The City of Edinburgh Council's Transport and Environment Committee ('TEC') met on Thursday, 2nd April 2026; following our walk through the agenda last week, below is the round-up of the decisions taken. As always, our focus is on cycling-related items, with a handful of other road safety and active travel concerns covered from time to time.
For the first time in these web articles, we're directly linking back to our agenda article from each item ('Background' links) rather than giving context to them here - unless we didn't cover them already.
🌐 Meeting Page & Agenda | 📺 Webcast | PDFs: 📑 Full Agenda Reports Pack | 💼 Business Bulletin | 📋 Work Programme | 🗳️ Motions & Amendments | 💬 Deputations
📄 Rolling Actions Log [PDF]
Following up on a successful Green motion at last TEC to get a briefing for stakeholder organisations with Voi and Officers around teething issues with the ebike hire scheme, Cllr Booth asked if a specific date had been set for the workshop.
It seems diaries are being checked, with the session expected to take place some time in May.
📄 Business Bulletin [PDF]
🗞️ Background | 💼 Business Bulletin Item [PDF] | 📄 Transport Sec. Response (PDF, page 85)
Addendums brought by the SNP, Lib Dem and Green groups proposed action to move this forward, engaging in the manner offered by the Transport Secretary.
In questions, Cllr Lang clarified with officers that there is a basis for this to move forward under already devolved powers - requiring secondary legislation, but with Wales having already set a precedent for making such an adjustment in order to begin to roll such crossings out. With Fiona Hyslop intending to step down at the Scottish elections, Cllr Lang also made the point of wanting to keep momentum on the issue even with a change of Transport Secretary on the cards.
In summarising, Green group councillor Kayleigh Kinross-O'Neill stated, having seen such crossings in action on a working trip to Belgium, said that they are "such a small change that makes such a big difference" for walkers and wheelers alike.
Committee agreed to proceed (via a combined addendum) with the proposed collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and on finding a way to implement side road zebra crossings in Scotland, with Cllr Osler noting that as the capital city, we should be pushing these kinds of measures forward.
💼 Business Bulletin Item [PDF, page 2]
The proposal to create a quarterly 'Infrastructure Forum' took an interesting turn at the meeting, as the Business Bulletin published contained a list of ten Council roles involved, and the following list of stakeholders to invite:
Cllr Booth asked - whether the council was respecting its sustainable transport hierarchy by not having cycling and walking stakeholders involved in this forum. A fair question!
The answer from officers was that this list has grown, and originally consisted only of infrastructure owners, and was later expanded - so agreed that stakeholders like Spokes and Living Streets should be included.
In a post on Bluesky, edi.bike contributor Robbie said:
"Another step in the right direction for temporary disruption on Edinburgh's cycle network. With the correct planning, many cities are managing to keep cycle routes open through major construction works." — Robbie Ainsworth
Robbie also linked to this interesting article about disruption management in Rotterdam, who have made signficant improvements to prioritise consideration of cycling during major works.
🗞️ Background | 📄 Report [PDF] | 📑 Appendices [PDF]
Addendums brought by all groups on this matter:
The SNP group asked for the addition of Freelands Road between Ratho and the A8 for improvements to road condition;
The Lib Dem group addendum pointed out that there is also a separate list of roads due for resurfacing under the annual maintenance programme, and asked for these to be circulated but also included in future versions of this report to give a whole picture of planned works - as well as noting that previous action on faded road markings is still not completed;
A Conservative addendum called for better visibility on the ward-level lists of planned resurfacing and treatments within the report for the general public in future, via the Council's website;
A Green group addendum added to the footways budget by reassigning £0.5m of the proposed carriageway budget; and also added:
"Committee also requests a briefing to all members on how investment in cycling is divided, with an ask, in later budgets, the breakdown is clearly and transparently itemised to clarify how the commitment to invest 10% of the transport budget in cycling is being delivered."
This would, of course, be great to see.
At committee, a verbal adjustment from the administration included West Mill Road into the budget for improvements, where a deputation from residents had made the case for its inclusion. This was added to the SNP's addition of Freelands Rd, though Cllr Lang made a fair point that the lists brought by officers should not be seen as open to modification at the meeting where they're agreed or TEC will be inundated from every resident group in the city about the condition of their worst roads.
Otherwise, a consensus was formed from the majority of the addendum content - dropping the attempted reassignment of carriageway budget by the Green group - and the report was passed.
🗞️ Background | 📄 Report [PDF] | Appendix 4 — Slides [PDF]
An SNP Group addendum added a consideration for whether the hours of operation for proposed coach spaces on King Stables Rd and Regent Rd should extend beyond weekday working hours;
A Conservative addendum proposed to move forward but with the caveats that TEC should be given future updates detailing enforcement of other stopping locations, routing of coaches in and out of the city, and accessibility concerns - for example the difference in elevation from King Stables Rd to destinations like the castle. In proposing, the Conservative member also mentioned the need for proper enforcement at other common stopping locations such as Charlotte Square.
These addendums were accepted by the administration at committee, and the report passed.
🗞️ Background | 📄 Late Report [PDF] | 📄 Green Motion (withdrawn) [PDF] | 🌐 edi.bike - Project history
Originally we were expecting a Green group motion [PDF] which put this on the table for April's meeting, however in light of the Late Report by CEC officers being ruled urgent and included in the committee's agenda, the Green group withdrew the motion at the meeting in favour of an addendum to the report.
All deputations relating to the withdrawn Green group motion on the quiet route were still heard for the Late Report instead.
The committee heard a measured, thorough and illuminating case from Blackford Safe Routes on the benefits the route has brought about; as well as hearing a powerful deputation from a local resident who no longer drives following a stroke a number of years ago, and relies instead on cycling and walking - explaining that for some, active travel is a necessity rather than a hobby - and that for folks who are unable to drive, the quiet route has been a real lifeline. Both very much worth your time to watch (links above), as are the comprehensive written deputations.
In questions, Cllr Booth asked that while acknowledging that through-traffic on the route has been reduced by 40%, some streets in the area have seen a slight increase in traffic - and asked what Blackford Safe Routes suggest would be the solution. In response, the deputee explained that the Council have designs for additional modal filters to improve the scheme - with the Whitehouse Loan group deputation making the case once again for a filter on Clinton Rd that had previously been agreed to - and the same was true for the Braid Estate section where one additional filter (Braid Rd north end) and one rotation to the filter on Braid Avenue should reduce some of the non-residential through-traffic that is finding its way through.
The same question from Cllr Booth, asked of the representative for Braid Estate residents' deputation, gave much the same response - some tweaks are needed - but overall a very good design to reduce through-traffic. Cllr Gardiner asked whether signage could be improved to further increase usage of the route, which was met with an affirmative answer too.
For debate and the vote on the matter, Green group Cllr Chas Booth excused himself due to a conflict of interest regarding involvement with a school on the route; instead Cllr Ben Parker, Green councillor for Morningside, deputised on this item.
📺 Discussions took place from 3h 27m into the Webcast.
⌨️ There is also a transcript of this section of the meeting published here; with edits, but accuracy not guaranteed.
Head of Transport, Strategy & Partnerships Deborah Paton introduced the scheme as having been intended 'to support walking, wheeling and cycling' and explained its original context as part of the 'South' area Travelling Safely schemes - a geographic Experimental Traffic Regulation Order ('ETRO' 21/29) which has since been made permanent at the Traffic Regulation Order Sub-Committee ('TRO Sub').
The Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route was one of the schemes broken out into their own ETRO, 21/29D, separate from the wider south area package, and the legal order in place is due to expire on 15th June 2026.
Ms Paton also covered out the TEC decision in March 2024 to remove filters in the Braid Estate end of the route and instead implement traffic calming measures and protected cycleways. Paton also outlined that there is the potential for the validity of that decision to be called into question, following the Standards Commission hearing that censured two councillors for involvement while living on or in close proximity to the route and failing to disclose that or remove themselves from proceedings. The Late Report has been brought to committee as there is an urgent need to resolve a way forward prior to the time running out on the current ETRO.
Choices presented to committee in the report were:
Option A] Allow the current ETRO to expire, leading to removal of the route in its entirety - from Whitehouse Loan in Bruntsfield all the way to Braid Rd;
Option B] To proceed with the filter removals in the Braid Estate, implementing traffic calming measures on surrounding roads and adding a protected bi-directional cycleway along Hermitage Dr as far as Braid Ave where 'floating parking' would be implemented narrowing the street and a uni-directional cycleway added to each side — as though this option were not tainted by the involvement of councillors with vested interests, subsequently censured;
Option C] To make the current scheme permanent, in part or in full, through referral to the TRO Sub-committee - who will meet on June 2nd and can make the order permanent with just enough time before its expiry.
With all but the SNP having tabled addendums or amendments on the matter, we knew ahead of discussions that Option C had the support of the Green and SNP groups, as well as the Labour administration; that Option B was preferred by the Lib Dems, and that Option A was the (frankly ridiculous) initial preference of the Tories.
Questions on the report ranged consisted of —
In moving the Liberal Democrat addendum calling for Option B, Cllr Kevin Lang said:
"I get the fact it's been some unfortunate events that have meant we're back here again. But I don't know what has fundamentally changed today compared to two years ago. And for that reason, I'm not sure why I would advocate a different position today than myself and my colleagues advocated two years ago."
To answer that for Cllr Lang, who claimed to be "the only member of the committee who was a member and part of the discussion back in 2024", we're happy to spell it out:
You offered a limited suite of choices to local residents based solely on plans that were drawn up alongside two councillors — one from your own party! — who have since been censured at a standards hearing for their involvement in plans that would undoubtedly affect them personally because they lived right on the route. The thing that's fundamentally changed in the last two years is this misconduct has been scrutinised and publicly called out and as a result those plans are tainted; not to mention that of those limited choices, only 47% of residents who responded to the consultation backed the option you're pressing as though it's the will of the people, rather than something you couldn't even get half of the self-selecting consultees to favour.
Anyhoo...
In summing up, Green Cllr Ben Parker pushed back regarding the former consultation too:
"I think it's worth reflecting that option C today, which is keeping the route as it was, wasn't included in that consultation in and of itself. So the suggestion that we have a clear sense of exactly what it is that people on the ground want, I think that wasn't reflected in the initial consultation. So it's not something that I think we can actually take a judgement on."
The Green addendum proposed an item to come back to TEC for review after the decision, with a view to making any last tweaks to the measures in place:
"We've always said we need additional modal filters in places. That was the conclusion of council officers as well when they've looked at different bits of the modelling. We think that a report or potentially a business bulletin update, if that's more agreeable after the TRO Sub-committee takes place, is important because it will allow us to look at any additional things, Councillor Osler referenced things like additional monitoring, we think we can see that come forward through a business bulletin update and it's important we have that." — Cllr Ben Parker
Your pals and mine the Conservative group — who spent quite a lot of the time on this item telling on themselves for not doing their homework on it — saw the writing on the wall and shifted to backing Option B.
At last, to bring us to the vote, convener Cllr Stephen Jenkinson put forward the Officers recommendations for Option C, to include the ask of the Greens for a further update after TRO Sub meets in June, and said:
"I think you have to look back to the potted history of the schemes that have been proposed in this area and the various debates and contributions that have been made to this topic over many years. What I'm quite keen to do is to give some clarity and some certainty to the community. I'm absolutely conscious that, you know, one side of the street might be unhappy and the other side of the street might be very happy indeed.
But I do think that taking more time to consider things that we've been considering over five years is not an appropriate measure for a community which is split... I do think that getting to a point where we're making a decision is probably going to be helpful for everybody."
With 7 votes to 4 in favour of permanence - 2 Labour, 2 Green and 3 SNP vs. 2 Lib Dem and 2 Tory councillors - the matter passes to the TRO Sub-Committee on 2nd June to make permanent.
While we're not yet out of the woods for this key active travel corridor, it has been implied by Council insiders that there are not strong grounds for removal of the scheme lurking in the objections that will be considered at TRO Sub.
🗞️ Background | 📄 Report [PDF] | Appendix 1 - Road Safety projects [PDF] | Appendix 2 - LTI Projects [PDF]
📺 Webcast from 4h 13m onwards.
This item attracted a fairly damning Lib Dem amendment [PDF, p22] concerned with (and breaking down) the level of progress being made.
Officers referenced that a team of nine people at the peak of the safety team has dwindled to six, and that this should be addressed - but also that these are complex schemes each with their own background to get to grips with, and that there are many other external factors that can slow these down and take up officer time.
The report and Lib Dem amendment passed without requiring a vote.
🗞️ Background | 📄 Report [PDF]
📺 Webcast from 4h 27m onwards.
A Liberal Democrat addendum asked for Business Bulletin update on this item, coming back to TEC in one year's time; and a Conservative addendum picks up on earlier proposals for ward-level information published to the Council's website in future.
This also passed with addenda incorporated, with a minor verbal adjustment to the Conservative addendum to "keep the scope appropriate".
🗞️ Background | 📄 Motion [PDF] »
📺 Webcast from 5h 2m onwards.
This came about following a Freedom of Information request from New Town & Broughton Community Council, who clearly were unhappy following the introduction of several of the contraflow cycle streets recently agreed at the Transport Committee.
(Whether that's an appropriate position for a Community Council to adopt given their duties to only meaningfully engage with, pass on and represent the views of their constituents we'll leave to your imagination; surely nobody would use a Community Council as a vehicle for a small and unrepresentative gaggle of grumblers... 🫠)
A Lib Dem addendum - unsurprisingly - added "whether the TRO sub-committee can competently take RSAs into account under its current remit."
A Green addendum asked - "Whether RSA recommendations are assessed on the basis of the extent to which they will help to deliver City Mobility Plan objectives, or respect the transport hierarchy" and "Whether RSAs also include unusual or inherent risks that it is not possible to design out."
For the Greens, Cllr Booth did a fantastic job of rebutting the potential for this increasing the scope of the TRO Sub-committee's powers:
"I think there is a value in having a report in the public domain. I think the answer to Councillor Lang's question is almost certainly no, that the role of the TRO Sub-committee is not to design the scheme - that's what the road safety assessments are for. The role of the TRO Sub-committee is to consider the order, and the Road Safety Assessment is not directly relevant to that - I expect that that's what the report will say.
I think there is a value in having that report in the public domain to explain that. I would also add that I think, the road safety assessments that have been published as part of FOIs are not necessarily complete. In many cases there will be two or three road safety assessments as part of a scheme - so in some cases one of those will have been published but not others.
In many other cases, the road safety assessment highlights safety concerns which can't be designed out. They are either inherent in the design of the road layout or in some other scheme. So I think having engaged in conversation on this, I think there are a lot of concerns about that. I think the value of the report would be to put those into public domain.
Cllr Mowat, in moving her Motion, accepted the Lib Dem addendum in full, and the second of the Green's additions (leaving out the CMP and hierarchy point); this was accepted by all parties and passed.
The Transport & Environment Committee next meets on Thursday, 18th June 2026, and we'll have coverage, as ever, on edi.bike.