Another delay to Edinburgh bus lane trial announced
Edinburgh's Green group has been pushing for the introduction of '7-7-7' bus lanes – ones open from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week – across the capital since 2015.
A trial was supposed to begin at the start of this year, but traffic regulation issues and difficulty getting funding has now seen it shoved it back to February 2026.
Green councillor and co-leader Kayleigh Kinross-O'Neill said the delay was 'disappointing', and would aid in worsening the congestion faced by the city's bus network.
In 2019, Edinburgh's transport committee voted for a consultation to be held ahead of a trial of the scheme, with the survey running at the end of the year.
But the results of the consultation were never passed on to councillors due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In 2022, the scheme was revived when councillors voted to have officers explore the feasibility of rolling out 7-7-7 bus lanes in the capital.
It is unclear what progress was made with this, but two years later, in February 2024, councillors at the Transport and Environment Committee voted to have officers develop plans for a trial.
And in August last year they approved the trial, which would have seen 7-7-7 bus lanes be rolled out along the length of the 44 bus route by the first quarter of 2025 – but no trial has come.
At a meeting of the transport committee last Thursday, a councillor asked officers for more information on why the scheme was delayed yet again.
Green councillor and co-convener Chas Booth said: 'The original committee decision from August of last year stated that the trial would start in the first quarter of 2025 – so that's already at least three months delayed.
'Can I ask what is the reason for the delay, and whether we have a new date for the trial to start?'
Council officer Deborah Patton said: 'There are probably two main reasons. One is around orders, overlapping [traffic regulation orders] which needs to be sorted out, but will hopefully be sorted out later this year.
'The other really crucial one is funding for this piece of work. We had hoped that we would be able to secure some funding from Transport Scotland's bus infrastructure fund, and indeed have submitted a proposal for that to Transport Scotland several months ago.
'However, unfortunately, at the time of speaking today, we still haven't heard whether that bus infrastructure fund is going forward or not.'
Another officer, Jamie Robertson, said the council is aiming to complete preparatory works for the trial by February 2026.
Cllr Booth continued: 'Obviously, there is a long history to this. Committee, I think four years ago, even more, agreed to the roll-out of 7-7-7 bus lanes across the city.
'And now, we've seen a delay to just the very limited trial that committee agreed to last year.'
Council officer Gareth Barwell said: 'We'll have to look at some form of a plan B on the funding of this if it's not successful.
'This is an important thing to do. We'll continue to push contacts at Transport Scotland and we'll keep members updated if we'll have to look at using resources differently.'
Cllr Booth asked Mr Barwell if councillors could be provided with a written brief on the issues facing the trial. Mr Barwell said he was happy to do it.
Labour councillor and Transport and Environment Committee convener Stephen Jenkinson said: 'I think that would be helpful. I think if there's anything we can do as councillors to apply pressure in the right places to maybe speed up funding decisions, certainly as convener, I'm more than happy to do that.
'But maybe collectively as committee it's something we can take a brief on and take offline, and decide what a plan B might look like.
'I think it's fair to say, I'm slightly disappointed that it's taken so long to get to this point, and that we haven't managed to make as much progress as I would like to see.
'I want to see if there's any ways in which we could maybe speed this up.'
Several other cities in the UK, including Glasgow, have rolled out 7-7-7 bus lane schemes.
And in some parts of the country, bus lanes stay closed to other traffic 24/7.
Cllr O'Neill said: 'It was disappointing to be told in Committee that there have been delays to the 7-7-7 trial.
'While we wait, more and more buses will be stuck in congestion and our public transport network will suffer for it.
'Funding is an issue across the board and we understand this, however we need the council to be transparent and explain what is needed.
'If this doesn't happen, how can we expect the public to come on the just transition with us?'
Cllr Jenkinson said: 'Making public transport more efficient, reliable, and reducing journey times, are key objectives for us.
'I share the frustration over the delayed roll-out of this trial. Officers are working with transport partners to secure the necessary funding and progress experimental traffic orders to deliver improved bus priority infrastructure.'
By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter
Like this:
Like
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue', but he added: 'Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.' The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about March 17, 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Mr Hancock told the inquiry: 'I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had 'tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.' He added: 'The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse. 'We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible. 'All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment. He went on: 'We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.' Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying: 'One person in particular said he (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.' Mr Hancock said it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats', but went on: 'I've been through everything that we did as a Department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' Bereaved families have previously called this 'protective ring' phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne. 'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones. 'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.' The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue', but he added: 'Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.' The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about March 17, 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Mr Hancock told the inquiry: 'I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had 'tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.' He added: 'The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse. 'We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible. 'All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment. He went on: 'We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.' Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying: 'One person in particular said he (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.' Mr Hancock said it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats', but went on: 'I've been through everything that we did as a Department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' Bereaved families have previously called this 'protective ring' phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne. 'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones. 'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.' The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
Rhyl Journal
4 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue', but he added: 'Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.' The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about March 17, 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Mr Hancock told the inquiry: 'I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had 'tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.' He added: 'The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse. 'We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible. 'All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment. He went on: 'We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.' Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying: 'One person in particular said he (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.' Mr Hancock said it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats', but went on: 'I've been through everything that we did as a Department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' Bereaved families have previously called this 'protective ring' phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne. 'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones. 'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.' The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
