http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: QBC: extra parking en Sun, 17 May 2026 14:38:31 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445&page=2#post-164059 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:31:20 +0000 Roibeard 164059@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>the 'blue meanies' couldnt or wouldnt be able to do anything about [double parking]</em></p> <p>"Can't" in this case, as double parking is a police matter. As I understand it, however, they can only act if the vehicle is causing an obstruction, and anyway they have more important things to do than police such minor traffic violations...</p> <p>I think there were suggestions that such double parking would be decriminalised to be enforced by parking attendants like the adjacent bay or yellow lines, but that hasn't been made law - I can see there may be difficulties framing such an extension!</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445&page=2#post-164056 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:14:48 +0000 mgj 164056@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>With the lack of powers to control double parking, the drivers would just double park outside an empty bay, and the 'blue meanies' couldnt or wouldnt be able to do anything about it. That is already happening on Leith Walk. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445&page=2#post-164051 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:32:11 +0000 neddie 164051@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Apparently Lesley Hinds overrode the objections to the TRO, so the shop will get 'its' parking, albeit with a reduced size of parking bay. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445&page=2#post-156253 Sat, 07 Jun 2014 09:54:36 +0000 Kim 156253@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@calmac good point </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445&page=2#post-156168 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:54:09 +0000 calmac 156168@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Do they really still not understand that any cycle route is only as good as its worst point? If there's a stretch on any route that's not safe, I'm not cycling it, and it doesn't matter how good any other bit of it is. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-156070 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:04:14 +0000 chdot 156070@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>12. Car parking </p> <p>Cars need to be parked at the end of every trip, and parking is critical in ensuring that drivers can access the goods and services they need. It is therefore important in sustaining the economic health of the city. Conversely, parking control is essential to keep Edinburgh moving safely and efficiently and to manage the overall amount of traffic in the city.</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1401-14-Item_No_7.2___Local_Transport_Strategy_2014_2019_FINAL.pdf#page45">CEC LTS</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155992 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:58:30 +0000 DdF 155992@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot <em>That's Good</em>.</p> <p>Agreed! but obviously we don't yet know what the outcome will be, and the shopkeepers will undoubtedly still be making their case. So anyone feeling strongly about it could usefully email LH and/or their own local councillors [local cllrs especially important if you live in the area]. Probably more effective than tweeting as one can give the rationale in an email. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155989 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:52:16 +0000 chdot 155989@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>Someone who sat in at the council cttee on Tuesday told me that councillors had decided to postpone any decision on the Mayfield Road location because of the objections, so presumably this is now awaiting LH's further investigations as above.</p> <p>"</p> <p>That's good.</p> <p>I hope she asks why the officials thought this was a good idea/recommendation (councillors don't have to rubber stamp such things.)</p> <p>ALSO hope she makes It clear that it shouldn't happen again... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155986 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:49:28 +0000 steveo 155986@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Its more than a little ridiculous that this comes out of the tiny cycling budget when they're busy blowing the rest of it on pointless chicanes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155984 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:48:38 +0000 SRD 155984@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>does this spot where "there is a pressing need for fragile or bulky goods to be picked up or dropped off outside the business which has requested the relaxation" possibly correlate to Christmas tree sales, and other scurrilous stories we've been told... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155982 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:46:29 +0000 kaputnik 155982@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I wonder which business here is dealing in goods so "fragile" and/or "bulky" that they can't be carried round a corner / down the road a bit. Perhaps they sell the proverbial "can't get that home on a bike" washing machines?</p> <p>Clearly the council is not willing to start any fight to change the behavious patterns of businesses from a right to park their vehicles however and whenever and wherever they choose to one where they get to park them a slightly longer distance away in a more regulated manner. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155981 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:45:38 +0000 DdF 155981@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This came up at the end of the recent Cycle Forum; we discussed with Lesley Hinds and pointed out it was ridiculous to install a loading bay which coincides with part of the cycle lane. I think that the abovequoted report must already have been written by then. LH took the point and said she would be discussing it with officers and would have a look at the site, though obviously she is under big pressure from the shopkeepers too. Spokes has also written to her repeating our objection, and others could do the same.</p> <p>Someone who sat in at the council cttee on Tuesday told me that councillors had decided to postpone any decision on the Mayfield Road location because of the objections, so presumably this is now awaiting LH's further investigations as above. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155977 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:35:55 +0000 crowriver 155977@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>3.22 From observations on site, it is evident that the existing parking bays are underutilised during the off-peak period. As such, it is expected that all other businesses on Mayfield Road between Mentone Terrace and Savile Terrace will continue to load/unload from these bays. Although 15 metres of additional loading space will be introduced on a single yellow line, it is expected that this will only be used occasionally, when there is a pressing need for fragile or bulky goods to be picked up or dropped off outside the business which has requested the relaxation. Therefore, no significant negative impacts are expected to arise from the proposed change on Mayfield Road. </em></p> <p>Oh that's alright then. As if!</p> <p><em>Measures of success<br /> 4.1 The changes to waiting and loading restrictions which are outlined in the report are proposed due to concerns raised by local businesses. These changes will therefore be successful if they satisfy the needs of local traders whilst not having a negative impact on route users. This can be measured by monitoring feedback received from businesses and users e.g. pedestrians and cyclists, after implementation.<br /> </em></p> <p>Local businesses 1 - Cyclists 0</p> <p>Clearly the 'needs' of local businesses have greater priority than the 'aspirations' of cyclists, whether carrying their children or not. Who cares if some are killed or maimed as a result of these changes?</p> <p>I hope cyclists and pedestrians will be ready to give the Council some "feedback" after they've created additional hazards at this junction. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155968 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:17:23 +0000 kaputnik 155968@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The pathetic thing is that this is in response to the levels of illegal parking on the QBC route, which we all know that many here and in other organisations gave considerable time and effort to highlighting with the council. And the council's response is to formalise the situation by painting parking bays in. Problem solved, we <u>still</u> have a Qrap Bike Corridor and we <u>still</u> have it covered in cars.</p> <p>If their response had been a couple of weeks of intensive warden and tow-truck activity... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155967 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:15:58 +0000 earthowned 155967@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>At least the council is admitting that they are using the cycling budget to make things worse for cyclists this time. Do you think they will call these 'improvements' Quality+ ? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155962 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:00:15 +0000 Dave 155962@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That could be literally true? </p> <p>The QBC is so bad for illegally parked / loading vehicles that maybe the council is tacitly giving up on the idea (although it's incredibly cheeky that they're going to use the limited cycling budget to replace a cycle lane with extra parking / loading bays?)</p> <p>It's interesting that whoever the official is they feel able to just write off over a dozen objections from people who actually do cycle on the route.</p> <p>Replacing cycle space with stationary vehicles at a pinch point absolutely isn't a minor issue. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-155950 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:23:58 +0000 SRD 155950@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3363/transport_and_environment_committee" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3363/transport_and_environment_committee</a></p> <p>item 8.2</p> <p>7.4 "Although the proposed changes at Mayfield Road may result in some negative impacts for cyclists, these are expected to be minor and <strong>should not detract from the attractiveness of the route as a whole</strong>. "</p> <p>only because the route's 'attractiveness' is already minimal. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-140675 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:07:55 +0000 russellelly 140675@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I still harp on about the fact there's a half mile section southbound that has no cycle lane at all; and to put the odd little bus lane in on Melville Drive they took away the cycle lane on the opposite side of the road.</em></p> <p>And that southbound section has pinch points to enable pedestrians to cross (which is only needed because there is still too much traffic and the 20mph sections are almost universally ignored).</p> <p>Whitewash. Of course. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-140673 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:59:04 +0000 russellelly 140673@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That was my rather angry Twitter post this morning, as I had just been almost squeezed between two rather large vehicles. A delivery van (for the Chinese Supermarket, I think) was reversing into an illegal space. I was trying to pass it (with a lot of care, since I didn't know if it would swing out or do something else unpredictable) and another large vehicle passed me with little room. I felt <em>very</em> unsafe for those few seconds.</p> <p>As I mentioned on Twitter, the advert for the TRO doesn't mention Mayfield Road, so I'm not sure if the process is even legal? I've registered my objection, though no loading/parking signs seem to mean nothing to a lot of people anyway :/ </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-140640 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:50:51 +0000 chdot 140640@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>Stephan Matthiesen (@St_Matthiesen)<br /> 23/01/2014 10:54<br /> @justacwab @south_team @CyclingEdin @EdinCityPolice QBC parking is continuous problem. Advice: use bus lane along Minto St., safer there</p> <p>"</p> <p>"</p> <p>Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)<br /> 23/01/2014 11:44<br /> @justacwab @CyclingEdin Illegal parking to be legalised on bit of Mayfield Rd. Please object! <a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/spwkr14.01.21.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/spwkr14.01.21.pdf</a> [page 2] @St_Matthiesen</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-140630 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:55:14 +0000 chdot 140630@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>Just Another Cyclist (@justacwab)<br /> 23/01/2014 08:56<br /> Absolutely sick of illegal parking on the so-called QBC at rush hour. Why is there no enforcement? @south_team @CyclingEdin @EdinCityPolice</p> <p>"</p> <p>"</p> <p>South Team (@south_team)<br /> 23/01/2014 09:38<br /> @justacwab @CyclingEdin @EdinCityPolice Hi there. We have asked our Parking Operations Team to lookk into this.</p> <p>"</p> <p>"</p> <p>EdinburghCityPolice (@EdinCityPolice)<br /> 23/01/2014 10:43<br /> @south_team @justacwab @CyclingEdin Area is covered by @EdinSouthPolice, can link in with CEC chums who are already on it.</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139622 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:44:17 +0000 Roibeard 139622@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>TRO is a bit difficult to read, so I suggest that navigation begins at the <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/3005/tro_13_32">top</a>.</p> <p>The statement of reasons is accurate as always <em>To amend waiting, loading and unloading restrictions on Fountainhall Road, Grange Loan and Ratcliffe Terrace to address local concerns raised after the introduction of the Quality <strong>Bus</strong> Corridor in the locale.</em></p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139604 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:15:28 +0000 neddie 139604@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There is now a TRO out for the changes to parking (waiting/loading restrictions on Ratcliffe Terrace, Fountainhall Road and Grange Loan).</p> <p>Also 'minor'?! changes to Mayfield Road between Mentone Terrace and Savile Terrace</p> <p>Objections to be in by 31st Jan.</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/12001/tro_13_32_draft_order" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/12001/tro_13_32_draft_order</a></p> <p>(See also <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11411#post-129367" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11411#post-129367</a> for some history) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139265 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:29:26 +0000 cc 139265@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Parts of the route certainly got worse thanks to the QBC scheme - Mayfield Road between Relugas Road and Fountainhall Road for instance (<a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=55.931859,-3.177001&amp;spn=0.007116,0.014355&amp;t=m&amp;z=16&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=55.931946,-3.177052&amp;panoid=0si6eLeNlutXCLHrqJi3kQ&amp;cbp=12,0,,0,0">streetview</a>). There used to be little or no car parking there, so there was a generous area away from the motor traffic in which to cycle. The QBC introduced lots of all day parking spaces in that area. Bicycles are now squeezed into a narrow lane very close to both fast moving traffic and the doors of parked cars.</p> <p>All in all it's a pathetic disaster. I cycle despite the QBC, not because of it. (I cycle because of the help and support I get from CCE, thanks folks.) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139259 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:00:51 +0000 Morningsider 139259@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I also love that residents and businesses have "needs" while cyclists have "aspirations" (para 2.23). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139257 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:57:21 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 139257@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Exactly. There's a cycle lane there where before there was nothing = somewhat better.</p> <p>I still harp on about the fact there's a half mile section southbound that has no cycle lane at all; and to put the odd little bus lane in on Melville Drive they <em>took away</em> the cycle lane on the opposite side of the road.</p> <p>So yeah, as chdot says, shouldn't have been called 'bike' <em>or</em> 'quality'.</p> <p>The report is a box-ticking exercise, something they had to carry out. Done to the minimum extent possible, not reflecting any of the very clear bad publicity in the media, and even comments from some councillors about how poor it is. So they've added in some parking and re-routed the bike lanes round it; have explaned that they couldn't resurface the whole cycle route; declared that most cyclists think it's great; and told us the name is wrong.</p> <p>Well done folks. Well done. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139256 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:54:05 +0000 cb 139256@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>But what please me most, thank goodness, are the following:</p> <p>"No impacts upon discrimination, harassment or victimisation or the duty to foster good relations have been identified, nor have infringements of any rights."</p> <p>and</p> <p>"It is considered that there are no impacts on social justice arising from implementation of the scheme."</p> <p>Phew. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139254 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:52:08 +0000 cb 139254@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"At least (some) Spokes members think it's OK."</p> <p>Well, nine out of 86 thought it was "a lot better". Everyone else thought it was either "somewhat better" (66%) or "the same as before" (22%).</p> <p>"Somewhat better" is pretty vague but it would be hard not to agree with this even for very small values of "somewhat". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139251 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:47:36 +0000 chdot 139251@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Beaten by chdot"</p> <p>Nah, we were just homing in on the key points in parallel. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11445#post-139250 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:42:09 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 139250@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I <em>love</em> the conclusion.</p> <p>"<em>3.1 It is recommended that the Committee:</p> <p>3.1.1 notes the results of the review of the scheme; and</p> <p>3.1.2 discharges the outstanding remit from the Committee of 9 February 2010.</em>"</p> <p>So basically, we were supposed to have done a review, we've done that now, okay let's walk away. </p>