CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/m8-upgrade-to-go-ahead-after-widow-loses-house-row-1-3053994
"The £415 million scheme"
"The work, which has been delayed by four years by lack of cash"
"The compulsory purchase of Braehead farmhouse" - "The couple, who had been offered £400,000 to move"
400K?! You can buy a NiceWayCode for that.
Keith Brown says: “This project will boost the nation’s economy by improving connections for business across Scotland and will directly support the hard-pressed construction industry.”
WTF is so hard-pressed about the road construction industry?
The construction industry could be boosted hugely by making a nationwide network of safe, welcoming cycle routes.
It appears to be received wisdom in policy/economics circles that the construction industry is in the doldrums due to the collapse of the speculative property bubble c.2008.
Hence 'stimulus packages' of capital infrastructure projcts to keep the likes of McApline, Bovis and Carillion happy. Oh except EU rules mean for projects over a certain size they have to accept bids from across the single market. Oh and they write silly rules about 'best value' (ie. cheapest) which exclude Scottish consortia on price.
That most of the projects, with a few notable exceptions, are designed to keep the 'great car economy' speeding along is frankly depressing. North or south of the border, it's motorways, fast trunk roads, and more motorways.
Carmageddon here we come.
Could this be a solution? Have lots of little local projects which are below that 'certain size'? Projects like rebuilding junctions to make them safe and welcoming for cycling? Hey presto, no need to tender across the single market, so a genuine boost for local construction. Unlike, say, the new Forth Bridge Crossing.
Meanwhile in the north east:
Campaigner unmoved by £100,000 Laurencekirk junction funding
A notorious blackspot on the main Dundee to Aberdeen road is to benefit from up to £100,000.
But the announcement of a Scottish Government funding package to establish a preferred design for accessing Laurencekirk from the A90 met with a mixed reaction.
Transport minister Keith Brown lauded the injection as part of a wider commitment to improving the dual carriageway.
However, campaigner Jill Fotheringham, who has been pushing for a flyover for nine years, was unimpressed by the move.
She said: “They don’t need to spend £100,000 to let them know the best way into Laurencekirk, I could tell them it for nothing. The money would be better spent on pouring concrete foundations into a flyover.
“Over the last nine years the amount of money that has been spent on justifying why we need a flyover could have paid for one to be built.”
You won't see the words "climate change" mentioned in any of the propaganda disseminated by the government and the news media about the massive waste of taxpayers' money that is the "upgrade" of the M8 and its associated sewers. Funny how the greatest threat to the human race is conveniently airbrushed out of yet another contradictory policy from an SNP government that is every bit as nasty, destructive, anti-walking, and anti-cycling as the Labour party, the Liberal Democrat party, and the Conservative party.
But actually, it's not that surprising at all, when you consider that the four main parties all throng with oil addicts who are driven everywhere at the taxpayers' expense, and that all newspapers are dependent on advertising income from the car industry for their continued existence.
By making it even easier to drive and by soaking up money for years or even decades to come, projects like this effectively strangle at birth any hope of a "cycling revolution" in Scotland. It's a slap in the face to people like us, who are repeatedly told that there is "no money" for even the most basic improvements to the cycling infrastructure. This country is on a horrifying downward slope to ever greater car dependency and nobody who matters thinks that's a bad thing.
I attended an event earlier this month, part of the Edinburgh Art Festival, which was a discussion, based around an art project which monitors CO2 levels around Edinburgh during the festival. Here's their blog: http://co2edenburgh.wordpress.com/ The exhibition is at ECA's Evolution House on the Westport. It's a good project, exhibition closes tomorrow (22nd August) so try and catch it if you can.
Anyway, one speaker (a researcher at Heriot Watt) was talking about a worthwhile project to better distribute electricity demand, so as to utilise fluctuating renwable energy output better. Energy efficiency was key, eg. if everyone in the UK switched off their fridge freezers for 30 minutes each day, that's the equivalent of an entire conventional power station's output saved. He's trying to develop a smart minotoring system which uses push tech to suggest things like, for example, when it's windy that it would be a really good idea to switch on the washing machine...
After his talk I piped up with the observation that, outside London, the mileage driven in private cars is still increasing, so arguably there are a lot of non-essential CO2 emissions that could be targetted. Yet the government policy seemed to be to increase car usage if the current road building programme is any guide.
This drew an immediate defensive response from another audience member, that governments need to weigh all kinds of complex factors, etc. Then another respondent (who I understand was an architect) proceeded to (rather patronisingly) explain that cars are not just a mode of transport, they bestow upon their owners feelings of empowerment, esteem, and 'freedom' (my quote marks). I smiled at him and waited for anyone else in this room of people desperately concerned with climate change to counter his view.
Nothing. Not one peep. Maybe everyone round the table was a bit too polite. Nonetheless I found it quite astonishing that in this forum on CO2 emissions, there was no other challenge to the idea that private motor cars are these incredible, self actualising creations that people all want to drive so much, even if it's not really necessary.
I suppose that shows just how addicted to private motorised transport this society is. Even many 'green' people can't imagine life without it. Which really sums up the scale of the task to try and change thinking on transport, I'm afraid.
@crowriver: that sounds familiar. Typical nonsense you get out of these petrolheads: ME ME ME ME ME.
Another thing I find is that many people in this country are desperately unambitious. They like what they see in the Promised Land across the North Sea, but "it could never happen here". Well, it certainly won't happen for as long as Scotland's non-drivers (and there are still hordes of non-drivers in Scotland, though you wouldn't know it from the way the streets are arranged) and reluctant drivers continue to feebly submit to and tolerate a transport system that systematically discriminates against them.
I think KBs strategy is: Let's get all the roads we want built before the UK oil runs out: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23771338
Oh wait...
Oh I just remembered that another person interjected with "We can't just ask everyone not to drive!"
I got the impression that folk feel there's not much to be done about car culture, that it can't be 'uninvented'. So they look at energy efficiency, reducing electricity demand, switching to renewables, etc. All important, but also ignoring one of the elephants in the room. Sounds just like Scot Gov policy!
I'm increasingly convinced this is part of an essentially culturally specific attitude, associated with English speaking countries. An emphasis on the individual and private ownership is coupled with assumptions/expectations since the 1980s about the way public services (including public transport) work in relation to taxation.
These attitudes and assumptions are very different to the way people think in much of continental Europe.
At the risk of thread drift, are there figures behind that turn-your-fridge-freezer off for 30 mins claim?
Does it account for fridges and freezers having thermostats?
Apparently, if the thing's off for only 30 minutes, it doesn't affect the temperature meaningfully - unless I suppose you live somewhere really hot, which we don't.
The M8 upgrade includes a good length of cycle path upgrade. But I'm sure we can all moan about that too :)
"
The new road layout could cut travel time by 20 minutes each way.
"
Useful word "could".
I'd be a bit more absolute
'Will' cut travel times 'for a few years' (and then back to square one)
To reply to the three year old fridge/freezer comment
It's bollocks. Your fridge or freezer is only consuming electricity when the compressor is running. Buy cutting mains for half an hour the temperature might rise above the threshold and when the power comes back on the compressor will run for longer to bring the temperature back to -18 (rather than short cycling up from -17).
The biggest way you can save energy is by locating them in colder, well ventilated areas so the extracted heat is dispersed more efficiently and they warm slower.
The fridge/freezer thing is more to do with peak load than overall power savings. Let's say that, to keep the nation's freezers at the correct temperature in the evening, they all need the compressor to run for 30 minutes over the next three hours. At some point during this time, Eastenders will end and loads of kettles will go on. This peak load might require a whole power station's worth of power for only a few minutes. The power station is otherwise useless and probably less efficient than ones which can always be on, supplying the base load to the grid. If we can convince all the freezers of the UK not to cool themselves down during that period unless they really need to - perhaps by notifying them we'll be notching power prices up slightly around that time, then dropping them again afterwards - we might be able to get rid of that whole power station.
This also goes the other way - if there's a particularly windy period in the central belt when all the wind farms around the M8 are running at full pelt, we might ask all the freezers to turn themselves on during the power glut, then benefit from the drop in demand during a following calmer period.
Much simpler to just ban Eastenders.
Oh wait, it's the "pacifier*" of the nation...
*Half an hour of screaming and shouting, like 1984's two minutes of hate.
IIRC they use pumped storage hydro generators (mostly in the Highlands of Scotland and Wales) to power the Eastenders brew peak (at ;east according to some Beeb programme on electrickery and the national grid I watched a few years back).
It's apparently the only way to generate sufficient power very quickly. Conventional fossil fuel burning power stations supply base load, they can't just be turned on and off like a gas cooker (or the kitchen tap, to extend the analogy to pumped storage).
"I'd be a bit more absolute
'Will' cut travel times 'for a few years' (and then back to square one)"
Yeah but '"20 minutes" ever?
When traffic is light there can hardly be much scope for extra speed/lower journey times.
How much can the new road 'dilute' traffic at 'rush hour'.
The A8 is not even like the City Bypass where there's a roundabout to be replaced.
And will that 20mins be spent somewhere else? i.e. the next bottleneck
I find the term "base load" objectionable.
There is no such thing as "base load". There is a load, it has a practical minimum and a maximum (which is not well defined).
"Base load supplier" is used as a misleading term to describe a power station that cannot be "switched on or off" easily i.e. nuclear, coal.
It's classically used by the nuclear-lobby to make their power stations sound better than they actually are: "our multi-billion pound investment* is a 'strong and stable**' base load supplier"
*subsidised by the taxpayer
**Copyright T. May
When what they really mean is we've got a power source that we can't control very well and it's really inefficient if we don't have enough load for it to supply and we have to dump all the excess energy as heat.
Whereas a lot of renewable sources of energy can't be relied upon to supply any energy at all, which is good for the planet but bad for keeping the lights on. We overcome these problems by confronting and solving them (with things like smart freezers), not by quibbling with descriptive terminology.
It strikes me as unfortunate but actually if the target is to reduce the carbon output, then some increase in Nuclear Generation and turning off coal and minimising gas is the way forward - and probably worth it even if expensive.
I quite like the mygrid gb dashboard this shown the current and past power generation and gives a value for current CO2 g/kWh. I notice that the site also has a model for a low carbon option; in this case increasing the Nuclear Mix.
jonty, the problem with misleading terminology is that it causes politicians to take the wrong decisions and for the public to believe that those decisions are "doing the right thing".
Renewables, like wind or solar, may not be easy to turn on when there's no wind or no sun. However, when there is wind or sun, they can be easily and quickly switched on or off as per the demands of the load.
@chrisfl - how much carbon does it take to safely store (i.e. securely and above ground) the nuclear waste for the next couple of thousand years?
"It strikes me as unfortunate but actually if the target is to reduce the carbon output, then some increase in Nuclear Generation ... "
That's the George Monbiot line.
"and probably worth it even if expensive"
(Financial) expense being only one of the issues.
Still remains to be seen if there are any companies willing/able to deliver new nuclear stations.
However (without considering radiation, terrorist and waste storage issues) still likely to be cheaper/better/marginally more 'sustainable'/with better job creation prospects to work harder on demand reduction - not just (but still important) MUCH better building insulation standards and 'retro-fitting' existing housing stock.
SNP Gov anti-nuclear (though not enough to close existing stations in Scotland) and keen on 'sustainable' energy but much less interested in reducing the need for energy (and expecting, and providing for, more road transport - as long as it's electric).
Did anyone else catch R4 this morning?
They were talking to the mayoral candidates for Birmingham Metropolitan area.
The Labour guy put forward the argument that the M6toll was the only major road in the area underutilised. And so to use that capacity they should spend £1bn to buy out the contract and remove the tolls... all because congestion was costing the area £3bn per annum and causing thousands of premature deaths from pollution...
Go figure that argument out...
"Go figure that argument out..."
Don't need to, that's just 'normal' motorism thinking.
Might help to toll the original M6...
"still likely to be cheaper/better/marginally more 'sustainable'/with better job creation prospects to work harder on demand reduction - not just (but still important) MUCH better building insulation standards and 'retro-fitting' existing housing stock."
Exactly. If Scotland really wants to be more Scandinavian / European then tackling home insulation and energy efficiency is essential.
Alas politicians / civil servants / quangos still seem to be wedded to 'big ticket' projects like Big Energy installations. Home insulation just not glamorous enough: no ribbon cutting opportunities / jollies / hard hat wearing / canapés and champers receptions / etc.
Also (inexplicably) home insulation seen as a job for home owners, despite many folk living in social / private rented accommodation; also despite clear public interest in reducing energy demand / CO2 emissions.
Ultimately problem seems to be ideology of 'growth' and also fixation with new technology.
"Ultimately problem seems to be ideology of 'growth' and also fixation with new technology."
Yep.
Quite well covered this morning -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08njtjg
(iPlayer or repeat at 9:30)
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts