QBC: extra parking « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

QBC: extra parking

(35 posts)

Started 11 years ago by Dave
Latest reply from Roibeard

Tags:

12 Next »

Dave
Member

For some reason searching on QBC failed to bring up the last discussion for this.

Anyway, Kim kindly passed me the three documents describing the addition of extra parking on the Quality Bike Corridor, and I've now put these together in a short post along with rollover images that make it a bit easier to compare before and after.

http://mccraw.co.uk/quality-bike-corridor-more-parking/

AFAIK Spokes haven't commented on this, and it's not clear that anyone from the cycling world was consulted about the wisdom of allowing vehicles to obstruct the final few metres before a busy multi-lane junction.

This is Edinburgh...

Posted 11 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"For some reason searching on QBC failed to bring up the last discussion for this."

Titled "Ratcliffe Terrace changes?"!

Now with (QBC) added.

Docs -

http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11411#post-129367

Posted 11 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

Anyone seen this: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/41883/item_no_7_14-review_of_george_iv_bridge_to_king_s_buildings_cycle_route

Item for transport cttee 14 z- review of QBC

Not effusive. Starts with spokes survey data - which claims it to be an improvement.

I'm particularly annoyed about the claim that bus lanes in George IV are an improvement. I watch everytime I go through and have NEVER seen a bus in the bus lane, because they are actually white van and taxi parking lanes.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
There are also competing needs for the allocation of road space in the narrower sections of the route. Finally, monitoring of the scheme has identified some examples of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at shared use areas introduced as part of the scheme.

In light of the above, better consideration could have been given at the outset of the project to the branding of the route. This was initially referred to as the ‘George IV Bridge to King’s Buildings Quality Bike Corridor’ which may have led to expectations amongst cyclists that were not subsequently met, given the difficulties identified above.

"

So, wasn't really meant to be quality or bike.

At least (some) Spokes members think it's OK.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"In light of the above, better consideration could have been given at the outset of the project to the branding of the route. This was initially referred to as the ‘George IV Bridge to King’s Buildings Quality Bike Corridor’ which may have led to expectations amongst cyclists that were not subsequently met, given the difficulties identified above."

Hahahahahahahahahaha! So not 'we could have done this better', but rather 'we should have called it something different'.

This report is hilarious.

EDIT: Beaten by chdot.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

I love the conclusion.

"3.1 It is recommended that the Committee:

3.1.1 notes the results of the review of the scheme; and

3.1.2 discharges the outstanding remit from the Committee of 9 February 2010."

So basically, we were supposed to have done a review, we've done that now, okay let's walk away.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Beaten by chdot"

Nah, we were just homing in on the key points in parallel.

Posted 10 years ago #
cb
Member

"At least (some) Spokes members think it's OK."

Well, nine out of 86 thought it was "a lot better". Everyone else thought it was either "somewhat better" (66%) or "the same as before" (22%).

"Somewhat better" is pretty vague but it would be hard not to agree with this even for very small values of "somewhat".

Posted 10 years ago #
cb
Member

But what please me most, thank goodness, are the following:

"No impacts upon discrimination, harassment or victimisation or the duty to foster good relations have been identified, nor have infringements of any rights."

and

"It is considered that there are no impacts on social justice arising from implementation of the scheme."

Phew.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Exactly. There's a cycle lane there where before there was nothing = somewhat better.

I still harp on about the fact there's a half mile section southbound that has no cycle lane at all; and to put the odd little bus lane in on Melville Drive they took away the cycle lane on the opposite side of the road.

So yeah, as chdot says, shouldn't have been called 'bike' or 'quality'.

The report is a box-ticking exercise, something they had to carry out. Done to the minimum extent possible, not reflecting any of the very clear bad publicity in the media, and even comments from some councillors about how poor it is. So they've added in some parking and re-routed the bike lanes round it; have explaned that they couldn't resurface the whole cycle route; declared that most cyclists think it's great; and told us the name is wrong.

Well done folks. Well done.

Posted 10 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

I also love that residents and businesses have "needs" while cyclists have "aspirations" (para 2.23).

Posted 10 years ago #
cc
Member

Parts of the route certainly got worse thanks to the QBC scheme - Mayfield Road between Relugas Road and Fountainhall Road for instance (streetview). There used to be little or no car parking there, so there was a generous area away from the motor traffic in which to cycle. The QBC introduced lots of all day parking spaces in that area. Bicycles are now squeezed into a narrow lane very close to both fast moving traffic and the doors of parked cars.

All in all it's a pathetic disaster. I cycle despite the QBC, not because of it. (I cycle because of the help and support I get from CCE, thanks folks.)

Posted 10 years ago #
neddie
Member

There is now a TRO out for the changes to parking (waiting/loading restrictions on Ratcliffe Terrace, Fountainhall Road and Grange Loan).

Also 'minor'?! changes to Mayfield Road between Mentone Terrace and Savile Terrace

Objections to be in by 31st Jan.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/12001/tro_13_32_draft_order

(See also http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11411#post-129367 for some history)

Posted 10 years ago #
Roibeard
Member

TRO is a bit difficult to read, so I suggest that navigation begins at the top.

The statement of reasons is accurate as always To amend waiting, loading and unloading restrictions on Fountainhall Road, Grange Loan and Ratcliffe Terrace to address local concerns raised after the introduction of the Quality Bus Corridor in the locale.

Robert

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"

Just Another Cyclist (@justacwab)
23/01/2014 08:56
Absolutely sick of illegal parking on the so-called QBC at rush hour. Why is there no enforcement? @south_team @CyclingEdin @EdinCityPolice

"

"

South Team (@south_team)
23/01/2014 09:38
@justacwab @CyclingEdin @EdinCityPolice Hi there. We have asked our Parking Operations Team to lookk into this.

"

"

EdinburghCityPolice (@EdinCityPolice)
23/01/2014 10:43
@south_team @justacwab @CyclingEdin Area is covered by @EdinSouthPolice, can link in with CEC chums who are already on it.

"

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"

Stephan Matthiesen (@St_Matthiesen)
23/01/2014 10:54
@justacwab @south_team @CyclingEdin @EdinCityPolice QBC parking is continuous problem. Advice: use bus lane along Minto St., safer there

"

"

Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
23/01/2014 11:44
@justacwab @CyclingEdin Illegal parking to be legalised on bit of Mayfield Rd. Please object! http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/spwkr14.01.21.pdf [page 2] @St_Matthiesen

"

Posted 10 years ago #
russellelly
Member

That was my rather angry Twitter post this morning, as I had just been almost squeezed between two rather large vehicles. A delivery van (for the Chinese Supermarket, I think) was reversing into an illegal space. I was trying to pass it (with a lot of care, since I didn't know if it would swing out or do something else unpredictable) and another large vehicle passed me with little room. I felt very unsafe for those few seconds.

As I mentioned on Twitter, the advert for the TRO doesn't mention Mayfield Road, so I'm not sure if the process is even legal? I've registered my objection, though no loading/parking signs seem to mean nothing to a lot of people anyway :/

Posted 10 years ago #
russellelly
Member

I still harp on about the fact there's a half mile section southbound that has no cycle lane at all; and to put the odd little bus lane in on Melville Drive they took away the cycle lane on the opposite side of the road.

And that southbound section has pinch points to enable pedestrians to cross (which is only needed because there is still too much traffic and the 20mph sections are almost universally ignored).

Whitewash. Of course.

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3363/transport_and_environment_committee

item 8.2

7.4 "Although the proposed changes at Mayfield Road may result in some negative impacts for cyclists, these are expected to be minor and should not detract from the attractiveness of the route as a whole. "

only because the route's 'attractiveness' is already minimal.

Posted 10 years ago #
Dave
Member

That could be literally true?

The QBC is so bad for illegally parked / loading vehicles that maybe the council is tacitly giving up on the idea (although it's incredibly cheeky that they're going to use the limited cycling budget to replace a cycle lane with extra parking / loading bays?)

It's interesting that whoever the official is they feel able to just write off over a dozen objections from people who actually do cycle on the route.

Replacing cycle space with stationary vehicles at a pinch point absolutely isn't a minor issue.

Posted 10 years ago #
earthowned
Member

At least the council is admitting that they are using the cycling budget to make things worse for cyclists this time. Do you think they will call these 'improvements' Quality+ ?

Posted 10 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

The pathetic thing is that this is in response to the levels of illegal parking on the QBC route, which we all know that many here and in other organisations gave considerable time and effort to highlighting with the council. And the council's response is to formalise the situation by painting parking bays in. Problem solved, we still have a Qrap Bike Corridor and we still have it covered in cars.

If their response had been a couple of weeks of intensive warden and tow-truck activity...

Posted 10 years ago #
crowriver
Member

3.22 From observations on site, it is evident that the existing parking bays are underutilised during the off-peak period. As such, it is expected that all other businesses on Mayfield Road between Mentone Terrace and Savile Terrace will continue to load/unload from these bays. Although 15 metres of additional loading space will be introduced on a single yellow line, it is expected that this will only be used occasionally, when there is a pressing need for fragile or bulky goods to be picked up or dropped off outside the business which has requested the relaxation. Therefore, no significant negative impacts are expected to arise from the proposed change on Mayfield Road.

Oh that's alright then. As if!

Measures of success
4.1 The changes to waiting and loading restrictions which are outlined in the report are proposed due to concerns raised by local businesses. These changes will therefore be successful if they satisfy the needs of local traders whilst not having a negative impact on route users. This can be measured by monitoring feedback received from businesses and users e.g. pedestrians and cyclists, after implementation.

Local businesses 1 - Cyclists 0

Clearly the 'needs' of local businesses have greater priority than the 'aspirations' of cyclists, whether carrying their children or not. Who cares if some are killed or maimed as a result of these changes?

I hope cyclists and pedestrians will be ready to give the Council some "feedback" after they've created additional hazards at this junction.

Posted 10 years ago #
DdF
Member

This came up at the end of the recent Cycle Forum; we discussed with Lesley Hinds and pointed out it was ridiculous to install a loading bay which coincides with part of the cycle lane. I think that the abovequoted report must already have been written by then. LH took the point and said she would be discussing it with officers and would have a look at the site, though obviously she is under big pressure from the shopkeepers too. Spokes has also written to her repeating our objection, and others could do the same.

Someone who sat in at the council cttee on Tuesday told me that councillors had decided to postpone any decision on the Mayfield Road location because of the objections, so presumably this is now awaiting LH's further investigations as above.

Posted 10 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

I wonder which business here is dealing in goods so "fragile" and/or "bulky" that they can't be carried round a corner / down the road a bit. Perhaps they sell the proverbial "can't get that home on a bike" washing machines?

Clearly the council is not willing to start any fight to change the behavious patterns of businesses from a right to park their vehicles however and whenever and wherever they choose to one where they get to park them a slightly longer distance away in a more regulated manner.

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

does this spot where "there is a pressing need for fragile or bulky goods to be picked up or dropped off outside the business which has requested the relaxation" possibly correlate to Christmas tree sales, and other scurrilous stories we've been told...

Posted 10 years ago #
steveo
Member

Its more than a little ridiculous that this comes out of the tiny cycling budget when they're busy blowing the rest of it on pointless chicanes.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"

Someone who sat in at the council cttee on Tuesday told me that councillors had decided to postpone any decision on the Mayfield Road location because of the objections, so presumably this is now awaiting LH's further investigations as above.

"

That's good.

I hope she asks why the officials thought this was a good idea/recommendation (councillors don't have to rubber stamp such things.)

ALSO hope she makes It clear that it shouldn't happen again...

Posted 10 years ago #
DdF
Member

@chdot That's Good.

Agreed! but obviously we don't yet know what the outcome will be, and the shopkeepers will undoubtedly still be making their case. So anyone feeling strongly about it could usefully email LH and/or their own local councillors [local cllrs especially important if you live in the area]. Probably more effective than tweeting as one can give the rationale in an email.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"

12. Car parking

Cars need to be parked at the end of every trip, and parking is critical in ensuring that drivers can access the goods and services they need. It is therefore important in sustaining the economic health of the city. Conversely, parking control is essential to keep Edinburgh moving safely and efficiently and to manage the overall amount of traffic in the city.

"

CEC LTS

Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

QBC: extra parking

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links