The City of Edinburgh Council's Transport and Environment Committee ('TEC') met on Thursday, 29th January 2026, and as usual had a wide number of topics to cover. We're focused on the items around cycling and safer streets, and below is our roundup of the decisions and discussion that took place.
ℹ️ For background on the items covered below, see our review of the January agenda from last week.
🌐 Meeting Page & Agenda | 📺 Watch the Webcast | PDFs: 📑 Full Agenda Reports Pack | 💼 Business Bulletin | 📋 Work Programme | 🎙️ Deputations | 📑 Motions & Amendments
📄 Report [PDF] | ℹ️ Our background on this item »
Quite an involved topic - going through a series of checks and balances regarding how Visitor Levy or 'tourist tax' funds should be spent in the city. The aims of this report to TEC were to note the scheme's objectives and 'process of assessment' - including how projects are prioritised and consulted on; and to more specifically give the nod on the list of projects [Appendix 3 PDF] to fund from the new revenue stream. For a final decision, the report is then referred on to become part of the Council’s budget setting process.
Headlines for cycling within projects slated to receive VL funds are another run at Princes Street Public Realm Design (including the gardens); improvements to cycle superhighway Rose St (/sarcasm), part-financing the huge George Street and First New Town project which would at last complete the City Centre West to East Link, and changes to Porty Prom and Cramond Foreshore that would have some effect on active travel routes in these areas too.
In terms of positions; as projects proposed for Visitor Levy funding have seemingly been split into multiple 'themes' and reports - with only a subset being brought before TEC in this report - the SNP group weren't keen to approve TEC's list of projects as is, without first having considered all projects 'in the round' as a party group. They also called for this to be streamlined in future, rather than split up between committees. As such, their amendment called [PDF, page 4] for referring the report for a decision in the future, including after a wider report on the George St project is completed.
The Lib Dem addendum [PDF, page 5] looked to add that if the costs of the George St project climb, any additional visitor levy funds being required by that come back to committee for decision; the Green group proposed [PDF, page 6] to simply 'note' the list of projects brought before TEC rather than approve them, as the budget-setting exercise at full council would allow changes in investment policy via a future route rather than needing to be decided there and then.
The Conservatives position [PDF, page 7] — as stalwart custodians of the status quo — was to approve the projects but drop George St and First New Town, and the redesign of Princes St, from the list of schemes to receive funding.
The administration accepted the changes proposed by the Lib Dems and Greens, leaving the SNP (who also accepted the Lib Dem and Green positions into their own) and the Conservatives to move their own positions for a three-way vote.
The combined Labour / Lib Dem / Green position won out with six votes, with the SNP and Conservative positions split along their party groups on committee with 3 votes and 2 votes respectively.
📄 Report [PDF] | ℹ️ Our background on this item »
A few notable aspects that escaped notice when looking at the background for this item; critically, that the developer of the St James Quarter has twice — so far — subjected TEC to judidicial review over its attempts to control St James Square as a pedestrianised space. The report linked above is well worth a read, as it covers the history of the site, the 'status quo' as far as legal vehicle access, and how council officers propose to work around the developer's tendency to both whinge about hotel customer amenity and hit up their lawyers as soon as things start looking a bit safe and predictable for pedestrian users of the square.
According to the report:
Further analysis by the engineering consultancy Jacobs (set out at Appendix 8) found that from September 2024 to August 2025, there were 27 near misses involving vehicles and five involving cycles in St James Square/Elder Street. The analysis also found that, on average, there are more than two vehicles present in St James Square four times a day, which is contrary to the SOP (Standard Operating Plan).
The daily average movements through the space are 69 cycles and 19 vehicles; there are a number of other interesting insights in the Report's appendices.
An SNP addendum [PDF page 9] points out the developer's contradictions in proposed designs for the square and underground car park, and looks to add restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed per day to the Standard Operating Plan. This of course has to be agreed with the developer, who could refuse it.
A further Green addendum proposed improved crossing facilities or other interventions for pedestrian safety for Multrees Walk at Elder St, given continued traffic to the square and bus station there. In moving this position Councillors noted that their group are not happy with the continued presence of vehicles in the square, but are aware of the legal difficulties the committee faces in trying to get these reduced.
On learning that the administration's position was to accept the Green and SNP addenda, the People's Trustworthy Party for the Protection of Vehicle Incursion into Public Space — known colloquially as the Tories — mobilised and moved the report as-is. Somewhat surprisingly, Cllr Kevin Lang for the Liberal Democrats followed up another pro-vehicle monothought from the Conservatives with some real fire in the belly, and encouraged in contribution that committee continues to try to fight for this space as a public square free of motor vehicles, which was a welcome spectacle.
Another classic 9-2 vote in favour of the administration position, so the future of St James Square now sits with officers for negotiations between the Council and the custodians of the Golden Turd.
📄 Motion [PDF] | ℹ️ Our background on this item »
There's a real danger that these summaries end up just being me having a hearty chuckle at the numerous and cynical attempts of the Edinburgh Conservatives to undermine existing — and progressive — Council transport strategy through every TEC chess move they can muster, and over-relish the inevitable decimation-by-consensus that follows.
(No different this time, I'm afraid. I'm only human).
Not only did this motion calling for review of the City Mobility Plan ('CMP') receive derision for asking of TEC something already due to come this year (the CMP is reviewed on a two-year cycle); but the administration tabled a thorough disassembly / restructure of the motion (an 'amendment' in name alone) only to then hear directly from the Tory councillors in their wee speeches and promptly withdraw it and move for 'No Action' on the item instead.
The Lib Dems popped their heads above the parapet with an amendment to make some of the language about Controlled Parking Zones — which have been popular in some areas of the city, and frothily chewed out in others — more representative of how these have played out across the city, but largely to take the Conservatives side in being skeptical of the CMP from the sidelines, with no real political capital at stake either. The Conservatives (seemingly glad of a rare ally) accepted this amendment to their position.
A Labour / SNP / Green progression of seven councillors vs. votes from the four skeptics saw this motion duly consigned to the Tory recycling basket.
📄 Motion [PDF] | ℹ️ Our background on this item »
This item had an excellent verbal and written submission from Safer Streets for Royal Park Terrace and Spring Gardens, a group of local residents who represented themselves at Committee from 35m 12s into the Webcast. Their written deputation can be found on page 16 of the Deputations PDF.
The deputation tells a tale as old as time, or at least as old as mass ownership of motor vehicles... a residential street under undue pressure due to being used as a 'rat run', resulting in localised air pollution, noise, frustrated drivers shouting and sounding horns, and near misses for folk walking and cycling in the area. It's great to see a local campaign not only presenting their case, but doing so referencing both the classification of their street within the circulation plan, and the alignment of their proposed intervention (a modal filter on the street, allowing only local access but continued permeability for cycling, walking and wheeling) with the City Mobility Plan.
In questions from Councillors, Conservative Cllr Iain Whyte asked about whether consideration had been given to the displacement of traffic due to the proposed filter. This gets into some interesting territory, namely that according to leading research on the management of through-traffic:
Reallocating roadspace from general traffic, to improve conditions for pedestrians or cyclists or buses or on-street light rail or other high-occupancy vehicles, is often predicted to cause major traffic problems on neighbouring streets... research, resulting in the examination of over 70 case studies of roadspace reallocation from eleven countries, and the collation of opinions from over 200 transport professionals worldwide suggest that predictions of traffic problems are often unnecessarily alarmist, and that, given appropriate local circumstances, significant reductions in overall traffic levels can occur, with people making a far wider range of behavioural responses than has traditionally been assumed — Cairns, S. / Atkins, S. / Goodwin, P. in 2001
We're sure skeptical local councillors probably know better than 200 transport professionals across the globe though - in spite of the monitoring of various filtered schemes around the capital reporting little significant increase on boundary roads as they bed in.
💬 The motion was later discussed by Councillors from 5h 23m 33s into the Webcast.
The Green group accepted an amendment from the administration to receive updates on the proposed filter by Business Bulletin — rather than a full report to committee — and unfortunately also fully accepted an amendment from the Conservative group regarding monitoring the effects of filtering, which is fair enough, but required an update to TEC within 'two cycles', which is 16 weeks or around four months.
The reason this is slightly unfortunate is that it can take between six months and a year and a half to see the full effects (and benefits) of filtering, in terms of traffic evaporation and longer-term behaviour change. Looking back at Aecom's monitoring plans for the low traffic neighbourhood aspects of Corstorphine Connections, for example, expected milestones were at the six month and twelve month mark. Monitoring as immediate as is being suggested may yield some immediate benefit for the residents on the street, but will not ultimately provide an accurate set of data for the medium to long term traffic patterns in the area.
📄 Motion [PDF] | ℹ️ Our background on this item »
After some social media handbaggery early in the week, in the end this debate went fairly smoothly.
At the September 2025 meeting of TEC, it was agreed that an update on the Cycle Hire Scheme provided by Voi would be provided to Councillors via the Business Bulletin every six months during the two-year trial of the scheme.
An amendment from the administration [PDF page 26] initially sought to replace the contents of the motion — which would establish a briefing in the next couple of months from Voi and CEC officers for stakeholder groups like Spokes and Living Streets — with supportive information on the status quo, namely the current ad-hoc engagement with groups and weekly meetings between Voi and officers. This included a brief patronage update:
Notes the success of the Voi Edinburgh cycle hire scheme, which since its launch in September 2025 has seen over 25,000 riders making more than 171,000 trips, covering a distance of well over 417,000 km.
Meanwhile an amendment from the Conservatives [PDF page 27] was a surprisingly positive addition, adding to the list of stakeholder groups "Community Councils who have bike parks [sic] in their areas" - and additional work in terms of reporting ahead of briefings to stakeholder groups with some welcome accountability mechanisms:
Further agrees that the briefing referred to in 2.1 will be supported by a short written briefing note, to be circulated to committee members in advance, setting out:
(a) the main operational issues identified since the launch of the cycle hire scheme, including reports of obstruction and bike congestion;
(b) actions already taken to address these issues including the use, or possible use, of actions agreed by Committee when approving the scheme trial; and
(c) any further actions planned, with indicative timescales.2.4 Further agrees that the update provided to committee will include details of the impacts on pedestrians and disabled people.
Cllr Booth reiterated Green group support — in spite of misleading headlines from the Evening News — and the desire to strengthen the scheme during the trial period with stakeholder input.
Cllr Jenkinson, in moving the Labour position, acknowledged the existence of teething issues with the scheme, and highlighted again the success of the scheme so far. Cllr Whyte, in moving the Conservative amendment, pointed to how unclear parking space locations are for the general public, especially those who do not use Voi bikes. He also mentioned that the use of parking spaces on the carriageway for the hire scheme had previously been discussed.
Cllr Booth's response was to accept Labour's offering as an addendum — i.e. tacked on to the end of their motion — and to accept the Conservative amendment in full (acknowledging a rare moment of agreement between the parties). This position established enough consensus that it was accepted by the administration and moved forward without requiring a vote.
For our campaign on issues around cycle parking, this is a key enabler in feeding back to Voi with other groups, placing scrutiny not only on the teething issues being reported on the scheme but importantly whether any measures are successfully tackling these. It also establishes TEC oversight and accountability in the steps needed to smooth out the rough edges of the scheme over the coming months.
We're hopeful that we will see progress on these issues — through some of the levers Voi and CEC officers have available — to ease small but meaningful difficulties experienced by the public as a result of the hire scheme.
The Transport & Enviroment Committee will next meet on Thursday, 2nd April 2026, and we'll have a round-up in our subsequent issues.