http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Meadows to Innocent cycle route en Sun, 05 Apr 2026 19:41:27 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-137096 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:26:38 +0000 chdot 137096@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Thread now at -</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11898" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11898</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136921 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:51:25 +0000 neddie 136921@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I wrote all my comments in a separate text editor, then cut &amp; pasted the whole lot into the tiny (also expandable) comments box. Hopefully they won't get truncated. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136920 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:50:15 +0000 crowriver 136920@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot, the very same link you provided! Just a surveymonkey thingy. Hardly any questions, one box in which to pour all your comments.</p> <p>"We would be grateful if you could take the time to complete our short online questionnaire about the proposals." it says. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136919 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:29:44 +0000 chdot 136919@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Online survey duly filled out."</p> <p>Missed that!</p> <p>Link please. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136918 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:26:30 +0000 cc 136918@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>On the topic of campaign methods, take a look at the latest <a href="https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/amsterdam-children-fighting-cars-in-1972/">BicycleDutch blog post</a>. I hadn't realised that those 1970s protests had turned so violent. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136917 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:20:11 +0000 crowriver 136917@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Online survey duly filled out. Tiny comments box!</p> <p>Overall seems a reasonably worthwile scheme, but some details need to be sorted, eg. crossing at Buccleuch Street, shared use at St Leonards Street. Otherwise should be a significant improvement on the current mess. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136911 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:09:41 +0000 crowriver 136911@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@russellelly, your position seems to assume that no-one has been making forceful arguments for segregated infrastructure. That's not the case. Leith Walk is a case in point, where the Council asked for more money to implement (some of) what had been demanded by numerous respondents to the consultation. And yet, 'we' still are dealing with compromised designs where space has been clawed back for motor traffic compared to earlier proposals, segregated cycling lanes reduced, and so on. There's been a debate on CCE about why this might be happening, but one reason is abundantly clear: however noisy 'cyclists' are as a lobby, the Council still seeks to cater for motorists first, despite all their policies and objectives stating the opposite. That must be a political judgement as well as just based on traffic modelling analysis. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136836 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:25:46 +0000 chdot 136836@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Monday last day for comments.</p> <p><a href="mailto:CyclingProjects.Consultation@edinburgh.gov.uk">CyclingProjects.Consultation@edinburgh.gov.uk</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/385/cycling_in_edinburgh/1931/cycle_projects/5" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/385/cycling_in_edinburgh/1931/cycle_projects/5</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136533 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:42:54 +0000 russellelly 136533@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Given that, in the forseeable future, the Council do not have the budget allocated for Dutch (or Danish) standards of cycle infrastrucure</em></p> <p>So, time for the focus of campaigning to be about increased budget?</p> <p><em>I mean, the Council could have made proposals for a segregated cycle lane the whole length of Leith Walk. The street is certainly wide enough. Why then didn't they do that? </em></p> <p>#3.6m is being spent on that project, according to another thread. So, we assume money is not the reason. I'd argue that making substandard cycling infra <em>be</em> politically acceptable has contributed to them not doing as you suggested.</p> <p>Of your two options, I <em>much</em> prefer the first. The second is failing to meaningfully improve things IMO. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136449 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:02:03 +0000 crowriver 136449@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Well there are two possible strategies when commenting on proposals for cycle infrastructure:</p> <p>- Deride the proposal as unacceptable and demand Dutch (or Danish) standards.<br /> - Try to to suggest improvements to the proposals as they stand.</p> <p>Given that, in the forseeable future, the Council do not have the budget allocated for Dutch (or Danish) standards of cycle infrastrucure, and given further that their policy (ATP) prioritises certain networks (eg. FFN) then I'd say the second strategy is more pragmatic.</p> <p>I can't see how we'll get anything out of the Council by being relentlessly negative in criticisms and pitching for infrastructure which is clearly (from experience to this point) not politically acceptable. I mean, the Council could have made proposals for a segregated cycle lane the whole length of Leith Walk. The street is certainly wide enough. Why then didn't they do that? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136373 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:29:49 +0000 russellelly 136373@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em><blockquote><a href="http://poorqualityinedinburgh.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/yet-more-poor-cycle-infrastructure-coming-our-way" rel="nofollow">http://poorqualityinedinburgh.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/yet-more-poor-cycle-infrastructure-coming-our-way</a></blockquote></em></p> <p>This is absolutely spot-on.</p> <p>Spokes' response leaves a lot to be desired. A few things that stick out:</p> <p><em><blockquote><strong>SPOKES supports the principle of developing a family friendly cycling<br /> network (FFN)</strong> and recognises the advantages of linking up existing off<br /> road cycle paths as part of this network whilst at the same time<br /> implementing significant on road improvements <strong>where feasible</strong>, as in<br /> Leith Walk.</blockquote><br /> </em></p> <p>FFN is dual network. The Dutch have one network that's safe enough to be used by people of all ages and direct enough that commuters and 'confident cyclists' want to use it. Why aren't we copying that approach?</p> <p>Where feasible is a massive cop-out.</p> <p><em><blockquote>We think that experienced, existing commuting cyclists are unlikely to use the route in its entirety.</blockquote><br /> </em><br /> So, it's not good enough. End of.</p> <p><em><blockquote>We considered two possible alternatives, as follows...<br /> a. An entirely segregated on road route from North Meadow Walk via<br /> Hope Park Terr and Bernard Terr. Unfortunately such a route has many<br /> practical problems at junctions, <strong>may be politically unacceptable due to<br /> the number of car spaces displaced</strong>, and would be a lower priority for a<br /> high level of expenditure than a similar north-south main-road route.</blockquote><br /> </em></p> <p>Instead of arguing in the strongest terms for the best option, they've given the council a reason not to do it. I really don't get it. :(</p> <p>EDIT - apologies for the formatting of this post - the quote blocks don't appear to do anything.... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=3#post-136340 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:12:01 +0000 chdot 136340@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> The Spokes response [<a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1312-Spokes-response-final.pdf ">pdf 68k</a>] to the consultation sees no realistic alternative to the proposed route, but considers that significant further steps must be taken to avoid pedestrian/cycle difficulties in order to make the project acceptable.</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-135154 Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:24:47 +0000 fimm 135154@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just posted a rant on the online comments form... </p> <p>(felt I should be typing in green ink...) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-134828 Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:09:15 +0000 LaidBack 134828@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Was busy last night. </p> <p>I spoke to one of the road layout people about the squeeze points and suggested a diagonal might be the answer.<br /> If that wasn't possible then I think pavement at Meadows side around corner would have to be built out even more.<br /> Or they could just close Buccleuch street to though traffic - (yes I know... but there are other roads and people say we are committed to traffic reduction).</p> <p>Left my notes.</p> <p>I have a small pile of leaflets at shop if anyone wants. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-134644 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:45:57 +0000 LaidBack 134644@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes. Consultation is open tonight. Will drop by. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-134629 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:38:13 +0000 chdot 134629@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Seems like a suitable day to post this. </p> <p>Once upon a time there might have been more of St. Leonard's missing. </p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/11068705995/"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7446/11068705995_021538e81f.jpg"></a><br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/11068705995/">1975</a> </p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/11068896236/"><img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2827/11068896236_11e3a54a8a.jpg"></a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-134401 Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:55:56 +0000 chdot 134401@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Reminder (tomorrow)</p> <p>"<br /> Our staff will be available to answer questions about the proposals at a drop in session on Tuesday 26 November 2013 (5.30-8.30pm):<br /> Room 2, South Side Community Centre, 117 Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9ER</p> <p>The deadline for comments is Monday 16 December 2013.</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133642 Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:59:36 +0000 Focus 133642@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I did wonder if perhaps I was being a little unfair in that regard. If so, it's far more excusable :-)</p> <p>(Note to self: make sure you remember to use your quotation marks the way you intended and not to leave half of them out. Doh!). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133626 Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:43:22 +0000 chdot 133626@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"And check the youngsters know the difference between "their and there" 0;-)"</p> <p>Yeah - think that was part of a Dutch presentation. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133625 Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:41:29 +0000 chdot 133625@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://poorqualityinedinburgh.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/yet-more-poor-cycle-infrastructure-coming-our-way" rel="nofollow">http://poorqualityinedinburgh.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/yet-more-poor-cycle-infrastructure-coming-our-way</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133610 Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:07:19 +0000 Focus 133610@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>And check the youngsters know the difference between "their and there"</em> 0;-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133506 Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:43:05 +0000 chdot 133506@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Always room...</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/8182688686/"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8340/8182688686_aa18c64898.jpg"></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8901#post-90880" rel="nofollow">http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8901#post-90880</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133440 Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:11:23 +0000 LaidBack 133440@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Cycled by The Hope Park Crescent part couple of times now. </p> <p>The proposal's route is maybe the 'least worst option' to allow slow cyclists to get over to the Innocent. The East side of road has a lot of space though to make a genuine two way separated cycle. If the corners aren't too sharp then it would be ok. If it's half decent it will become very busy though. Worth making it wide enough now. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133203 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:35:06 +0000 cb 133203@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think everyone is being very unfair. They <em>are</em> removing parking. <strong>Two</strong> spaces are being removed on Rankeillor St. What more do you want? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133173 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:47:11 +0000 chdot 133173@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"There's absolutely no reason why this route couldn't be fully segregated in its entirety, with road space taken from the road and not the pavement."</p> <p>Oh yes there is...</p> <p>In simple terms it's a single word -</p> <p>Politics. </p> <p>Politicians believe - quite rightly - that 'the public' 'aren't ready for significant restrictions on car use' - especially parking. </p> <p>Almost all politicians are too scared (though they call it democracy/doing what the public wants) to LEAD. </p> <p>Jim Orr and Keith Brown went to Amsterdam and were 'impressed' by various things - but not apparently - enough to think it COULD happen here (or at least not until the A9 is finished). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133171 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:35:50 +0000 SRD 133171@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@eddieh - you may recall that that was roughly my original reaction. Having talked through the plans with people in the intervening time, I can assure you that some pavements have been widened. Not sure that makes it right, though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-133167 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:23:58 +0000 neddie 133167@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>OMG - just had a look at the plans - they are <strong>appalling</strong>.</p> <p>They've taken space away from pedestrians to create garbage shared pavements, whereas what they should've done is remove parking and/or make the street <em>fully</em> one-way. They really don't get it do they... I certainly won't be taking my young children down it if that's the best they can do for a key connection.</p> <p>There's absolutely no reason why this route couldn't be fully segregated in its entirety, with road space taken from the <strong>road</strong> and not the pavement.</p> <p>Why do CEC insist on wasting the precious cycle budget on garbage infrastructure? It'll only have to be re-done again when everyone realises it's crap (QBiC all over again). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-132782 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:47:50 +0000 kaputnik 132782@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>CEC must note that infrastructure must be able to be used by less experienced riders</em></p> <p>And also those who may have limited ability to perform 90 degree spot turns for whatever reason. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-132778 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:39:11 +0000 LaidBack 132778@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The wider crossing option is one way to do it. Precedent from the slightly overdone one at Fountainbridge where cyclists can use bike lanes or cycle on pavements to achieve a green run. (That though has flaws too).<br /> The desire line is not to dog leg onto pavement and on longer bikes these sort of actions are tricky. Design cycleways without right angles please.<br /> CEC must note that infrastructure must be able to be used by less experienced riders and not put cyclists and pedestrians in head to head conflicts.<br /> Happy to take a look on the ground next week and contribute to discussion. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373&page=2#post-132773 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:49:42 +0000 chdot 132773@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Not convinced the planners will have done it from the ground, I've the feeling that everything is done on the desktop the way some hairbrained things turn out."</p> <p>Nah, I think there will have been a lot of 'on the ground' visits. </p> <p>I believe some of the work has been done by Halcrow. </p> <p>It would be interesting to see if 'don't touch the car parking' was explicitly in the brief - or whether 'everyone just knows that isn't an option'! </p>