Please take 2 mins to give your views on cycle ban on Princes St, deadline 9 May: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6G7MWW9
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
City Centre - Ban Bicycles?
(20 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Done
Posted 11 years ago # -
I would add: don't just moan about Princes Street. Take the opportunity (if you agree) to praise the fact that the council seem to be at least attempting to make the city centre a pleasant place to be.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Done.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks, done.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Who does the survey belong to? I haven't gone past the front page but it doesn't say. You'd expect it to, no?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Cancel that. Council. It didn't ask for my views on banning cycling on Princes Street.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"It didn't ask for my views on banning cycling on Princes Street."
True, but there are various boxes for comments...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, I commented on every page about the need for two way cycling on both George Street and Princes Street, and on the streets between and around them too for that matter.
Posted 11 years ago # -
done , with lots of comments.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, it very cleverly asks your opinion on the george street segregated way, and on the ban on 'buses and taxis' going east on princes street, without mentioning cycles. perfect ammunition for them to say 'everyone agrees with our proposals'. Seriously dodgy.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've not looked at the online one yet, but I presume it's the same as the paper one they were dishing out at the Assembly Rooms last Friday. From memory, I think there's a specific question about what alternative cycling provision you think should be provided in the city centre.
Seems like a sensible place to comment on the cycling provision as a whole?
And, for good measure, how about saying "cycle lane" when it asks what use the extra space on Princes Street should be used for?
I'm clearly not cynical enough... ;-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Similarly, done, and I wrote them an essay in the comments.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@PS Yes, I did say that if you are creating a stonking great wide pavement then one option might be a shared-use on-pavement cycle lane...something we might even be happy letting kids use...on Princes St...
*goes off for a lie down in a dark room*Posted 11 years ago # -
Princes Street's north pavement would be instantly effectively wider if all those bus stops were taken out, leaving space for...
Remember to point out in large letters that a two-way cycle lane along George Street would need to be both safe and convenient to access and egress at any point to be of much use.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Here are the comments I wrote:
Princes ST
- Segregated, joined up 2-way cycleway with priority at junctions.
- Removing the massive bus shelters Eastbound will free up plenty of space for pedestrians at very little cost.
- Glass covering of part of the pavement to protect pedestrians from rain, like they do in New Zealand/Australia
- Main benefit to pedestrians would be to slightly widen the South pavement.
- Reintroduction of the overhead/second floor walkway
George St.
- Segregated, joined up 2-way cycleway with priority at junctions
- Space for outdoor cafes
- Removal of ugly parking bays
Cycling provision.
A " dedicated cycle route" does not specify whether this would be segregated or not. So to answer Q8 and Q9: If the cycle route is segregated, joined-up and with priority at junctions, then I strongly agree it would make it safer and easier to travel through the city centre.
If the cycle route is painted on, or is not joined-up, or involves convoluted routes around junctions, then it will offer no benefit to safety and could even be dangerous.
Other comments.
Not only would it be impossible to enforce ban on Eastbound cycling on Princes St, it is also undesirable.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've given them a very full set of my views as someone who lives, works, shops, walks, cycles, taxis, and buses in the city centre - on the whole very positive, with plenty of comment that this will be good for traders.
Amongst the positivity, here's extracts on what I said on Princes St and cycling:
Q3 - Segregated cycle lane - I fear it sends the wrong message for a city wanting to be seen as a model cycling city not to incorporate a segregated cycle lane on a wide major street like Princes St when it carries out a major reconfiguration of the city centre like this. Princes St is very wide and there seems to be ample room for a cycle lane between the tram lines and the shop fronts etc, especially once the bus shelters on the north side are removed.I would suggest that there will be something of a dead zone for the immediate 5 metres or so north of the tram lines as pavement seating will not be placed so closely to the tram lines because of the noise and perceived danger of a tram going past so closely and any other attractions (areas for street performers/exhibition space) would be placed far enough away from the tram so that members of the public viewing these would not be endangered by the tram. As such, there should be a corridor along the length of the tram that would ideally placed for a cycle lane. One that runs parallel with the tram should not face the issues of crossing the tracks that cyclists have complained about, and a two-lane cycle path would mean that cyclists heading west would face the oncoming trams and so would be aware of their approach. Cyclists using that lane would act as a quiet buffer between street cafes and the tram and provide patrons with an opportunity for people-watching to keep them entertained (thereby reinforcing Edinburgh's image and reputation as a cycle-friendly city).
I would be concerned that failure to include such a lane will lead to a minority of cyclists cycling on the pedestrianised area as they move between shops or simply take the quickest and most convenient route for their journey. This would have the unfortunate effect of leading to tension and conflict with pedestrians and a loss of goodwill towards the council installing further cycling infrastructure, with the effect that Edinburgh fails to meet its ambitious and admirable targets around cycling and active travel.
Frederick Street - If Frederick Street is to remain open to traffic, I would suggest that the junction be designed to emphasise the fact that vehicles are heading into an area where pedestrians are prioritised (perhaps a raised table at the height of the pavement). Pedestrian (and cyclist) phases of the lights should have priority here to further emphasise the pecking order.
Q10 - As per my response to Q3 above, I feel that the city would be missing a real opportunity and an open goal for promoting cycling and making the city centre a more pleasant place to be and to move around if it failed to include a segregated cycle lane on Princes St. I will not repeat all the points I made there, beyond saying that there is ample space for such a lane and, by installing one, Edinburgh would demonstrate its commitment to cycling both to residents and to visitors. It would also reduce the risk of pedestrian/cyclist conflict and tension, make the street a more interesting and entertaining place to be, and utilise space near the tram lines that would otherwise be treated as deadspace. It would be a prominent piece of PR for Edinburgh's move towards being a world class cycling city. It would also offer a direct route across town which did not require cyclists to navigate round St Andrew Sq and Charlotte Sq and associated traffic lights. This is important as experience of desire lines indicates that there will be a real risk that people will react against obstacles placed in their way and either take short cuts (ie, pavement cycling on Princes St) or not use the facilities at all.
It is not clear what the plans are for the Frederick St and Castle St junctions on the north side of George Street. Giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians will be important to make the space feel safe. I would suggest that closing them off to motorised traffic but permeable to cyclists would be the most effective approach. At the very least, street design such as raised tables should make it clear to motorists that they are entering an area where they do not have priority. If these roads are not closed off then, as the more important route the cycle lane should have, and be clearly shown to have, prority over them.
I would also suggest that the north-south roads in the city centre are wide enough for segregated cycle lanes, and these should be included in the proposals to allow good cycle routing across the city centre from north to south as well as east-west. These needn't be expensive - an area of the road surface separated from motor traffic by bollards would be a cheap and effective way of doing this.
It will also be very important to ensure that the segregated cycle lanes are linked to a network of similar facilities across the city, so as to enable people to actually get to these excellent new facilities. These really should include a segregated facility on each of Leith Walk, Lothian Road and Shandwick Place, all of which are wide boulevards with plenty of space. A network like this would send a very strong signal that Edinburgh was taking its commitment to active travel seriously by providing direct and fast routes to the city centre, rather than quiet meandering routes which are less likely to encourage people out of cars and buses.
Posted 11 years ago # -
+1
Esp -
"
failure to include such a lane will lead to a minority of cyclists cycling on the pedestrianised area as they move between shops or simply take the quickest and most convenient route for their journey. This would have the unfortunate effect of leading to tension and conflict with pedestrians and a loss of goodwill towards the council installing further cycling"
Posted 11 years ago # -
My reply was more succinct, along the lines of
If there is to be an eastbound traffic ban along Princes Street a cycle contraflow is absolutely necessary as otherwise there will be a significant number of cyclists who use the pavement.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"as otherwise there will be a significant number of cyclists who use the pavement"
actually, having looked at the mockups tonight, i suspect most cyclists will just barrel straight down between the tram tracks.
But, I also pointed out that the Active Travel Action Plan commits council to cycle contraflow on one-way streets, and that it would be a shame if this policy was countermanded on our premier roadway.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
