http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: T&E committee on Roseburn en Fri, 03 Apr 2026 22:05:22 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-231754 Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:31:45 +0000 Edinburgh Cycle Training 231754@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/bin-watch-businesses-failing-to-comply-with-waste-rules-1-4238291" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/bin-watch-businesses-failing-to-comply-with-waste-rules-1-4238291</a></p> <p>I hope all the Roseburn traders are compliant.</p> <p>Perhaps before every committee where local views are sought, it should be investigated whether or not local businesses pay rates, comply with by laws, don't illegally park etc - and are named shamed and barred from the consultation process if they are "bad neighbours" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229403 Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:15:01 +0000 Rob 229403@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ih I was working on the theory that the key players know A is the right option but realised too many others had been swayed by local noise so a straight vote would be lost. </p> <p>Forming this committee as a way to keep A alive long enough to debunk enough nonsense and make slight tweaks to get something almost A signed off.</p> <p>After all, if they thought B was good enough they could've just let the vote happen</p> <p>Of course, I know nothing and could be way off base and hopelessly optimistic. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229373 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 20:17:03 +0000 chdot 229373@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"anyone recall hearing any reference to an 'overweight, middle aged asthmatic' cyclist?"</p> <p>I heard a reference to someone from Porty. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229372 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 20:12:58 +0000 urchaidh 229372@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nick Gardner also mentioned that the email <strike>I'd</strike> a friend had sent to the committee was mentioned - anyone recall hearing any reference to an 'overweight, middle aged asthmatic' cyclist? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229371 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 20:08:06 +0000 urchaidh 229371@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I had an email from Nick Gardner earlier this evening summing up (from his point of view) what happened and where we're at.</p> <p>He suggests that B would have won it 8-7 had it gone to a straight vote and that the current palaver is thus an attempt to avoid A being lost completely. Despite being in favour of A, he voted for the amended motion as both Lab and SNP are whipped.</p> <p>He's had a positive experience with a similar process on the Leith walk 'improvements', though I suspect the Roseburn issue is way less tractable. We'll see. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229370 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 20:07:37 +0000 Stickman 229370@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nick Gardner's email basically confirmed what we knew: Politics. Labour/Greens were in favour of A but others weren't so it wouldn't have succeeded. Best hope is that design work ends up with something closer to A than B. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229369 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 19:53:48 +0000 minus six 229369@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>The cycle lanes in Roseburn Terrace would not be mandatory BUT (AND THIS IS ESSENTIAL) there is camera surveillance</em></p> <p>Yet that's the bit that is irrevocably reversed by the jocko realpolitik.</p> <p>What you/we regard as essential is utterly unallowable within their Weltanschauung.</p> <p>And this won't change.</p> <p>Mao Tse Tung says "Change must come, from the barrel of a gun" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229368 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 19:48:53 +0000 crowriver 229368@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"End the segregated track round about where West Coates Terrace and Balbirnie Place meet West Coates, just before the bridge going West, and have a bloody great parallel crossing there so pedestrians and cyclists can easily cross. "</p> <p>This bit, yes.</p> <p>Then postpone anything in Roseburn itself for the next phase (at some future date). Get on with building the route eastwards to the city centre. Then do a route west to Corstorphine some other time. With any luck many of the opponents will have gone out of business, retired or departed this mortal coil (of natural causes hopefully) by the time the next phase, through Roseburn westwards, is consulted upon. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229367 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 19:42:58 +0000 ih 229367@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"If it is focussed on tweaking Option A I can see it being ok"</p> <p>What am I missing here? How can it be focussed on A (ie diminished in some way) and still be option A. The traders don't want anything on RT. Unless the traders accept that there is ample loading space already under A, and that illegal parking can not be overlooked any more then A is dead.</p> <p>I am tempted to suggest this:</p> <p>End the segregated track round about where West Coates Terrace and Balbirnie Place meet West Coates, just before the bridge going West, and have a bloody great parallel crossing there so pedestrians and cyclists can easily cross. Then, from that point westwards you have good quality wide cycle lanes on each side that go right through Roseburn Terrace to some point on Corstorphine Road. The cycle lanes in Roseburn Terrace would not be mandatory BUT (AND THIS IS ESSENTIAL) there is camera surveillance which will automatically result in a ticket for any vehicle that doesn't abide strictly by the regulations in force. In addition permiability should be in place to allow cycle to access Roseburn St, Roseburn Gds, Murrayfield Gds and Murrayfield Ave from either direction. That's Roseburn Vision 2.0. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229364 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 19:28:07 +0000 crowriver 229364@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've had some dealings with Nick Gardner on cycling issues in the past. I also met him at one of the consultations on the Leith Walk proposals at McDonald Road library. I'd say he was pretty capable, shrewd, and listens to the views of locals in the ward (of which I am one). </p> <p>Certainly he's more personable than Deirdre Brock, who I found rather dismissive, verging on arrogant. In her defence she was honest enough to have a clear view and express it, even though it clearly did not chime with my own position. As Ms Brock was elevated last year to Westminster by the SNP bloc vote, and is no longer a councillor, perhaps we ought not to bother her with such local trifles any more. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229362 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 18:11:52 +0000 chdot 229362@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"If it is focussed on tweaking Option A I can see it being ok"</p> <p>Well it's got LH and AMcV on.</p> <p>Presumably they will both want to "listen", but are unlikely to be thinking 'it's going to be easier to agree to B'.</p> <p>They will also be aware that money from SG/Sustrans would be useful (if not vital).</p> <p>Sustrans wants 'community support' but is not going to go along with support for a substandard route when other councils will be proposing better schemes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=12#post-229361 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 18:04:53 +0000 Stickman 229361@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nick Gardner is Councillor for Leith Walk (Labour) and is on the Transport Cttee. Don't know anything about him or his previous views. Anyone local dealt with him? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229360 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 18:04:30 +0000 chdot 229360@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/83/nick_gardner" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/councillors/83/nick_gardner</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229359 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 18:01:06 +0000 Rob 229359@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Who's Nick Gardner?</p> <p>Do we know yet what the focus of the group will be? If it is focussed on tweaking Option A I can see it being ok. If it allows random suggestions (e.g. "what about parachutes for cyclists so they can be airdropped into Haymarket?") aimed at getting rid of the lane entirely it'll never get anywhere. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229358 Thu, 01 Sep 2016 17:46:47 +0000 Stickman 229358@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting: Nick Gardner is going to send me an email of his account of "where we are"....</p> <p>This was has tweet after the decision:<br /> <em><br /> #OptionA clearly a jewel to place in the cycleroute crown. Supporting @LAHinds proposal to break deadlock &amp; try to bring all parties 2gether</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229266 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 21:02:26 +0000 Stickman 229266@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@WC: agreed, but it's the focus on property prices that was so predictable. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229265 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:52:35 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 229265@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In fairness though, I think those are two things worthy of complaining about! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229263 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:44:16 +0000 Stickman 229263@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just out of interest I've been idly googling to see what else Murrayfield Community Council have objected to over the years. </p> <p><a href="http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/12182879.Murrayfield_residents_look_back_in_anger_over_concert_Residents_trash_concert_litter_louts/" rel="nofollow">http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/12182879.Murrayfield_residents_look_back_in_anger_over_concert_Residents_trash_concert_litter_louts/</a></p> <p><em>Mr Robert Smart, chairman of Murrayfield Community Council, said...</p> <p>''The community council is not against these events but we want the whole impact of these special events on the area and the repercussions for the local population looked at in detail.</p> <p><strong>''We need to look at more than just traffic.''</strong></em></p> <p>What else should they look at? Funny you should ask. </p> <p><a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/hearts-face-massive-murrayfield-protest-1-901259" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotsman.com/news/hearts-face-massive-murrayfield-protest-1-901259</a></p> <p><em>Robert Smart, chairman of Murrayfield Community Council, said: ""We’re talking about serious disruption which is <strong>without doubt going to have an impact on property prices</strong>.</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229261 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:20:19 +0000 chdot 229261@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Seeing as PG keeps claiming that Roseburn Terrace would go from 4 to 2 lanes, I think it's only reasonable that the new improved OptionA1 design should have a segregated cycle lane on both sides. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229260 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:20:11 +0000 LivM 229260@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Very shadowy. Who chooses them? What do they want? WHAT DO THEY WANT?!!!!!! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229259 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:15:34 +0000 chdot 229259@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Active Travel Forums for walking and cycling</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20087/cycling_and_walking/1155/active_travel_forums_for_walking_and_cycling" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20087/cycling_and_walking/1155/active_travel_forums_for_walking_and_cycling</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229258 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:12:38 +0000 I were right about that saddle 229258@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>From the council website;</p> <p><em>with the majority of ‘Active Travel Forum’ members supporting Option A</em></p> <p>Is that meant to be us? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229257 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:07:43 +0000 ih 229257@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@daisydaisy I don't want to make a big deal out of it and it's entirely up to you, but if they were told that Mr so and so from MCC told me that....at least he would have to lie to deny it. Probably not productive however, it's not a legal case! I just can't stand liars though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229256 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:54:11 +0000 daisydaisy 229256@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ih It's hard to prove anything. I have just written to my local councillors to suggest that in future invitations are sent by recorded delivery. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229255 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:46:38 +0000 Rosie 229255@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This will disappear soon from the front page of the Cooncil website. You can see how the Cooncil has presented it.</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2133/councillors_agree_to_progress_city_centre_west_to_east_cycle_link_scheme" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2133/councillors_agree_to_progress_city_centre_west_to_east_cycle_link_scheme</a></p> <p>Members of the Council's Transport and Environment Committee today agreed to proceed with an ambitious project to create a family-friendly west to east cycle route through the city </p> <p>(Someone else has probably pointed to this but can't keep up with all the news/gossip/rumours at the mo.) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229254 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:45:04 +0000 ih 229254@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@daisydaisy That's interesting history about the Roseburn traders knowing about the initial consultation but not choosing to engage. My suspicious mind had always thought there might be more to it, and I'm surprised that the "we weren't consulted" gained so much traction. Are you in a position, and would it be worthwhile to inform councillors about that? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229253 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:34:04 +0000 Stickman 229253@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>At the risk of this thread becoming a wishlist thread</em></p> <p>Some of the suggestions (or at least the locations) are in the list of future projects that have for funding for external design. Maybe move these discussions over to <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15990">this thread</a>? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229252 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:27:34 +0000 crowriver 229252@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If the East-West route finally happens, it's a no-brainer to extend a segregated bike lane eastwards along Waterlloo Place, Regent Road and Montrose Terrace as far as London Road. Only 'tricky' bit is which side of Waterloo Place to use: maybe both? One way each side... Then double lane on southern side of Regent Road, replacing extremely under-used car parking. Then on south side of Montrose Terrace, which is the quitter side, hardly any shops, not much parking demand.</p> <p>Ideally you then carry on along London Road, through Meadowbank, and on to Portobello Road. However Lothian Buses might have something to say about that...</p> <p>London Road west of Easter Road junction is crying out for a segregated bike lane too. North side makes the most sense, as only one junction between Easter Road and Elm Row. Could connect to segregated lanes at new Elm Row junction which will eventually replace that horrendous roundabout.</p> <p>These two cycle lanes would eventually create segregated routes linking York Place and Princes Street with routes to the east of Edinburgh, Portobello, etc. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229251 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:23:55 +0000 neddie 229251@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Lothian Rd. Massively wide, 7 traffic lanes in places. Should be easy to create a segregated facility. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16792&page=11#post-229250 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:23:18 +0000 acsimpson 229250@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>At the risk of this thread becoming a wishlist thread I'd still like the council to do something about Maybury Road. There's Lots of dead space and empty carriageway which means cars driving faster than the 40mph limit and passing cyclists who choose to use the road. Most cyclists just choose to use the pavement.</p> <p>The cheap option would be to widen the pavement, make it shared use and put in some dropped kerbs. The better option would be to use some of the dead space for properly segregated cycle lanes. </p>