Edinburgh’s City Mobility plan needs to be SMART

Edinburgh is a growing city which, in normal times, has a congestion problem. If the city continues to grow, Edinburgh needs to think how people, goods and services can move around efficiently. Additionally, we have to think about the growing numbers of people commuting into Edinburgh, and how we deal with the climate emergency and air pollution.

Key to solving all these issues is “modal shift” – getting a greater proportion of people using more sustainable modes of transport. Paramount to this is investing in public transport, but we also have to ensure new developments are better connected to shops etc.

The Council’s “City Mobility Plan” sets out how this could be done. This plan sets out what’s needed to deliver a more sustainable, integrated, efficient, safe and inclusive transport system over the next decade.

This plan is, however, largely unfunded – the report describes the funding situation as “challenging”. Let me be clear, the Council will need funding from the Scot Gov to deliver this vision.

A second concern I have is the detail of what the Council hopes to achieve. Normally, SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) are the starting point for any plan. Councillors are being asked, however, to agree the City Mobility Plan without any targets for modal shift in place. We are being told “mode share targets will be set out in a Technical Note to support the monitoring of this Plan”.

The plan is not perfect and will evolve in response to funding and other pressures, but it is a good starting point those of us who want people, goods and services to be able to move around our capital efficiently and sustainably.

People will oppose this plan, but they need to explain how they’d solve Edinburgh’s future transport problems.

2 thoughts on “Edinburgh’s City Mobility plan needs to be SMART

  1. The Labour Party is full of cuckoos. Cllr Scott Arthur is useless. He is about as opinionated as a cactus. Daniel Johnson is very beautiful and sexually attractive, unlike Cllr Scott Arthur, and his shop workers bill is very impressive, but his decency and success is down to his membership of the Cooperative Party. His Labour membership is just to get him elected to Holyrood. Ian Murray is lovely. A genuinely decent guy. But the issue with him is that he tried to overturn the results of a democratic referendum. I’m originally from Poland, my husband is originally from Hungary, and we were both fervent supporters of Remain, but at the end of the day you’ve got to accept the results of democracy. Tonight I was watching the news and dopey Dodds was on TV. If only she’d save her moaning for her husband! All she does is say “more support, more support, more support” but she never gives any costings for the additional support she’d like to see implemented. Lisa Nandy is too woke. Nick Thomas-Symonds like you is not attractive, and furthermore his voice is annoying. It’s shameful how he doesn’t want to see rapists and murderers deported from this country. Absolutely shocking! Sir Keir is disappointing. He tries to make himself look good with the hair gel and the swanky suits, but he lacks Johnson’s sex-appeal, and is generally disappointing to look at. It was also not great when he lied at the despatch box.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Jim Pzourg Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s