Edinburgh resident claims council report on controversial traffic plans was misleading and biased
A Morningside resident who won a freedom of information battle with the council says after reading all 1,078 responses to a consultation on controversial traffic measures he believes the council's report on the subject was misleading and biased.
Paul Bailey's request to see the comments on the options outlined by the council for the Braid estate was initially refused unless he paid a charge, but he took the case to the Information Commissioner, who ruled in Mr Bailey's favour.
His request came after the council's transport and environment committee voted In March last year to reopen roads in the estate to traffic and install a segregated cycle lane on Hermitage Drive and Braid Avenue - the option with most support among residents.
But the agreed changes have still not been implemented and many residents and cycling campaigners are against the segregated cycle lane.
Although the report did not recommend which option committee members should choose, Mr Bailey claims that officials were trying to steer them towards option one, which would have introduced more road closures, or option two, which would have involved the segregated cycle lane but would also have kept some roads closed to through traffic, rather than option three, which they approved.
Mr Bailey says the problem was that none of the options allowed the reopening of Braid Avenue without installing segregated cycle lanes. “You couldn’t choose one without the other,” he said.
"The committee was then given misleading statistics regarding segregated cycle lanes among other things.
"Having stated there were 1,078 detailed comments about the Braid estate, the report goes on to tell us there were 'mixed opinions' about the implementation of segregated cycling. It reports 17 supporting the measure and 16 opposing."
He believes these figures are based not on all 1,078 responses, but on just 327 from people in the "immediate vicinity".
Mr Bailey said: "The truth is that if you look at all the responses, around 56 people supported segregated cycling while around 127 people opposed it. Why did they discard 70 per cent of comments (751) without any analysis or explanation?"
He also argues the report shows bias in ignoring the argument that reopening Braid Avenue brought safety benefits because of the traffic lights at the junction with Cluny Gardens.
“The comments include 120 references to the advantages of opening Braid Avenue and / or the safety of traffic lights for motorists exiting the estate onto Cluny Gardens northbound. The report to the committee totally ignored this aspect for option three, except for quoting two comments from the public regarding option two.
“Meanwhile, the report spent six paragraphs telling the committee why they should reject option three. But to his credit, the then committee convener Scott Arthur said ‘Well, the majority want option three - we should go for it’.”
Mr Bailey has previously highlighted the fact that the safety audit on the proposed changes was not finished before the committee made its decision. And the audit later identified 13 potential accident situations created by the changes, including two where it says there could be a head-on collision.
Mr Bailey said: “I am not looking to blame anyone in all this; I am more interested in alerting the council that they appear to be sleepwalking into implementing a costly and potentially dangerous plan which the vast majority of the public don’t want.”
The council has been approached for comment.