http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Consultation: Meadows to Castle Terrace en Tue, 19 May 2026 13:51:01 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-285377 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:25:33 +0000 neddie 285377@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think there is another thread for it, but I don’t have google powers for the mo </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-285376 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:09:01 +0000 Stickman 285376@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So it is. Is there a thread for the CL+ plans? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-285375 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:06:35 +0000 neddie 285375@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@stickman</p> <p>Note this is a different route to the one described on this thread </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-285374 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:51:41 +0000 Stickman 285374@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>More consultation.</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2506/have_your_say_on_meadows_to_george_street_improvements" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2506/have_your_say_on_meadows_to_george_street_improvements</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-281106 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:14:18 +0000 neddie 281106@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Following the earlier consultation on the route design proposals <strong>a consultation report has been completed</strong> which summarises the findings of the consultation and the Council’s responses to them. This can now be accessed via the following link;<br /> </em><br /> <a href="https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/design-cycle-walk-meadows-castle-terrace/" rel="nofollow">https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/design-cycle-walk-meadows-castle-terrace/</a></p> <p><em>Unfortunately due to a current lack of resources <strong>this scheme has been placed on hold</strong>. We will ensure that you are kept up-to-date with any future developments regarding the scheme. </em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-274952 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:53:44 +0000 gembo 274952@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I received a letter today from my namesake with a Y apologising for not preparing summary of the consultation responses. Staff shortages. Aiming to get this summary to me by end of first quarter. Then points out that cooncil won grant alongside all other competitors and will be pushing ahead with meadows to George st. Wonder how Forrest road will pan out? So all resources going on that route so meadows to castle terrace postponed.......err, so no great rush for summary of stage one consultations.</p> <p>Guess the skelf palaver highlights the need for stage one and stage two consultations for sure. Been down that way a couple of times Recntly all seems fine. Maybe the local dog walker has found some different waste ground or bought some poo bags? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239507 Tue, 20 Dec 2016 19:13:47 +0000 Klaxon 239507@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A u-turn there isn't so hard, particularly if you're piloting a TX4 </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239490 Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:06:45 +0000 jonty 239490@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>You can't turn right down it without a u-turn, so it's of no real use to traffic coming from the WAR. I imagine it saw more private car use when Shandwick Place was open to cars. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239488 Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:03:08 +0000 Klaxon 239488@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There's nothing particularly on KSR at all. Service access to the kirkyard, gardens and KS lane can be maintained from West Port. The car park is equally easily accessed from Castle Terr.</p> <p>Beyond that it's a rat run round to the Cowgate for people driving up the West Approach Road, in the citybound direction only. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239487 Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:31:59 +0000 Fountainbridge 239487@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Interesting proposal from LSE to close the junction of Kings' Stables Road with Lothian Road.</em></p> <p>The junctions closed for probably 4 months every year anyway. Never seems to have any impact. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239434 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 14:49:35 +0000 neddie 239434@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The other problem with having a "sufficiently wide central refuge" as LS suggests, is that it changes the look and feel of the road - it makes the road look like a 'faster' road, designed for motor vehicles.</p> <p>Conversely, when the carriageways are narrow, with no refuges and cars are close to oncoming traffic, it makes drivers feel less safe and therefore slow down. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239433 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 14:44:08 +0000 Rosie 239433@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I get the impression that's quite well used. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239432 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 14:31:33 +0000 jonty 239432@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's a vicious junction to cross as a pedestrian, similar to Calton Road. Think the main uses are taxis heading from town to the Cowgate and folk who want to get into the multi-storey car park quickly. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239416 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:15:36 +0000 UtrechtCyclist 239416@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting proposal from LSE to close the junction of Kings' Stables Road with Lothian Road. Does much traffic use this? It would make extending the segregated cycle track to Charlotte Square marginally easier. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239413 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:02:51 +0000 neddie 239413@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Frenchy</p> <p>The problem with having a "sufficiently wide central refuge" as LS suggests, is that it makes the single-stage crossing much wider overall and therefore more time-consuming and more difficult to cross for all users. And it would add longer delays for traffic. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239412 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:01:26 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 239412@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@eddie_h As Frenchy said, like this crossing on Princes St</p> <p><a href="https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.9504975,-3.2056945,3a,75y,65.28h,76.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7OdjRLb_gXuE0kyxGWL9gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">Here</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239411 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:55:10 +0000 Frenchy 239411@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sounds like they want a single stage crossing, but with an island in the middle, so that people who want to cross in two stages can do so; best of both worlds. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239407 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:32:47 +0000 neddie 239407@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Points 15 &amp; 16 of the Living Streets submission seem to conflict with one another:</p> <p><em>15. ...the new crossing, to comply with Council Street Design Guidance, should not be staggered, but instead should be ‘continuous’, facilitating quicker passage by pedestrians – a guardrail island shared by cyclists and pedestrians of the nature proposed is totally unacceptable...</p> <p>16. ...a new continuous crossing of Lothian Road should not however exclude a (sufficiently wide) central refuge – such a refuge is likely to be essential to allow slower pedestrians to cross in two phases...</em></p> <p>So they still want a 2-stage crossing, just not a staggered one! I thought LS knew better than that and now preferred single-stage crossings. Those 2 points seem to send mixed messages, especially when combined with Spokes' preference of a single-stage crossing. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239404 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:55:19 +0000 chdot 239404@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It would be nice to think that CEC would learn from Roseburn/Oprion A and realise that improved infrastructure should be introduced without too many compromises and especially that 'don't upset motorists' is a 20th C consideration. </p> <p>Because of the ALL party agreement on Option A there is now a window to be BOLD. </p> <p>This <em>isn't</em> 'just about cycling' it's about improving Edinburgh for <em>everybody</em> - especially pedestrians. </p> <p>Inevitably this means restricting/reducing motor traffic - which is <em>supposed to be</em> CEC policy. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239401 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:47:27 +0000 Klaxon 239401@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Stuck between a rock and a hard place</p> <p>How to positively reinforce spending on infrastructure without coming over as ungrateful when the plans produced have clear and preventable flaws </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239399 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:31:51 +0000 SRD 239399@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>heheheh. good points klaxon! all true. </p> <p>Have to say though, I cycle from George square - Usher hall several times a year, and my family does Castle Terrace to Chalmers st nearly every week (often with kids on own bikes), so we'd sure benefit from this route, even if it is back roads etc </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239398 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:33:47 +0000 Klaxon 239398@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I didn't reply to this one as my remarks would be overtly negative and really about the bigger picture of why we're linking these two places through back streets. These 'small' outsourced schemes don't seem to have the staff or budget to make positive changes based on consultation.</p> <p>The path literally just gives up and <em>stops on the pavement</em> 5 metres from Lothian Rd with no effort to improve the junction there. If there's not some as-yet unannounced plans in the works for Lothian Rd it's pretty bad.</p> <p>And the fact that a significant percentage of this project's budget will be spent relocating a two stage sheep pen crossing a mere ten metres, that has no benefit to cycling? Save me.</p> <p>There's another Meadows to Usher Hall link that would benefit far more people...</p> <p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/CmaCrt8m.jpg"></p> <p>Agree almost in full with the Living Streets report. Sub standard cycling facilities shouldn't be coming at a cost of making sub-standard pavements, too. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239396 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:19:03 +0000 chdot 239396@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"think we should be clear about when we mean 'shared space' and when we mean 'inadequately demarcated cycle lanes'."</p> <p>+1 </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239395 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:12:34 +0000 SRD 239395@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Is there 'shared space' in those plans? I read the LS report, but didn't see that.</p> <p>Agree it's a great report, but think we should be clear about when we mean 'shared space' and when we mean 'inadequately demarcated cycle lanes'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239390 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:49:55 +0000 chdot 239390@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I have to agree with living streets about the use of shared use space"</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10924" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10924</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=3#post-239389 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:04:30 +0000 algo 239389@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have to agree with living streets about the use of shared use space - I don't think it works at all. The other day cycling round St Andrews square to Dublin street was a perfect example - I got off in the end - there's too much potential for conflict in my opinion and it's not through malice on anyone's part.... I'd like to see pedestrians and cyclists catered for in such a way as to make both feel they were on the "same side". Absolutely agree about taking space away from vehicles rather than those on foot. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=2#post-239387 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:08:52 +0000 neddie 239387@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good response from Living Streets.</p> <p>Good to see things like "<em>where extra space is required for new cycling infrastructure, it should be taken from vehicles, not from people on foot.</em>"</p> <p>And "<em>A recurring feature of cycling scheme proposals is the steady introduction of shared-use footways for cyclists and pedestrians. We are very concerned about these in themselves, since there will be inevitable conflicts, with the most vulnerable street user – the pedestrian – typically coming off worst. They also send out the wrong message to a wider audience – that cycling on footways is increasingly acceptable. It is not, as it encroaches on core pedestrian territory.</em>"</p> <p>I had cause to walk along Chalmers St with kids the other day (pts 1 - 3 in LS submission) and it was not a pleasant experience - pavements far too narrow and broken, large kerbs, wide driveways to parking lots to traverse etc.</p> <p>With regard to the proposed design, you can see that CEC are still compromising the cycle and foot ways in order to avoid even the slightest inconvenience to the motorist.</p> <p>Examples of this are:</p> <p>- the north side of Lauriston Place, west of Chalmers Street where the footway and cycleway are substandard widths and separations, all so that the bus stopping area can be shooffled over to allow cars to overtake. (pts 4 - 5 in LS submission)<br /> - on Lady Lawson St the widths of the foot/cycle-way are again substandard to avoid removing parking at any cost. (pt 9 in LS submission) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=2#post-239371 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:20:54 +0000 Fountainbridge 239371@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Living Streets Edinburgh response</p> <p><a href="http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/consultation-responses/lse-response-to-meadows-to-castle-terrace-cycle-route/" rel="nofollow">http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/consultation-responses/lse-response-to-meadows-to-castle-terrace-cycle-route/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=2#post-238716 Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:11:45 +0000 Rosie 238716@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Spokes's comments:-<br /> 1. We would like to see the small section of cycle lane on Chalmers Street segregated by a kerb. Chalmers Street is quite busy at rush hour with cars turning both left and right at the top, and we want to avoid the cycle lane becoming blocked if these cars form two separate queues (This happens a lot at Hope Park Terrace heading towards the meadows).<br /> 2. The entrance to the top of Lady Lawson Street is currently very flared. For the benefit of pedestrians crossing and eastbound cyclists on Lauriston Place it would be better if the corner radius is as narrow as possible. We appreciate that this is a bus route, but would like to see a swept path analysis done in order to find the tightest possible corner that continues to allow access to buses. At the turn into Lady Lawson Street from Lauriston Place the cycle lane is extremely narrow, this will be a real pinch point on the route and we would like to see it widened. We hope that markings on the cycle path make clear that cyclists heading westbound on the segregated cycle lane on Lauriston Place cannot continue straight on across Lady Lawson Street when the segregated cycle lane ends.<br /> 3. The top section of the Lady Lawson Street cycle lane is narrower than the recommended 3m for a bi-directional cycle lane. We appreciate that compromises have had to be made here, but would like to stress that if the cycle lane were narrowed any further in subsequent redesigns arising from this consultation this would significantly compromise the usability of the whole route. Width of cycle lanes is particularly important on hilly sections such as this. We are particularly concerned about the narrowness of the cycle lane at the bend in the top half of Lady Lawson Street.<br /> 4. Currently the plans do not allow northbound cyclists on Lady Lawson Street to turn right into Grassmarket, We believe this is in error (since southbound cyclists are allowed to make the turn) and would like to see an 'except cyclists' appended to the no right turn sign.<br /> 5. The bottom half of Lady Lawson Street is much wider than the top and very wide for a one way street. We would like to see the cycle lanes widened to the recommended 3m here. We think the decision to make this stretch of Lady Lawson Street one-way is very sensible and are very pleased that the council are proposing this.<br /> 6. We're unsure of the reasons for changing the priorities at the junction between Grindlay Street and Spittal Street. This is an unusual layout at a T-junction which we think introduces extra confusion, and unless the designers have a compelling reason for the redesign we think it should remain as it is presently. If it is intended to make it easier for cyclists to turn in to Grindlay Street a wide island in the middle of Spittal Street might better achieve this, and would be of benefit to pedestrians too. We would also like to see a protective island for cyclists turning right from Castle Terrace into Lady Lawson Street.<br /> 7. The cycle lane is narrow with a number of tight turns near the Castle Terrace roundabout. It should be widened with the turns softened if possible. We would like the crossing for pedestrians and cyclists to have clear visual priority and to be on a serious raised table, of the sort found Waverley Bridge, rather than the gentle and somewhat ineffective raised tables found elsewhere in the city.<br /> 8. We would like to see a very clear prohibition of parking on and loading from the cycle lane during the farmers' market. Of course it will be necessary for stallholders to carry goods across the cycle lane from vehicles, we don't see this as a problem for cyclists or stallholders. We don't believe that any of the stalls at the farmers' market currently draw power by running cables from their vehicles, but it might be worth notifying the organisers of the market that this will not be allowed in the future. We would like to see some more cycle parking at this location if possible.<br /> 9. We would like to see very clear 'visual priority' of the cycle lane over the entrance to the car park on Castle Terrace.<br /> 10. We suggest extending the bidirectional cycle lane on Lauriston Place, to run all the way from the top of Middle Meadow Walk at Forrest Road to Tollcross. This would be very useful already, and would provide additional value in the future when Forrest Road is redesigned and a cycleroute from there to Princes Street is constructed. Spokes has long campaigned for this and we understand it is on the Council's project list. At the least, however, the design of the current project should be 'future proofed' so that such an extension to the Lauriston Place cycle lane is not more expensive than it needs to be.<br /> 11. We would like to see Nightingale Way and Simpson Loan allow two way cycling, to provide better access to the Quarter mile development.<br /> 12. The intended final destinations of QR6 at its west end are not stated. Obviously they are multiple, but we can see two main strategic purposes. One would be to access the City Centre at the West End (and/or continuing to the north of the city). The other would be to access the Festival Square area, and the routes from there to the Canal (leading to south West Edinburgh) and also to the west of the city along the East-West route, accessing it via its proposed Rutland Square connection..</p> <p>We also note from the council's online atlas that QR5 joins QR6 at Castle Terrace and appears then to follow Cornwall Street and Grindlay Street to Festival Square. QR5 presumably has similar strategic purposes to the above (though with a greater emphasis on the canal/south-west direction). Given that these two routes are so intricately connected in this area, they should be considered together here.</p> <p>For the City Centre/ West End destination we hope that eventually the end of the Castle Terrace route will continue as a segregated route northwards along Lothian Road (possibly on the west side) but we appreciate that is unlikely to happen in this phase of work. Finally, we note that under the current plan the cycleroute narrows to just 2m at its western end. This should be widened.</p> <p>For the Canal/south-west and the Rutland Square/West Edinburgh destinations there are likely to be significant numbers of cyclists needing to cross Lothian Road to Festival Square. Furthermore, this should be one of the City's top public realm areas, linking the Usher Hall complex with Festival Square. As such the crossing must also cater for large numbers of pedestrians and must be visually attractive. The proposed 2-stage fenced-in crossing is wholly inappropriate, and a wide single-stage crossing is essential. </p> <p>We note that such a crossing was envisaged by the City's former Design Champion, Sir Terry Farrell, some 10 years ago, and it is very disappointing to see the current plans downgrading it to a bog-standard 2-stage guardrail-enclosed crossing. [We cannot locate the original document, but it is discussed in this article - <a href="http://www.rudi.net/news/11204" rel="nofollow">http://www.rudi.net/news/11204</a>.</p> <p>Finally, given the strategic importance of the crossing of Lothian Road, the connection from Lady Lawson Street to this crossing must be incorporated in this phase of the project. There are several alternative options which can be considered...</p> <p>The outline consultation map shows this connection via Grindlay Street, but the connection is not shown in the detailed plans. This option would need a smooth paved strip replacing the cobbles in Grindlay Street and would need significant car-parking changes.</p> <p>As mentioned above, the City Atlas shows the connection following Castle Terrace then Cornwall Street, thus entering Grindlay Street at a point where most of the cobbles and parking issues are avoided. However a means of crossing Castle Terrace would be needed.<br /> A third alternative is to follow Castle Terrace and then Cambridge Street – again Castle Terrace would need to be crossed. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17098&page=2#post-238707 Fri, 09 Dec 2016 13:38:46 +0000 UtrechtCyclist 238707@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just completed this, the consultation closes today. Would be great to get lots of responses in. </p> <p>It says the consultation should only take ten minutes but then gives you a box asking for your thoughts on cycling and walking in Edinburgh without a limit on how much you can write... </p>