http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "SNP’s cycling ‘vision’ is now impossible, say campaigners" en Mon, 18 May 2026 07:37:42 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218633 Tue, 03 May 2016 13:52:24 +0000 crowriver 218633@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Would the Japanese system work here".</p> <p>Hmm. What do you think? :-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218613 Tue, 03 May 2016 13:04:03 +0000 slowcoach 218613@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Would the Japanese system work here - requiring a registered off-road parking place before drivers can buy a car? People in 'car-free' developments wanting a car would then have to find and register somewhere off-road outside the zone. Too much bureaucracy maybe. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218602 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:27:20 +0000 The Boy 218602@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The car-free aspect of the Slateford Green development had obviously descended into a joke when I was regularly walking through it to get to my then partner's place. And that was close to ten years ago. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218601 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:23:38 +0000 steveo 218601@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Supposed to be, but getting parked on Moat Drive is now a total nightmare. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218600 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:22:25 +0000 Stickman 218600@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I thought the development at Slateford Green (behind Aldi at Gorgie Road) was car-free? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218598 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:16:52 +0000 cb 218598@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It seems to be actually working the other way around to some degree.</p> <p>Apparently the developers of the new flats in Balcarres St are trying to drop the agreed requirement for 12 off street spaces, presumably so they can squeeze in an extra flat or two?</p> <p>(This was gleaned from a brief planning summary pinned to the notice board in Morningside Park). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218596 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:12:08 +0000 ih 218596@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes, you would need tight parking restrictions, but from what I see, all central (ish) areas are now fully parked up on the street already, so if the 'no car' residents do get one, they will find it impossible to park. And better enforcement of pavement and double parking would be necessary. To bring it back on thread, that's one thing the SNP has put in its manifesto isn't it? </p> <p>Maybe the no car thing is a step too far at the moment. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218594 Tue, 03 May 2016 10:58:31 +0000 jonty 218594@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think the council does issue "no-car" planning permission, particularly for student accommodation. To really work, and avoid the problems that crowriver mentioned, you'd have to have very tight parking restrictions outside - something like 7am-9pm and including at least one weekend day - to avoid folk just parking on yellow lines (or pavements, or outside other cars...) then driving to work when the restrictions come on. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218591 Tue, 03 May 2016 10:43:44 +0000 crowriver 218591@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Obviously, you can't stop people buying cars, but if they can't park them in the vicinity....."</p> <p>They'll just park them on the street instead, causing obstructions at junctions, double parked, blocking entrances, parked on pavements, etc. For reference, see the recently built flats on Albion Road (many of which do have car parking, but clearly not 'enough'), or the flats by the canal at Fountainbridge.</p> <p>Relatively few people actually own cars in traditional tenement areas in the city, but those that do leave them anywhere they can. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218589 Tue, 03 May 2016 10:25:11 +0000 ih 218589@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just a idea which I haven't really thought through all sides yet, but with the new developments in central brownfield areas as @crowriver has just mentioned, couldn't it be a condition that <u>no</u> car parking will be provided, and for residents of those developments <u>no</u> residents' parking permits will be issued. Supply good bike parking facilities on site instead. I'm sure the developers would create merry hell and some occupiers may be turned off, but who knows, it may help to put a brake on rampant house inflation. Obviously, you can't stop people buying cars, but if they can't park them in the vicinity..... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218583 Tue, 03 May 2016 10:00:28 +0000 crowriver 218583@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"The increase in traffic in Midlothian due to new housing is clear. Also a huge strain on other facilities. "</p> <p>Yep. Other areas experiencing, or about to experience similar. Currently in my neck of the woods Abbeyhill, Lochend, Meadowbank, Leith Walk seeing a lot of residential development, and student accommodation. Mostly 'brownfield' so notionally A Good Thing. However Easter Road already gridlocked most of the day as is, London Road very busy too. Bus links are good, Waverley not far away, even some decent off road cycle paths nearby, but any increase in motor traffic will throttle the local roads during daylight hours. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218576 Tue, 03 May 2016 09:16:29 +0000 amir 218576@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's also about "planning" policy. The increase in traffic in Midlothian due to new housing is clear. Also a huge strain on other facilities. Any planning seems to be one dimensional </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218570 Tue, 03 May 2016 08:53:27 +0000 chdot 218570@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just another reminder that 'active travel' isn't just about <em>transport</em> policy (well it shouldn't be).</p> <p><a href="https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/obesity-lack-exercise-fuelling-life-expectancy-gap" rel="nofollow">https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/obesity-lack-exercise-fuelling-life-expectancy-gap</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218553 Mon, 02 May 2016 21:53:06 +0000 chdot 218553@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I take a crumb of comfort that at least active travel is a thing"</p> <p>Indeed - and now recognised as such by more politicians. </p> <p>Still wish there was a better phrase/word! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218551 Mon, 02 May 2016 21:00:50 +0000 Rosie 218551@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I take a crumb of comfort that at least active travel is a thing, which it wouldn't have been 20 years ago.</p> <p>Only a crumb though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218550 Mon, 02 May 2016 20:47:37 +0000 gembo 218550@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yup active travel good until it results in a proposal that will influence the illegal parking of six shopkeepers and then the politicians reveal their spots. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218545 Mon, 02 May 2016 19:33:26 +0000 chdot 218545@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>LDs will no influence on ministers</p> <p>"</p> <p>Probably true</p> <p>"</p> <p>vocal backbenchers will</p> <p>"</p> <p>Evidence so far?</p> <p>Things might be worse without Jim Eadie (and Spokes), but...</p> <p>On the hope side -</p> <p>Toni gets elected, he'll be "vocal" on ActiveTravel.</p> <p>Will HC be providing the soundbites? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218541 Mon, 02 May 2016 19:08:09 +0000 HankChief 218541@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sadly Toni has missed the whole point of my blog</p> <p><a href="https://hankchiefblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/all-politics-is-local/">https://hankchiefblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/all-politics-is-local/</a></p> <p>He can promise us all kinds of influence about future funding but if colleagues don't support Roseburn-Leith (&amp; without hideous compromises) then local cycling will still be on the doldrums </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218540 Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:17 +0000 Stickman 218540@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Toni Giugliano:</p> <p>"@L_soigneur @hank_chief difference between lobbying &amp; influencing. LDs will no influence on ministers, vocal backbenchers will."</p> <p>So an SNP manifesto vision/target/goal/aspiration on increasing cycling will only be delivered by backbenchers and not the Transport Minister. Which demonstrates their commitment. Or Toni Giugliano's last push for votes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218504 Mon, 02 May 2016 13:18:43 +0000 crowriver 218504@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'm surprised it's taken Spokes so long to conclude this."</p> <p>Presumably the focus has been on "constructive engagement" up till now. Perhaps when you have a Transport Minister as brazen as Derek Mackay, the bare faced cheek of the SNP position becomes too much, even for polite campaigners like Spokes... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218503 Mon, 02 May 2016 13:01:48 +0000 gibbo 218503@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm surprised it's taken Spokes so long to conclude this.</p> <p>This is just like any climate change-related goal: it's a "goal", but has absolutely no plan whatsoever. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218480 Mon, 02 May 2016 09:25:20 +0000 chdot 218480@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Whether or not you are for/against the SNP/Gov, it's sad how much they don't care about this and/or are so deluded that you'd think they'd worry about their credibility in other policy areas...</p> <p>I'm sure after Thursday there will be much lobbying of MSPs who have shown themselves to be 'ActiveTravel friendly' (and also councillors/candidates for next year). </p> <p>Good thing Spokes hasn't got campaigning fatigue! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218476 Mon, 02 May 2016 09:10:17 +0000 gembo 218476@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I most definitely avoided the comments on that one. Pro cycling and pointing out a flaw in what SNP Derek Mackay was about to say. Could only end one way. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218475 Mon, 02 May 2016 09:00:08 +0000 dougal 218475@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Comment Bingo! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16331#post-218468 Mon, 02 May 2016 01:46:56 +0000 chdot 218468@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/snp-s-cycling-vision-is-now-impossible-say-campaigners-1-4116230" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/snp-s-cycling-vision-is-now-impossible-say-campaigners-1-4116230</a> </p>