrogen Dioxide levels in Roseburn with us- will the CCWEL make it worse, we ask? The 7-minute film explains all.”
March 2019: Council Petition- declared invalid by CEC We local traders and residents of Roseburn Terrace call upon the Council to commission an independent air study analysing the likely impact of CCWEL road layout changes on Roseburn Terrace pollution. Disturbing new research from a recently retired local – The City of Edinburgh Council Council declare it “contains false or defamatory statements”.
Jan 2019 Council Petition- declared valid by CEC CCWEL Cycle link – Small Business Compensation scheme – The City of Edinburgh Council Received signatures – 28 (Business) and 89 (Individual). Was discussed at Transport Committee in Feb 2019- request denied
March 2020: The Reporter ignored all the objections
30th Dec 2019 update: We will know the Scottish Government Reporter’s decision on the CCWEL in March. If it’s in favour, the Council will be starting work in May. There is a small chance he will reject the Council plans.
We put up a good show at the hearing in November; we were fortunate in having the Murrayfield Community Council (MCC) speaking out against, along with George from Art et Facts and John, our retired SEPA man. John presented his paper on Roseburn Air Pollution Modelling which comprehensively slates the Council study and gives an assessment of how removing parking on Roseburn Terrace would lead to an increase in NO2 levels.
The Reporter was very interested in our points but the Council kept presenting new information. Most significant was its estimate as to how many cycle journeys there were at present along West Coates. They monitored it on 24th Oct and claimed 797. This is for those travelling both East and West, so if one journey is for going to work, the other is for coming home; this equates to about 400 cyclists. Our study two years previously had indicated just 277. The difference was significant, so the Reporter agreed we could carry out our own count. This was duly organised through the MCC, whose Secretary organised volunteers to work in shifts. On the 12th Nov, we counted 596 journeys- about 300 cyclists. The Council panicked and then re-did its own survey, this time counting every day over a week. Its weekday average came out at 575, which is pretty much the same as ours. The Council re-count with 200 fewer journeys over the space of a fortnight is not conducive to building trust or confidence in its claims.
We also counted the number of cyclists travelling solely along Roseburn Terrace on the 18th Nov and found 420, which equates to 210 cyclists. The discrepancy indicates around 88 cyclists every day come along the Roseburn Path (the old Caledonian railway) and Wester Coates Road, at which point they join the A8. So there are 42% more cyclists on the West Coates stretch than the Roseburn stretch.
But the main argument the Council have put forward in favour of the CCWEL is the number of new cycle journeys it would bring about. I challenged their 2014 estimate of an 88% increase, because as you will recall we carried out our own Why Bike? Survey in 2016 of over 1,000 people, which found just 69 who said it would get them onto two wheels.
The Council told the reporter it had estimated future demand by using a matrix of zones. They broke the city down to 14 zones and used the 2011 census data to consider how people travelled between zones to get to work. They knew how many cycled from this zone to that zone every day versus how many drove or took the bus. They then estimated how many would begin cycling if the CCWEL was built. Their figures indicated 759 new cycle journeys every day. I examined their “CCWEL Cycle Use Forecasting” in some detail and thought the most they’d get would be 534.
But the problem remains that this is the number in an ideal world that will switch to two wheels. Just because you have a 4-mile journey to work and the CCWEL gives you a protected path for one-sixth of it does not mean you’ll become a cyclist. I believe that we will therefore only see a fraction of this number changing behaviour because of the CCWEL; if we are being optimistic, maybe one third – or 180 people.
We’ve pointed out that to spend £2.9M to get possibly 180 people onto bicycles between Roseburn and Haymarket, by reducing the width of the A8, along with the business impact, congestion and increased pollution this will cause, is not a proven business case. The fact is that there are numerous blackspots for cyclists across the city and the condition of cycle lanes everywhere is atrocious. The Council would be better served sticking with the NCR1 and using the money to improve cycling everywhere in the city, rather than focussing on the one km stretch to Haymarket.
We’ll just have to wait and see if the Reporter agrees…
4th & 5th November: The Scottish Government’s Dept of Transport has appointed Mike Croft as the Reporter to adjudicate on whether the CCWEL goes ahead. The hearing date will be 4th & 5th November and he is adjudicating on the Council’s request for a Redetermination Order. If he refuses to recommend the confirmation of the Order that the Council seeks, then the Council will be back to the drawing board. The hearing will take place in the European Room at the Council City Chambers in the High Street. It will run from 10am-5pm each day. If you want to attend as an observer, send an email to the Dept of Planning & Environmental Appeals lady at jane.robertson@gov.scot just to make sure there is a seat for you.
Pete Gregson will be there giving evidence, along with George Rendall of Art et Facts (representing traders), Penny Housley (a resident) and John Yellowlees (representing Murrayfield Community Council), all objecting in some form or another. We are to represent the 45 or so written objections still outstanding (see them all here : there are 60 pages!)
The Reporter has been calling for written submissions: he has been quite fair; he has asked for comment on-
- The extent of cycle use along the route corridor now
- Alternative future cycle routes for the Roseburn- Haymarket Corridor
- The lack of simulation of the proposed CCWEL and potential impact on congestion
- Pedestrian safety, including safety at pedestrian crossings
Pete has submitted a 35-page statement, which summarises all our work over the past three years, including the Roseburn Vision proposals and our WhyBike? survey. You can read it here.
The Reporter has also circulated the statements from each of the objectors to the Council and vice versa, and has asked each of us for comment, so that he might weigh up the various contributions. The Council’s written statement runs to 25 pages: you can read it, along with Pete’s comments [in red] here.
31st October- Campaigners says Council’s CCWEL Pollution Impact Report not fit for purpose
The report on the projected impact of the City Centre West East Link Cycle track (CCWEL) on Roseburn Terrace’s air pollution has left campaigners dismayed because it’s not what they asked for. And the report’s greatest weakness is an anomaly so great that it renders it worthless.
George Rendall of Art et Facts in Roseburn Terrace, who lodged the Council petition calling for the impact study, presently faces nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution at the legal maximum, with an average annual reading of 40 ug/m3. The report came about because he and the other 31 traders and 300 residents who signed the petition feared the CCWEL could lead to a rise of as much as 20%, putting their health at risk. How so? The CCWEL requires the removal of parking that presently buffer them from the pollution from the A8’s 15,000 vehicles passing their doors every day.
The Council accepts Roseburn Terrace is a classic example of a street canyon, and one which traps pollution on the south side of the street, due to the prevailing wind. Residents and traders say that bringing the traffic 3 metres closer to their homes and shops will lead to pollution rocketing to way above what they suffer just now. Their projection is based on the findings of Dundee Council, which moved traffic one lane away from residential properties to protect residents from the harmful effects of NO2, and saw levels drop by 19% as a result. Air pollution can lead to asthma, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, COPD and diabetes in adults.
The CCWEL: Roseburn Terrace Air Quality Monitoring Report was prepared by transport consultants AECOM and presented on Tues 15th October at Council HQ to George Rendall, John Lamb (retired SEPA employee and air quality expert); Pete Gregson (of Roseburn Vision, also a Murrayfield Community Councillor), and Ward City Councillor Scott Douglas. It left John, Pete and George unimpressed; they consider it not only not what they’d asked for but also completely worthless.
For the AECOM study is based on a computer model- and the outputs CONTRADICT the Council’s own measurements that show that the concentrations of NO2 are consistently 30% higher on the south side, because of the canyoning effect- as the AECOM Technical Director pointed out at the October meeting. He went onto claim the CCWEL would lead to an 8% drop in pollution.
However, after the meeting, the campaigners plotted the figures they’d been given on the map in the report- of the Baseline 2016 scenario model- and discovered it presented an OPPOSITE view. Whilst the Council’s diffusion tubes show pollution on the south side of the Terrace is the problem, the AECOM computer data models the pollution on the north side as being much higher- by an average of around 66%.
Retired SEPA employee John Lamb, noticed that the model had not been validated, therefore CEC was unable to show that this model is representative of the conditions that currently or may exist in the future. Official guidance LAQMTG16 Government Guidance clearly states “The model used should have some form of published validation assessment available and/or should be recognised as being fit for purpose by the regulatory authorities”.
John notes: “The consultant who wrote the report cannot validate the model because there are no hourly monitoring data. We have been presented with computer projections that are plots on a graph that has no scale; the figures have no reference, as they need to be adjusted with respect to real life measures.”
Furthermore, campaigners observe the Council and the Government measure pollution on an annual mean- yet note this study is based on hourly pollution data. They say this is meaningless, because no area in Scotland is currently exceeding the hourly maximum legal levels. Indeed, the Government website shows that pollution on St Johns Road is not exceeding the hourly limit, yet confirms it’s a pollution black spot.
They point out the annual mean reflects the long-term exposure to NO2, so is the significant factor in terms of human health; a 1-hour exposure is not relevant for those that live or work in Roseburn all the year round. They say on that basis, the report hasn’t assessed the potential health impact.
They are asking why this modelling was used, when any air expert would know that this would not give the answer to the question about the likely impact of removing the parking. George says “I reckon they picked the hourly measure because they knew that it would say the track was safe. But they still haven’t proven that.”
“The Scottish Government Reporter will make a judgement next week as to whether the CCWEL goes ahead. We’ll be presenting our concerns at the hearing on the 4th and 5th at the City Chambers and we hope he pays heed and scraps this scheme. There is already a perfectly good route to Haymarket from Roseburn- NCR1, by the tram line. Cyclists access it just now by Roseburn Place; Roseburn Terrace doesn’t need to host the CCWEL. Improving access to NCR1 would stop rising NO2 in Roseburn and would save us a million pounds too- that’s money that could be spent improving cycling in the parts of the city that really need it.”
John Lamb’s analysis of the Council report can be found at www.kidsnotsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ROSEBURN-MODELLING-CRITIQUE-OCT2019.pdf
12th September- Edinburgh Council Transport Committee met to discuss the Pollution Petition. A few protestors attended on the day at the City Chambers. 
Thanks to the 20 or so people who wrote to Cllrs Ross, Douglas, Gloyer et al calling for an ADMS (advanced dispersion model) study for Roseburn Terrace instead of the inadequate ENVIVER (which ignores the street canyon effect). The Council cracked and has now agreed to our main petition demand for an air pollution study. There are still concerns. We asked for it to be independent; the Council are using AECOM (based at Haymarket, next to Sustrans) to do the study. They do most of CEC’s cycling designs for the CCWEL and have a strong dependency on the Council for work, so are not really independent. We want our ex-SEPA expert John Lamb to oversee the study to reduce bias. This was our petition item on the agenda for Thursday’s Transport Committee. George Rendall and John Yellowlees made these points to the Committee:
- Independence of study- We know AECOM are doing it, but we want our ex-SEPA man to get to sign it off
- What’s key is agreeing what impact the CCWEL will have on existing traffic volumes. If we accept Council figures – 15,663 vehicles per day at Roseburn between 7am-7pm, then how many can be reasonable be expected to switch to bike as a result of the track? (they’ll state a huge figure, as this will mean they can claim a reduction, rather than in increase, in pollution). I think it’s really important for us to set out what we expect the figure to be, because we’ve carried out our own study on demand. Our study is important for two reasons: firstly, the Council hasn’t done one and secondly, because there is already an excellent route from Roseburn to Haymarket along NCR1. It is just 200m longer than the proposed CCWEL and journey time just 1 minute longer- and it is EXTREMELY quiet. Because of this pre-existing route, and the excellent bus service, we have found very few people would give up their car for the CCWEL. Our 2016 survey of just over 1,000 people regularly travelling along the A8 from Roseburn to Haymarket showed just 69 would switch to cycling. [See our summary data at www.tinyurl.com/whybikesurvey ] The Council forecasts an 88% increase as result of the CCWEL. Our count shows 280 cyclists per day presently travelling along the A8 route of the CCWEL. An 88% increase means 246 people, at most, switching to bike. So, the number of CCWEL users would be somewhere between 69 (by our calculations) and 246 (by Council sums). If we are very generous and use the Council’s figures, then we expect the traffic volume for the ADMS study to be based around a reduction of emitting vehicles of 1.59%- down to 15,417 vehicles from the current 15,663 for the volume of traffic through Roseburn Terrace. We want this to be the figure used in the study, rather than one plucked from the air by Council transport officers.
- The Council Liaison officer’s letter (see it at here) accepts the Council miscalculated the existing pollution levels, claiming 35 microgrammes NO2 per cubic metre on the south side of Roseburn Terrace. They acknowledge they underestimated the figure after hearing our air pollution expert’s views, and have revised it up to 39 microgrammes NO2. We must point out the legal limit is 40. We expect the ADMS study to show a significant increase likely as a result of removing one lane. If that is the case, what measures will the Council take? Will they reconsider routing the track along Roseburn Terrace to Roseburn Place? Both we and the Murrayfield Community Council say that this is the natural desire line for cyclists coming out of Roseburn Park (as most come this way- 450 a day, including me) and heading west. It would be the best way to safeguard the health of Roseburn residents.
- How quickly will the ADMS study take to do? We want the study published by mid-Oct, which will give us and the Government Reporter time to review it and make a judgement- in plenty of time for the Redetermination Order hearings, scheduled for the 4th and 5th November.
View the discussion on the Council webcam here The Council refused all our points, but the officer did explain the ADMS study results would be ready at the end of September and that his expert would meet our expert then to discuss the findings.
26th August. Scottish Reporter calls for comment on the Edinburgh Council hearing statement on the CCWEL Roads Order. This statement can be viewed on the Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) website at http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Document.aspx?id=626342 Deadline for comment on this submission is 9 September 2019. Also on 26th August, Council’s Liaison Officer writes to Pete Gregson acknowledging the Council got its figures wrong on Roseburn Terrace pollution levels. They are not 35 uG, but 39 uG. The legal limit is 40.
UPDATE- 22nd August, the Council cracks and officers finally agree to ADMS study. However, they want AECOM to do it, the company that does most of the Council work on designing cycle tracks and the CCWEL. The petitioner, George Rendall, writes to the Council asking that our SEPA expert is involved at all stages
UPDATE- 21st August deadline for submission to Scottish Reporter statements on the CCWEL Roads Order. See Pete Gregson’s 35-page statement here
UPDATE 24th July- Campaigners write to Transport Officers pointing out that the EnViVer emissions modelling is inappropriate since the Council itself uses ADMS, as do the Government. They seek a meeting to review the data; all Council officers suddenly depart on holiday. 20 residents write to Councillors in protest.
UPDATE 17th July- Council Transport Officers invite reps from Murrayfield Community Council and Roseburn shops to Council HQ to tell them that their EnViVer emissions modelling predict at 9% reduction in pollution rather than the 19% increase campaigners predict with ADMS modelling, using their Roseburn Terrace Traffic Management paper. NB NO2 pollution is already at the legal max of 40 ug/m3
UPDATE 10th July- Council pollution petition closes with 32 (Business) and 296 (individual) signatures; almost all residents and traders in Roseburn Terrace signed it – see it here.
UPDATE 28th June The Edinburgh City Centre Transformation consultation, which began on 20 May, will now finish at midnight on Sunday, 7 July, instead of Friday, 28 June. Edinburgh Low Emissions Zone – deadline is Sunday 21 July 2019
UPDATE 21st June- Council finally agrees to make pollution petition live after 11 weeks obfustication (it should have been just 7 days) .
It is open until 10th July. (If you want to tell others, the tinyurl I have made to get to it is at www.tinyurl.com/roseburnplea )
It has suffered numerous revisions, but thanks to pressure from local Councillor Scott Douglas, the officers finally agreed. The new Roseburn Vision 5-minute video at www.tinyurl.com/roseburnplume explains why action is needed. Homes and shops on the south of Roseburn Terrace will be facing levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution far above the legal maximum of 40 µg/m3 if the cycle track goes ahead. A 9 year old girl died in London through asthma attacks brought on by levels of 56 µg/m3 . We believe Roseburn will get the same.
We note the Council removed the air monitoring device in 2009 there and only replaced it in 2017. We lodged an FOI on this on 4th April (see it at www.tinyurl.com/roseburnair); the Council’s response was so laughable (they said smokers from the pub made the data collected unreliable!) that, after getting an Internal Review that changed nothing, we have asked the Information Commissioner to examine it.
At Transport Committee on 16th May, in response to a direct query from Cllr Gillian Gloyer, Council officer Ewan Kennedy lied to the Cllrs when he claimed an air study had been carried out already. The study to which he referred was a study on traffic flows looking at whether signalling at the traffic lights would ease fears of increased congestion. See the video of the meeting at www.tinyurl.com/pollutionscandal
Traders met with MSP Ruth Davidson on 10th June and showed her the signatures from 60 residents and traders whose health will suffer (her office is directly affected); she is considering raising concerns with the Environment Minister.
The Murrayfield Community Council (MCC) support the petition and voted to call for an air study on 14th May. It will be discussing the air pollution at its forthcoming meetings; to find out when they are and to keep up to date on developments, go to www.kidsnotsuits.com/roseburnvision
Other news is that the notices have come through for the traffic regulation orders. Those who objected last year will have the chance to make their case to the Government Reporter in early August. Most objections are about the removal of parking and to elements of poor road re-design. Some are about pollution. The Reporter (I think he is a retired planner, who was appointed in January specifically to adjudicate on this matter on behalf of the Scottish Government Transport Dept) will hear our pleas in early August. We will be pressing him on the pollution matter, as we believe the CCWEL now, at Roseburn Terrace South, represents a risk to our health. You can read all the objections at http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Objections-by-Category_588990.pdf (there are 60 pages!)
Finally, it would be good if you could respond to the Council’s “Transformation” consultation. You may have heard of plans to ban all diesel cars older than 5 years from parts of the city. At the May Transport Committee I reiterated the case that SEPA had made last November when they observed this was unlikely to be effective in tackling the real pollutant, NO2. Cars made 4 years ago (under Euro 6) are not really any better than cars made 6 years ago (under Euro 5), so the Council is putting city diesel drivers to a lot of unnecessary fear and possible expense. I made the point to the Committee that what the Council should be doing is sensitive congestion charging, bikes on buses, free travel for children, etc (it’s in the meeting video above), but they ignored me.
Please contribute your views to the consultation– some fear that banning vehicles from the city centre will just lead to more cars driving through Roseburn, so you might like to make that point. See it at https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/ce/edinburgh-city-centre-transformation-proposed-stra/ It closes in one week’s time, on the 28th June.
A Council officer from the Transport Dept will be attending the MCC meeting on Tuesday 25th June – please come along and hear it from the horse’s mouth. The meeting will be at Murrayfield Church Hall, starting at 7.30pm
UPDATE 16th May – Campaigner expelled from Council meeting The coverage of the expulsion over Ruth Davidson’s baby and the hoodwinking of Edinburgh drivers over their diesel cars
David Bol at Edinburgh Evening News and Scotsman re-writes History. Trainee journalist David Bol got his first stab at a real story today when he tried to cover the expulsion of Pete Gregson from the Transport Committee meeting. David managed to get the very basics right, in that he understood that Cllr Leslie Macinnes did not want the committee to hear what Gregson had to say, but after that he seemed to have had a severe reality hiccup.
Please see below his Scotsman and Evening News article, corrected in red. We in the Roseburn Vision group have set up a fundraiser for David at www.gofundme.com/david-bol-training and we hope you can give generously. Pete Gregson has put in £100 towards David’s £1,000 target. This should help pay his fees for this one-year MA course at Napier Uni, where he can learn the basics about getting a story right, before putting pen to paper.
You can see the speech that Cllr Macinnes stopped the Committee from hearing, recorded just before the meeting in the Council quad, at www.tinyurl.com/bannedspeech
You can see Peter Gregson’s expulsion on the Council telly at www.tinyurl.com/pollutionscandal
Read the SEPA report that blows the lid on the Council’s clean air plans at www.tinyurl.com/reekiefib and BBC News “Reality Check – Do Clean Air Zones Work?” The truth. Clean Air Zones are good at reducing particulates, but particulates are not a problem in Edinburgh – it’s nitrogen dioxide. Edinburgh needs something more- like congestion charging..
Also see the video that Macinnes claimed was inaccurate, because it showed Ruth’s baby was at risk at www.tinyurl.com/roseburnplume
You can see the fully corrected Scotsman and Evening News article, with all David’s inaccuracies explained here
I have complained to IPSO about the Scotsman and Evening News’s coverage.
UPDATE 13th May – NEW VIDEO RELEASED- “The Roseburn Plume” tells how the nitrogen dioxide levels are set to rise when the CCWEL is built and calls residents and traders to lobby the Council: we want an independent study commissioned assessing the rise in pollution for after the CCWEL is built. Click on the link here to see it on You-tube
UPDATE 11th April – Scotsman Traffic linked to four million child asthma cases and Global air pollution study should shock us into action – leader comment . Reference to death of 9-year old girl from pollution in London here
UPDATE 8th April- Council Petition calling for Independent Air Assessment was lodged. Read it with the April+May amendments the Council wants here. The Council have declared it invalid and refuse it despite repeated changes to meet their objections: see their declaration on the Council website here. We are appealing. It is a traders’ petition, lodged by George Rendall of Art et Facts, so only 20 business signatories are needed to get it before Comittee. Council delay means it has missed Transport & Environment Committee on 16th May. The next is not until 8th August. Residents could sign the petition too, if it was validated. We have submitted this add. itional information to the Council to support the petition. We have also submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking the Council why it removed the air monitoring tubes from the south side of Roseburn Terrace (the most polluted side) from 2009 to 2017. See it at www.tinyurl.com/roseburnair
UPDATE 8th April- “Ruining Roseburn” – our response to the Council’s “Rejuvenation” scheme. The Council plans to reduce the parking at Murrayfield Place from 11 spaces to 9. The public “consultation” bega 2 April and ends 7th May, with a report to MCC on the 14th May. This pedestrianisation plan is wanton in its further removal of shoppers parking. These spaces are not even needed to facilitate the cycle track; the Council are adding insult to injury. MCC lodged an objection to the TRO about this, as did KnS. The Council refused to consider underground waste storage as Grassmarket has. The “Ruining Roseburn” flyer can be downloaded here.
UPDATE 1st April – Paper on Roseburn Pollution and the CCWEL from John Lamb, ex-SEPA, with more detail
UPDATE 30th March – Alarming information comes to light from a retired SEPA air polution expert. After 20 years working to improve air quality in Scotland, Murrayfield resident John Lamb has, over the past 12 months, discovered that the CCWEL track will lead to breaches in the legal limit of NO2 on the south side of Roseburn Terrace. We have published his research, which can be dowloaded by clicking here. The Community Council will take an interest in this matter on the 2nd April at their meeting in Murrayfield Parish Church hall. All welcome
UPDATE 14th March – Scottish Government notice: Roseburn To Haymarket Area Redetermination Of Means Of Exercise Of Public Right Of Passage Order The OBJECTIONS TO REDETERMINATION ORDER ROD‐230‐2 AND/OR TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER TRO‐230‐3 will be examined soon. Mr Mike Croft MA DipTP MRTPI has been appointed as reporter by the Scottish Government to consider our objections. See them all in one pdf here
The Gov says: Please note that the documentation for these cases can be found on the DPEA website for the Roads Order https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=119991 and the TRO at https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=119838 The documentation will be updated as the cases proceed. [Note- these databases includes our objections, albeit in a less concise manner.]
UPDATE – 6th March 2019 The Council have more or less said no to our compensation bid. Our Murrayfield Community Council (MCC) rep that went along said: We felt that we were treated sympathetically by the Transport and Environment Committee. The Committee agreed to meet the traders and compared a project in Brighton Place, Portobello (a sort of Rejuvenating Portobello) in which the local traders are involved. For Roseburn the Committee’s plan is:
- Consult the traders.
- Draw on parallels with Brighton Place.
- Publish findings in May in the Business BulletinSo, a reasonable outcome, better than we might have expected. – Stephen Holland, MCC
The Art et Facts trader who lodged the petition, George Rendall, was less positive; we had hoped for more. You can see the Council’s webcast of the meeting here, go 1 hour and 43 minutes in; it is item 7.1. It runs for about 30 minutes, up till 2 hr and 15 mins.
What we shall do now is pressure the Council to incorporate economic impact into the aspects they are measuring around their assessment of how the track will change the area. Until now, the Council CCWEL Monitoring Team said they would measure (A) congestion (B) pollution and (C) “quality of life” studies (ie measuring footfall and occasional street interviews) . We feel that they are dodging the issue here, so shall seek to get (C) supplanted with an evaluation of how the CCWEL affects economic performance. It would not be rocket science for the Council to engage with willing traders to examine their books before and after, so see what impact their scheme is having on the shops.
There are three more things on the horizon:
- Pollution in Roseburn Terrace – George of Art et Facts has been told that the south side of Roseburn Terrace, where his shop is located is presently almost in breach of legal limits on NO2 air pollution. He understands from a retired SEPA local that the CCWEL will push the readings into the red. Once we are dead sure of our data, we shall speak to the Council.
- “Rejuvenating Roseburn” – the Council’s evil plan to reduce the parking at Murrayfield Place from 12 spaces to 7. There will be a public “consultation” from early April which I think we should all object to. This pedestrianisation plan is wanton in its further removal of shoppers parking. These spaces are not even needed to facilitate the cycle track; the Council are adding insult to injury. MCC lodged an objection to the TRO about this, as did I. The Council refused to consider underground waste storage as Grassmarket has.
- The TRO Objections – about 45 are still extant (from those living and working at Roseburn, West Coates and Haymarket) – will be heard over the summer by the Reporter appointed by the Scottish Government.
We finally got an article in the Evening News: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/business/haymarket-traders-call-for-cycle-lane-work-compensation-1-4884790
— update ends—
LOBBYING YOUR COUNCILLOR ..
Please help canvas support, call upon your ward Councillors to support it.
To find out who they are and get email addresses, go to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/search and enter your postcode, then click on their name to get their contact details. To make life easier we have drafted a basic email which will be generated if you click here. You will need to copy and paste the email address of each of your three (or four) Cllrs into the “To” line. Please add your own details at the end.
For those who live in Roseburn/Murrayfield, I have made a dedicated email generator. Just click here to get your email to the three ward Cllrs.
For those in the Haymarket/City Centre area, please click here.
If you can go to their surgeries as well, please do. You can get details of when and where they hold them from the Council website – see next to their contact details for “Surgery Times”.
IF YOU ARE NEW TO THIS, MORE ON THE COMPENSATION PETITION
Traders who will suffer as a result of the plan to build a protected cycle track from Roseburn to Haymarket need compensation if they lose income because of the track, due to be constructed from Autumn 2019. Customer parking will be cut by around 40%, with the Roseburn and Haymarket shops being particularly hard hit. Hotels and guest-house will also lose on-street parking.
28 Traders have lodged a business petition to the Council seeking up to 3 years compensation for any business that loses out. See it on the Council website at
[When viewing the petition, note that if your browser is Internet Explorer v.11 you will need to use the scroll bar at the bottom of the box to see all the text.] Further details of the petition can be found here
The petition has the support of the Murrayfield Community Council.
The petition does NOT have the support of the “Roseburn Cycle Group” They are at www.roseburncycleroute.organic.uk and their website claims there is widespread local support for the track..
The Council, Spokes, Sustrans and the Roseburn Cycle Group have consistently claimed that businesses would benefit from the cycle track. That being the case, there will be little or nothing to pay out from the proposed compensation scheme. If, on the other hand, businesses do suffer, they need to take responsibility for that.The reports claiming the businesses would benefit were mostly from 2015/2016; one study was particularly heavily promoted by Spokes: this is an annotated, chart-filled review of 12 studies from around the world; read it here. This CityFixer study compiling was“The Complete Business Case for Converting Street Parking into Bike Lanes” . It noted that 9th Avenue in Manhattan showed the cycle lane increased sales by 49%.
More studies can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, US press reports such as here and Sustrans on cargo bikes here. There are many more online.
CONSTRUCTION STARTS SOON
The cycle track construction is due to commence in 2020, starting at Roseburn and working towards Haymarket. As well as the loss of parking, many of the side streets at Haymarket & Roseburn will become one-way or inaccessible to cars. View the plans online at:
CCWEL___Final_Preliminary_Design_Sheet_1_Roseburn
CCWEL___Final_Preliminary_Design_Sheet_2_West_Coates
CCWEL___Final_Preliminary_Design_Sheet_3_HaymarketWest
CCWEL___Final_Preliminary_Design_Sheet_4_HaymarketEast_Taxis
Alternatively, head to see Leanne at The Handmade Factory/art gallery, 20 Haymarket Terrace (if in Haymarket) or George at Art et Facts, 19 Roseburn Terrace (if in Roseburn) and you will be able to examine large (A1) size prints of each section.
View Evening News letter of 13th Dec 2016 which sums up why this track is a waste of money.
If you want to help, please send an email to postmaster@roseburn32.plus.com
George Rendall of Art et Facts has lodged the petition to the Council
BACKGROUND
There has been huge opposition to the CCWEL scheme: 6,000 signed a petition opposing the track in 2016, of whom at least 300 were cyclists. Kids not Suits organised the protest; see more on the KnS page here.
The KnS page explains how, in late 2016, KnS published the results of a survey of residents and travellers who were likely to use to be affected by the track, called the “Why Bike?” survey. It aimed to find out how many people were likely to use the track. 1,001 people responded. The survey showed the track would encourage 69 new people to cycle into town, this being the number who don’t cycle into town at present, that ranked it top of 9 factors that would change their behaviour. Summary data can be downloaded here: WhyBikeSummaryData
West Coates Cycle Track: Petition to Council & The Roseburn Vision
Compensation Call
KnS believe that compensation from the Council and Sustrans is essential if businesses are to continue trading. The Council, Spokes and Sustrans have consistently claimed that businesses would benefit from the scheme. That being the case, they will have little or nothing to pay out. If, on the other hand, businesses do suffer, they need to take responsibility for that.
The reports claiming the businesses would benefit were mostly from 2015/2016, The Citylab study was particularly heavily promoted by Spokes: this is an annotated, chart-filled review of 12 studies from around the world; read it here. More studies can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, US press reports such as here and Sustrans on cargo bikes here. There are many more online.
Clearly we need to reduce pollution and congestion in cities, but there are more effective ways of doing this than building a protected cycle track on this A8 arterial route bringing thousands into the city every day. The CCWEL is particularly daft as there is already a perfectly suitable “quiet route” alternative presently available, the National Cycle Route 1, which goes from Russel Road to Haymarket and follows the route of the tram line. Parts of it are for cyclists and pedestrians only; it is not well promoted by the Council and is under-used. It takes one minute longer using NCR1 for cyclists to get into Haymarket from Roseburn than the proposed CCWEL. So, in order to shave one minute off a cycle journey from Roseburn to Haymarket for 69 people, the Council plans to spend £5.5M and create havoc with congestion, reduced parking and possible increases in pollution. Shops, cafes and hotels are the lifeblood of any community and residents need these. The traders should not have to close and go elsewhere because of the Council’s hare-brained scheme.
What’s more, many cyclists are saying they would use the proposed CCWEL because it is narrow, going down to 2m in places and generally only 2.5m wide. Two cyclists approaching each other at speed (this will be a two-way track) will not feel safe and many say they’d prefer to use the road. Also the kerbing seperating cyclists from buses, lorries, etc will be narrow: a matter of particular concern when dark, since headlights will blind cyclists. The floating “bus islands” will be another risk, especially to elderly – a collision of a bike with a pensioner – or a child – will likely result in broken bones. Emergency vehicles will struggle to get through. A similar impact on traffic is anticipated as that seen in the “Mile of Cars” video, filmed one morning in 2016 when Scottish Water dug the road up, closing a small part of one carriageway in Roseburn Terrace for a couple of days. See it here: at peak times there was solid congestion for 1 mile on the A8, all the way from Western Corner to Donaldson’s school.
This 2016 STV news item reflects local concerns.
City Chambers Protest (3 Feb 2016) Anti-Cycle Track 20mins- with Lady Kirkwood, George Rendall, Cllr Jezza Balfour and David Drummond