http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Roseburn to Leith consultation begins (and the debate continues!) CCWEL en Mon, 20 Apr 2026 10:01:41 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381075 Sun, 07 Sep 2025 11:55:27 +0000 neddie 381075@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Can we maybe put the cars underground (ideally sealed-in forever) and leave the trams on the surface instead? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381074 Sun, 07 Sep 2025 11:08:16 +0000 chdot 381074@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“George Street looks to be mainly a raised beach, as is Princes Street“</p> <p>I was under the impression that the past plan for underground car parks in GSt was abandoned because it was found to be rock(?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381073 Sun, 07 Sep 2025 10:58:06 +0000 Tulyar 381073@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Reviewed Jacobs report on Dean Bridge&amp; referenced my experience with Roland Paxton/Ted Ruddock on historic roads &amp; bridges in Scotland(including internal detail on Dean Bridge)</p> <p>The official plans &amp; report fail to consider the standard detail used on tram networks elsewhere (eg Croydon) where a constrained corridor uses interlaced single track with the regulation widely used for rail systems that run 2-ways on same track</p> <p>Running single track across Dean Bridge could enable the work to take place without closing it to pedestrian &amp; cycle traffic &amp; Ted Ruddock's design upgraded Telfords Craigellachie cast iron bridge with cleverly concealed steel beams. The same appears to be a possible option for Dean Bridge anchoring a pre-loaded cable to the rock outcrop on the South side (with the rock depth on North Side lower down</p> <p>Running trams under Queensferry Street (largely alluvial cover over the rock base (George Street looks to be mainly a raised beach, as is Princes Street) </p> <p>Using the system proven in 1960's for construction of Oxford Circus Station, a large underground chamber at Lothian Road/Rutland Place can be constructed whilst traffic can still run overhead for a junction stop (moving existing one East to a better location for West End of Princes Street Historic ground survey logs from the planned railway line under Princes Street provide some basic detail for a city centre tram route that can remain open for major events with a huge list of other benefits as a transport interchange for trams, buses, coaches, &amp; trains with all-weather public space running the length of Princes Street </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381059 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 20:44:29 +0000 acsimpson 381059@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I can see future FOI requests looking for copies of the prompts that are used in these summaries. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381037 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 17:48:43 +0000 Morningsider 381037@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Dave - thanks, that's fairly eye opening. Could something similar apply to the analysis and reporting on hundreds, or even thousands, of responses to a single consultation? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381036 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 17:15:02 +0000 chdot 381036@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So </p> <p>AI will be useful when it realises it’s being asked leading questions?</p> <p>Or not… </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381035 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 16:42:23 +0000 Dave 381035@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>You can get whatever kind of analysis you want out of it; if you prime it to be suspicious of NIMBY responses that might be using a legitimate sounding concern to block road space reallocation that's what it will give you. I don't think you could just ask it to analyse responses without providing any guidance on how to intepret them, or each model generation might give you different results.</p> <p>For example when I asked chatGPT to assess a certain charity's consultation response on Spaces for People, it said:</p> <p><blockquote>It briefly acknowledges pandemic distancing aims and notes potential upsides like wider pavements and reduced clutter, but provides no discussion or evidence of the well-documented safety gains of protected cycleways for children/families (e.g., mode shift, collision reduction, independent travel).</p> <p>The core of the piece is a catalogue of accessibility risks (floating bus stops, loss of kerb access/Blue Badge bays, confusing temporary layouts, inaccessible consultations), survey stats highlighting disabled users’ difficulties, and a call to halt permanence without fuller Equality Impact Assessments and better consultation.</p> <p>The only “benefits” retained are generic (wider pavements), with no attempt to balance them against child safety outcomes or to explore mitigations that reconcile both (e.g., accessible bus stop designs, tactile delineation, controlled crossings).</p> <p>Bottom line: it’s a focused, one-sided critique aimed at ensuring accessibility and due process; it does not fairly weigh or even substantively acknowledge the dramatic safety benefits for children.</blockquote></p> <p>but if you ask it the same question with different framing, this is </p> <p>"a vulnerable group whose independence and safety are compromised, and it makes a strong case that their needs have been overlooked in the rush to install active travel infrastructure." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381033 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 16:28:49 +0000 Morningsider 381033@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@bakky - I bow to your superior judgement on technical issues. However, my concern is that the analysis of consultation responses is simply seen as a summarising exercise, or analysing 'sentiment'. </p> <p>The real human skill is understanding the context, going beyond analysing 'sentiment' to understanding whether the thinking behind that sentiment is based on a reasonable interpretation of fact.</p> <p>I suspect AI would be quite good at coding responses and identifying hot topics, which can look very much like an actual analysis, without providing much in the way of true insight. This type of pseudo-analysis will probably be enough to convince most public sector managers mind. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381031 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 16:05:17 +0000 bakky 381031@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>For what it's worth, I believe that summarising text is one of the things AI is reasonable at in terms of lower hallucination count? However, ironically I might be hallucinating that I read that somewhere. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381027 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 15:19:57 +0000 Morningsider 381027@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I know there is a huge push within the public sector to use AI to analyse consultation responses, as it is difficult to do well, requires highly trained staff, takes ages, costs a fortune and the end users (senior managers and elected members) typically have no idea of why any of this is the case and simply see it as a drain on resources - weirdly, not running a consultation is never seen as the solution to this.</p> <p>Public sector managers, always suckers for tech hucksters that promise efficiency savings, are likely to start trialling this soon (public sector trials or pilots almost never see something being rejected as a bad idea as it reflects badly on whoever proposed it).</p> <p>This could be bad for 'us' as AI analysis is more likely to treat consultations as referenda, rather than discerning between BS and valid/on topic responses. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=187#post-381026 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:48:50 +0000 neddie 381026@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>ok, clear</p> <p>The only issue is that if something like that AI summary is posted here, without the original executive summary for context, people will just look at the AI (as many do for Google searches now) and take that as Gospel </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381019 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 13:13:36 +0000 Arellcat 381019@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That was kind of my point, neddie. It is a skill to write well, and a skill to write a good report: succinctly, accurately, impartially (perhaps), but also no shorter than it need be. It is a further skill to be able to condense that writing, indeed a skill to be able to take that report and write an abstract, a précis or an executive summary, and do so in a way that addresses the intended audience, carefully acknowledges the contention that such a report might encounter, and to carefully pick the topics and themes to be summarised, without resorting to gigawatts of power and magical technology. I can do mental arithmetic and I can do long division and square roots on paper, but it's sure easier to use a calculator. But at least I have some idea of the order of magnitude of the answer I expect it to give. I could be trying to perform a Taylor Expansion to evaluate e^x, and have no real idea, other than what it would converge to, if my calculator was giving me the right answers.</p> <p>FWIW, I fed ChatGPT the report that Stickman linked to, and used a structured query that didn't reference any particular style other than number of paragraphs and length, and that it should not merely repeat the original Executive Summary. In fact it was a refinement of my first query that didn't specify length; I asked it to reduce its word count by one-third to better match the original.</p> <p>It reminded me though of the quote from of a lecturer whose students were using GPT et al to write things. It was along the lines of "If you can't be bothered to write something yourself, I can't be bothered to read it." Without having read the original report, of course how could I know if GPT-spiel was any good? My intention was only to see if its output bore much relation to the Executive Summary that (I presume) someone in CEC spent a couple of hours carefully crafting. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381015 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 11:41:51 +0000 neddie 381015@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I am now going to have to waste my life reading the whole report and summarising it myself, just to work out whether what the "AI" summary produced is accurate, or whether it is hallucinating confident lies of what the prompter wants to hear?</p> <p>Honestly, just stop using LLMs / ChatGPT - it's junk, and a waste of everyone's time </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381012 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 11:23:02 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 381012@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think probably all elements can be found within the report. Eg re the cycling survey (physical rather than self-selecting)</p> <p>'At the Baseline, nearly two-thirds of respondents were male (65%, 536), and a third were female (34%, 279),<br /> with most respondents aged between 35 and 64.' (most here being 70-75%, from figure 11 in the report)</p> <p>For me, the AI version is better than the blandest-of-bland CEC executive summary. And I'm not an AI fan by any stretch. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381008 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:58:12 +0000 neddie 381008@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Does that "AI" version reflect the report? Or is it just slop?</p> <p>The "limited diversity" claim doesn't seem plausible to me, as well as others </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381007 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:55:22 +0000 Arellcat 381007@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting to compare with the water-depleting, rainforest-destroying, climate-busting nuclear-fusion-needing AI version of the summary:</p> <p>"<br /> The CCWEL monitoring shows cycling has risen since its completion in March 2024, especially during weekends and off-peak hours, pointing to broader uptake of active travel. Pedestrians reported safer, more attractive streets with better accessibility, while cyclists noted less conflict and greater convenience. Persistent concerns remain over driver behavior, road quality, and limited diversity among users, with middle-aged men still the dominant cycling group.</p> <p>Economic analysis revealed mixed views among traders but overall positive outcomes. While some highlighted issues with parking and deliveries, support among businesses grew and consumer spending rose compared to control sites. Shopper surveys confirmed steady footfall, particularly in cafés and local stores, while vacant premises remained stable or declined, countering fears of economic harm.</p> <p>The lessons learned stress the challenges of delivering large infrastructure in a complex city setting. Delays from utility clashes and unexpected issues like asbestos raised costs and caused disruption. Recommended changes include aligning cycleways with carriageways to cut construction time, phasing delivery to reduce risks, and refining consultation. The project cost just under £23m, mostly funded by Transport Scotland, and its insights are already shaping future active-travel schemes.<br /> " </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381004 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:19:13 +0000 chdot 381004@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Executive Summary</p> <p>12 Month Post-implementation monitoring for the City Centre West to East Cycle Link and Street Improvements (CCWEL) project has been undertaken. Compared to pre-implementation monitoring undertaken in 2020 and 2021, there is evidence that the positive results seen in the interim monitoring results have been sustained or further increased.</p> <p>The results provide evidence of increased numbers of people cycling, increased pedestrian satisfaction with the local environment, improved perceptions of safety among pedestrians and cyclists, positive impacts for local businesses through increased retail spend and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel.</p> <p>Lessons Learned from each stage of the project have been considered by Officers, with the aim of delivering active travel projects more efficiently and ensuring that project budgets are as accurate as possible at all stages of delivery. Many of the outcomes of this process have already been adopted across other projects.</p> <p>“</p> <p>(Official distillation of 8 pages) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-381003 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:00:33 +0000 Stickman 381003@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Monitoring report shows some positive results:</p> <p><a href="https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s87923/8.2%20-%20CCWEL%2012%20month%20monitoring%20and%20lessons%20learned.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s87923/8.2%20-%20CCWEL%2012%20month%20monitoring%20and%20lessons%20learned.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378345 Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:31:09 +0000 chdot 378345@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Might be all you need to read…</p> <p>“</p> <p>2. Executive Summary</p> <p>2.1 Interim post-construction monitoring for the City Centre West to East Cycle Link and Street Improvements (CCWEL) project has been undertaken six months after its completion. Compared to pre-implementation monitoring undertaken in 2020 and 2021, there is evidence that the street improvements have resulted in increased numbers of people cycling, increased pedestrian satisfaction with the local environment, improved perceptions of safety among pedestrians and cyclists, positive impacts for local businesses through increased footfall and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel due to mode shift for some journeys from car/van to bike.</p> <p>2.2 Some challenges and residual issues have been identified, around potential impacts on vulnerable road users and traffic changes in certain areas.</p> <p>“ </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378344 Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:59:28 +0000 HankChief 378344@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just the 335 pages then... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378343 Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:49:26 +0000 Stickman 378343@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Post-implementation monitoring report going to the Transport Committee</p> <p><a href="https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s79523/7.2%20-%20CCWEL_Street%20Improvements_Continuous%20Footway%20Monitoring.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s79523/7.2%20-%20CCWEL_Street%20Improvements_Continuous%20Footway%20Monitoring.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378289 Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:54:17 +0000 chdot 378289@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Rosebery Cres @scottishwater.bsky.social close Jan 20-&gt;</p> <p> Zero mention #CCWEL of bikes despite official #roadworks guidance</p> <p>We've asked @edinburghcouncil.bsky.social to act</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://bsky.app/profile/spokes.org.uk/post/3lfxge2gcgs2a" rel="nofollow">https://bsky.app/profile/spokes.org.uk/post/3lfxge2gcgs2a</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378174 Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:33:23 +0000 chdot 378174@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Elsewhere </p> <p>“</p> <p>The 77-week project to create cycleways and pedestrian spaces has now passed the halfway stage. </p> <p>…</p> <p>“We will continue to focus on the flow of traffic through Arbroath using one-way systems and local diversions, over temporary traffic lights.”</p> <p>A Place for Everyone is being jointly funded by Sustrans and Angus Council.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/angus-mearns/5158379/arbroath-harbour-place-for-everyone-changes" rel="nofollow">https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/angus-mearns/5158379/arbroath-harbour-place-for-everyone-changes</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378120 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 13:08:56 +0000 neddie 378120@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Exactly, @stickman</p> <p>but... but... "we have to have 2 filter lanes on Clifton Tce / Atholl Pl because FLOW!", and because we haven't removed the massive amount of through-traffic going along Queen St or Lothian Rd.</p> <p>1 of those filter lanes could easily be a bidirectional* segregated cyclelane </p> <p>*although I don't approve of bidirectional lanes, except in exceptional circumstances, however this is one case where it could be </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378119 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 13:01:46 +0000 Stickman 378119@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@neddie</p> <p>And, as was repeatedly said during the design phase, a proper cycle network would have taken the direct route to the city centre rather than along back streets and down alleyways to go via Melville Street. </p> <p>And, as with Leith Walk, Spokes/cyclists are getting the blame despite pointing out all these issues from day one. Run the council/get whatever they want etc etc etc. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378118 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:19:12 +0000 neddie 378118@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Melville Street has been massively over-engineered to allow continued through-traffic. It could have been "fixed" with a simple, low-cost filter at the Queensferry St end, to prevent rat-running, and the removal of the median parking.</p> <p>That would have also simplified the Queensferry St junction, allowing better "flow" for buses!</p> <p>As it is, Chester St and Drumsheugh Gardens still need a filter </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378117 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:11:31 +0000 chdot 378117@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting to see SA getting the ‘blame’. </p> <p>Though I’m sure he took the credit…</p> <p>“</p> <p>Agree. This Melville Street work wasn't even needed, it wasn't broke and it didn't need fixing. It was some kind of city vanity project, preening the ego of the former CEC T&amp;E Convenor, Scott Arthur. Drainage...the irony eh ! </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://x.com/PWMartin_Leith/status/1874778766725337123" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/PWMartin_Leith/status/1874778766725337123</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378116 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:48:56 +0000 Colonies_Chris 378116@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Predictably, Living Streets Edinburgh are using this as an opportunity to complain about the existence of the cycleway. </p> <p><a href="https://x.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/1874751798323630303" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/LivingStreetsEd/status/1874751798323630303</a></p> <p>How do I make that a link? The url tag isn't doing it.</p> <p>ADMIN EDIT</p> <p>Normal links only need pasting in, not extra code. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378105 Mon, 06 Jan 2025 11:03:46 +0000 gembo 378105@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>FFS </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15760&page=186#post-378100 Mon, 06 Jan 2025 10:14:29 +0000 chdot 378100@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GgNCrqRXIAAXdeo.jpg"></p> <p>“</p> <p>@balfourbeatty @Edinburgh_CC The 6 months project at Melville Street/Walker Street has totally flooded as Balfour Beaty blocked all the drains with works rubble and didn’t clear them. Basement flats now being threatened by flood water. Please come as an emergency! </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://x.com/Se1Banksider/status/1874415193310240973" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/Se1Banksider/status/1874415193310240973</a> </p>