Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Bike path campaigners slam “vehicle friendly” feasibility report which “prioritises cars and lorries rather than the safety of pedestrians and cyclists”

A much-anticipated off-road cycle route in East Lothian has been kiboshed after a consultancy firm reported that it would lead to ‘queues of traffic’

Campaigners who have spent the better part of two decades fighting for an off-road cycle route to be built in East Lothian have slammed a report into the feasibility of the project, which they claim “prioritises cars and lorries rather than the safety of pedestrians and cyclists”.

Last Friday East Lothian Council published a report, produced by engineering consultancy Stantec, which explored the possibility of completing a long-awaited cycle route between Drem and Gullane, located just east of Edinburgh on the Firth of Forth, which will enable people on bikes to avoid a busy main road.

One of the longest-running disputes in modern Scottish legal history, for 15 years politicians and campaigners struggled to obtain permissions from landowners for the final mile of the route into Gullane, with East Lothian Council saying it lacked the power to compel them to grant access.

> Scots politicians get behind cycle path linking Gullane and Drem

In February 2020, housebuilders CALA Homes agreed to fund a one-mile section of the route from Gullane to West Fenton, prompting local campaigners to renew their call to East Lothian Council to complete the remaining three miles to Drem.

Earlier this year, the council commissioned Stantec to determine whether any of the four route designs prepared by Sustrans, the national walking and cycling charity, were viable and if they met the criteria agreed by the council.

However, the final report, delivered to the council in August but only published last week, advised the authority that although it is possible to create a potential solution at this time, “all options have failed on the deliverability criteria and are therefore considered unfeasible due to land assembly constraints.”

The report also noted that the creation of the off-road bike route – and the requirement for traffic lights to be installed on certain sections of the road between the two towns – could potentially lead to higher levels of traffic and longer queues.

> Work finally starts on East Lothian bike path after 15-year access dispute

“Options which introduce traffic signals and priority working arrangements have been evaluated to assess the traffic impacts. The analysis has demonstrated that signalised options will generally operate within capacity but that queueing and delays will be experienced in locations where none is currently experienced,” the reports reads.

“This change to traffic flows and potential queueing may not be considered as an acceptable consequence by the local community within Drem.

“The assessment of the priority working arrangement without signal control concluded that the traffic volumes were too high for such an arrangement and did not conform to design standards. On this basis it is recommended that such a solution be removed from consideration on such a strategic route with high levels of traffic.”

Publishing the report’s findings, East Lothian Council said in a statement: “The combination of projected traffic impacts and unavailability of additional land means that East Lothian Council cannot pursue this project any further at this stage.

“East Lothian Council fully supports the ambition to deliver an active travel route linking the villages of Gullane and Drem. Staff within a range of council teams, associated partners and other interested parties have invested considerable time and resources over the past 17 years in trying to realise this route which has included extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders including residents and landowners over the consideration of a variety of routes.

“We appreciate that this will be disappointing news for many and the council shares in this disappointment.”

“This report puts vehicle at the top of the priority list”

Following the council’s statement, local campaigners have blasted what they regard as the “vehicle friendly” nature of the report, and criticised both the council and Sustrans for “rubber stamping” its conclusions.

The Drem-Gullane Path Campaign, the body behind the 17-year-long movement to build the cycle route, also expressed its disappointment that the report was published in the same week a motorist was jailed for deliberately injuring a cyclist on the B1345 just outside Drem – the road campaigners have long claimed is too dangerous for people on bikes.

On Wednesday, road.cc reported that 55-year-old motorist William Bowman was jailed for 14 months and banned from driving for four years after pulling in front of cyclist Mark Stewart on one of the road’s many blind bends before slamming on his brakes, causing the rider to smash head-first into the car’s rear windscreen.

> Motorist who deliberately slammed on brakes, causing cyclist to smash through car’s rear windscreen, jailed for 14 months

In a response to the council’s statement, Drem-Gullane Path Campaign spokesperson Iain V Monk said: “This report puts vehicles at the top of the priority list, rather than the safety of pedestrians and cyclists above those of drivers.

“What's more disturbing is that the Council chose to publish it as media reported a motorist was jailed for causing serious injury to a cyclist near Drem.”

He continued: “The ‘sustainable travel hierarchy’ national policy, which states that infrastructure changes must always put the most carbon-saving option first, is not once referred to in the 46-page report.

“It is bewildering that the Council and Sustrans Scotland rubber stamped the vehicle friendly report’s conclusions.

“Without the path there is no safe route for pedestrians, push chair users, wheelers and cyclists between these communities away from the dangerous B1345 road.”

Jim Densham, campaigns and policy manager for Cycling UK Scotland, added: “It is time to create safe space for those who choose to walk or ride a bike, and in some locations this will mean redesigning roads and changing what drivers are used to.

“Designs for the desperately needed missing link in the path from Gullane to Drem must redress the balance to stop the B1345 into Drem being a danger zone for people cycling or walking.’’

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

21 comments

Avatar
Fresian | 2 years ago
1 like

I worked at East Lothian Council roads department many years ago.  We had a long protracted battle using a CPO just to construct a footpath along the front of the cottages near the station.   Biggest objection from a certain local businessman who also owns a substantial facility at the old airfield.   Whenever a Tory leader comes to Scotland for a photoshoot, his property is one of the places he meets the " public"

Avatar
Memyselfandaye | 2 years ago
4 likes

The area is well known to be nimby central. It's full of rather wealthy people who don't want riff raff on the roads or their convenience impacting. Golf, commuting and farming dominate and should anyone care to check any traffic surveys done for larger planning applications they will note that speeds in excess of 100 mph are commonly recorded on the local roads.

The local politics is a toxic unpleasant mess 

 

Avatar
Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
0 likes

.

A (mostly) Lay Bah council. A LAAAAAY Bah council.

.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
8 likes

You either need spelling lesions or need to tell me what a positional sheep noise has to do with your wittering. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
4 likes

"lesions"?  3

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

"lesions"?  3

Smelling pisstake.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
2 likes

Like Cambridge then?

Avatar
mattw | 2 years ago
2 likes

I was going to say do they not have CPO powers?

Also - in passing - I see that in England/Wales under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 footpaths in the Public Highway can be redesignated as cycle tracks, though it seems rather crippled wrt agricultural land (by consent only by the look of it, with no mechanism for imposition afaics).

Does such exist in Scotland?

Matt

 

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
3 likes

Whilst I'm all for giving Sustrans a kicking AND I'd like to see the proposed routes for myself I have a suspicion that the council is most at fault here and it's the implied additional land purchases that are part of the problem, rather than the traffic lights. 

Also if the council set the guidlines of the feasibility study and failed to specify the National guidance then that's open to legal challenge surely?  Obviously funding that may be an issue, perhaps  CUK might want to do a bit of growling. 

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
8 likes

Edit. Just read the whole damn thing the consultants did a good job - even proposing a variation themselves.  The results regardless of options are polluted by 2 key assumptions.

1.  Don't upset the farmer bastards who own the land either side of the road. (I say CPO them).

2.  Don't upset the motorists with speed limits or queuing.  The queuing I have some sympathy with.  The speed limits are a direct result of Local Govt and Police Scotland making an active decision to only put in speed limits where they are "self enforcing" ie Not needed.

Fucking disgrace.

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
3 likes

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Edit. Just read the whole damn thing the consultants did a good job - even proposing a variation themselves.  The results regardless of options are polluted by 2 key assumptions.

1.  Don't upset the farmer bastards who own the land either side of the road. (I say CPO them).

2.  Don't upset the motorists with speed limits or queuing.  The queuing I have some sympathy with.  The speed limits are a direct result of Local Govt and Police Scotland making an active decision to only put in speed limits where they are "self enforcing" ie Not needed.

Fucking disgrace.

You will probably find that the "farmer bastards who own the land either side of the road" are also councillors, or are at least very good friends with them...

Avatar
Tom_77 replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
1 like

Secret_squirrel wrote:

1.  Don't upset the farmer bastards who own the land either side of the road. (I say CPO them).

 

Not sure how Compulsary Purchase of land works. Is it really that difficult (or expensive) to force the sale of a thin strip of field on one side of the road?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
0 likes

Must get round to it. I recall hearing about the campaign and it sounded like it was finally getting some momentum. so this is very disappointing. But par for the course even around Edinburgh.

Cycling campaigns can take up a good chunk of folks' lives... beginning to think it's easier and quicker to install a new nuclear reactor than a decent cycle scheme.

I wonder whether this is just lots of missed opportunities and misunderstandings? By folks who (with the exception of the local campaign group and - maybe - Sustrans) really don't understand much beyond the road status quo. And know zero about safe and convenient cycling infra.

Or is this another report foredoomed to rule out certain outcomes by its initial scope and requirements (eg. mustn't change traffic flow or can't require any compulsory purchase).

So cock-up or conspiracy? (Often both ).

Avatar
Oldfatgit replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
4 likes

Shouldn't British Cycling be getting involved too ... or do they not give a feck about us 'ordinary' riders?

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Oldfatgit | 2 years ago
11 likes

Can't speak for anyone else but I gave up on BC doing anything unconnected with cycling as a sport years ago.  That was before the Shell debacle.

BC's priority is keeping their trough filled regardless of anything else.

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to Oldfatgit | 2 years ago
3 likes

.

Correct. BritCyling do  not give a feck about us 'ordinary' riders.

.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
2 likes

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Also if the council set the guidlines of the feasibility study and failed to specify the National guidance then that's open to legal challenge surely?

They would hardly be the first to do that.  Many years ago, South Gloucestershire commissioned a report on cycling from one of the big consultancies and produced a nice fat report, 120 pages I think, and yet managed to avoid mentioning national guidance at all, not even once.  It wasn't even included in the appendices.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 2 years ago
8 likes

Incredible that Sustrans apparently agreed with this report and we should be thankful that CUK Scotland still stands up for cyclists.

It looks as if the conclusions of this report were decided first and the consultants worked back from them.  The council cannot claim that they have any regard for the health of their residents or climate change, and as for the path creating more congestion, that isn't a bad thing.

A disgraceful report and I'm disgusted with Sustrans for accepting it at face value when they should be joining CUK in condemning it.

Avatar
the little onion replied to eburtthebike | 2 years ago
8 likes

Sustrans are the Quislings of cycling. I hate them with a passion. They sign off any old rubbish if they can get a blue sign, and it undermines everything that good cycling infrastructure needs 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to eburtthebike | 2 years ago
3 likes

At least now we know that any new roads in East Lothian won't be built because it might cause traffic lights to be installed. 

Avatar
TheBillder replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
1 like
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

At least now we know that any new roads in East Lothian won't be built because it might cause traffic lights to be installed. 

Although there's a lot of new traffic lights just 2 villages west of Gullane in Longniddry. But I think they are related to a new housing development, so that's almost certainly ok (farmer more than willing to sacrifice land as well).

Latest Comments