CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
Just FYI - this ends today.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/385/cycling_in_edinburgh/1931/cycle_projects/5
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YRHW6GP
Would be good to get a good range of responses.
(I searched and searched for the original post but could not find it!)
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2373
Sent in a slightly-expanded version of my comments from that thread on Friday in case I forget today.
ALL of my search terms (meadows/innocent/gifford/Clerk and many many more) are in there. WHY didn't the search pull it up?
Done. Supported but with concerns about the convoluted nature of the route between Meadows and Gifford Park. Thanks for the reminder.
"Search" can be a bit random!
If you know a word is in the title, this is more reliable -
http://www.irreverence.co.uk/ccefeed/?a=show_all_threads
(Need to create 'free account')
two search terms at once? too clever for me.
"two search terms at once?"
Yeah, randomly, that can improve things.
Alternatively use googles site search.
enter the following into the search box;
site:http://citycyclingedinburgh.info search terms here
VERY useful 'background' here -
If you know a word is in the title
I go "advanced search" and then select "in title only" for that kind of thing. Still sometimes it can't find the "Todays' Rubbish Cycling" thread...
I've provided my thoughts via the survey. Probably erring on fixing the details (aka Suntour) rather than wholesale revamps (aka Shimano/SRAM). Current plan is sort of like Huret.
My thoughts!
"
It's is good that CEC is trying to improve infrastructure both for existing 'cyclists' and for those who might cycle 'if they felt safe'.
But now is perhaps the time to look at its 'strategy' more widely.
I am aware that this and other recent projects/consultations are to do with the ATAP, and that there is a working group.
A 'family network' is a good idea in principle, and I know it 'can't all be done at once', but I think there is a need for the wider public to know 'the plan' - and likely timescale. This would also make it easier to have 'input' at an earlier stage to avoid faits accomplis or (presumably, time consuming and potentially expensive) 'rethinks'.
It is clear that this and other schemes are constrained by compromises that are implicit - but it is seldom made clear why, or how 'inevitable' these are.
For instance the reluctance to reduce the amount of parking and the 'requirement' to maintain 'traffic flow'.
Either CEC really wants to increase the amount of cycling - AND it's modal share - or it doesn't. Giving in to an imagined 'motoring lobby' or (on things like 20mph) Lothian Buses and Police Scotland isn't good enough for the residents - even the ones who don't normally walk or cycle.
A lot of thought has gone into the current proposals and 'difficult' decisions have been made - making Rankeillor Street one way and moving a bus stop in Buccleuch Street for instance.
The route is sensible and should appeal to both leisure and commuting users IF they use North Meadow Walk rather than Melville Drive, but the details are not satisfactory.
The two main issues are Meadows to Gifford Park and then exiting the top of Gifford Park.
From The Meadows it's turning sharp left (which seems to be on the pavement) and then sharp right then sharp left then sharp right across the 'wrong' side of GP.
A MUCH better solution is for a wide (if for two way cycling) segregated (from both pavement and road) route to a ped/cycle crossing into GP. This could be in conjunction with the existing pedestrian crossing lights and cost about the same as the current proposal but be much more effective for pedestrians and riders and probably reduce traffic disruption as the two sets of lights would be red at the same time!
There is VERY serious potential for pedestrian/cyclist conflict at the top of GP. The path crosses the pavement immediately after the building line. At the very least there needs to be a widened pavement here, and some sort of barrier (guardrail?) to 'discourage' conflict.
Although the crossing is similar to that at the top of Middle Meadow Walk, here there are generally better sightlines (even allowing for the pillar!) and many fewer pedestrians than on the busy Southside shopping street.
It is clear that CEC needs to do a lot more (and what it does, better) if it is to have any chance of meeting its own cycling targets. This requires more joined up working across its departments and better/clearer political leadership.
"
A MUCH better solution is for a wide (if for two way cycling) segregated (from both pavement and road) route to a ped/cycle crossing into GP.
This is much the same as my suggestion to CEC. I thought a diagonal toucan could connect NMW with a shared segregated section. I tried to think how the Dutch or Danish would make it free-flow, but there just isn't the will or the motoring tolerance to have an unsignalised crossing with cycle/ped priority, even though a zebra arrangement ought to work.
I also suggested increasing the width of the Gifford-Rankeillor crossing and moving the loading bays further away to create more space for people.
Giving in to ... (on things like 20mph) Lothian Buses and Police Scotland isn't good enough...
That was the situation at the time of the decision to implement the south Ed 20mph zone. I do think the council is changing on this, as in the draft local transport strategy, which is far more bold on 20mph. See spokes LTS submission.
Though note that the new policy (assuming it remains in the final LTS, which I think it will) will be implemented in phases with local consultation in each area.
The two main issues are Meadows to Gifford Park and then exiting the top of Gifford Park.
Agreed - well, certainly the two biggest ones, though there are other important ones.
A MUCH better solution is for a wide (if for two way cycling) segregated (from both pavement and road) route to a ped/cycle crossing into GP.
That is a solution, but I slightly prefer the spokes one which has the direct crossing at the NMW exit, with a demarcated path separated from peds on the far side [the submission says a white line but this could equally be physically separated, there is enough width given that they are planning to remove road space. Similarly, it could be at road or pavement level]. Under Chdot's solution, motor traffic will have to be moved out into the centre of the road then back again, which would be a rather odd road layout - might slow them but might distract their concentration.
There is VERY serious potential for pedestrian/cyclist conflict at the top of GP. The path crosses the pavement immediately after the building line. At the very least there needs to be a widened pavement here...
Personally I agree with you, but spokes received mixed views because some people pointed out that the build-out would take over the peak-hour bus lane, forcing buses and cyclists on the main road to move into the main traffic lane. Therefore the spokes response [para 5] called for the council to consider more ambitious design solutions, but did not make a specific suggestion.
"I slightly prefer the spokes one which has the direct crossing at the NMW exit"
That's better than the current plan - but still relies on acute awareness of traffic coming out of or into GP. Fortunately there isn't much, BUT bikes wouldn't have priority.
"motor traffic will have to be moved out into the centre of the road then back again, which would be a rather odd road layout - might slow them but might distract their concentration."
If that causes them to lose concentration they shouldn't be driving!
"some people pointed out that the build-out would take over the peak-hour bus lane, forcing buses and cyclists on the main road to move into the main traffic lane"
I'm aware that is the CEC line, but it's a wide road.
IF a buildout 'can't' be accommodated then it needs a full set of lights to allow Gifford Park to become a road again and properly inconvenience pedestrians!
The point is - if there is any point in spending money on this route, I would hope that it is expected that a LOT of bikes will be using it - unlike at the similar, and poor, (but not much used), crossing at East Crosscauseway.
"
The largest single source of comments was about the sharing of space between pedestrians and cyclists. This was reflected in the most popular suggestion, which was that the cycle facilities should be segregated.
"
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20135/cycling_projects/503/meadows_-_innocent_path_ncn1/3
Looks promising that they've actually listened and made improvements
"Looks promising that they've actually listened and made improvements"
Yep -
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
17/06/2014 20:03
Good that @Edinburgh_CC listened BUT why were original plans so timid? @adamrmcvey @LAHinds @SpokesLothian @LivingStreetsEd @AndrewDBurns
"
Something else 'we' wanted:
"The new crossing on Buccleuch Street has been moved to be opposite the entrance/exit to the North Meadow Walk Path thereby eliminating the west section of shared footway/cycleway on Buccleuch Street. "
And over in St Leonard's St - taking (some) space away from cars:
"The revised layout has, by building out onto the carriageway in places, provided space to allow for a segregated cycle path and a separated pedestrian only footway."
"Something else 'we' wanted"
I think there can be little doubt that 'we' cyclists (not just, but significantly, 'on here') did well by turning up to the consultation and/or sending in written comments (similarly on Leith Walk) and - because of discussions on here (and PoP) - have been keen on 'segregated infrastructure' not just from cars but also pedestrians.
So an attempt to get CEC to move away from shared use/cycling on pavements. Also there has been better contact between some 'cycle campaigners' and some 'walking campaigners' over the past year.
"
SRD (@SRDorman)
17/06/2014 23:25
@CyclingEdin @LAHinds @Edinburgh_CC @adamrmcvey @SpokesLothian @LivingStreetsEd @AndrewDBurns b/c of joint effort ? peds + cyclists?
"
The whole business of why the initial proposals were put forward and 'had to be' extensively modified, is another matter!
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
17/06/2014 23:13
@CyclingEdin @Edinburgh_CC @adamrmcvey @SpokesLothian @LivingStreetsEd @AndrewDBurns so Council listens and suggest changes Good, yes?
"
I don't think there was an equivalent consultation on the current George Street proposals. I hope there will be after the "experiment".
I hope there will be during the experiment.
Updated proposals available online:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/809/meadows_-_innocent_path_ncn1_cycle_route_plans
At first glance, the new proposals seem like a big improvement
Thoughts...?
Much improved, and I'm looking forward to the implementation of (more) segregated routes in the city, possibly some of the first to be parallel to roads rather than along railways/canals.
It may not be all that I've hoped, or as extensive as might ultimately be desirable, but it will be exciting to see - may they be such a success that the parallel advisory cycle lane is considered inferior!
Robert
a quick look and it does look very encouraging. As Roibeard says - what look like real parallel segregated lanes are incorporated… I hope this is a sign of things to come...
Looks like an improvement. I've done some screen grabs so people can quickly browse the approach without downloading (© CEC). At Buccleuch St there is proposed a segregated path and a painted cycle lane on each side (red chipped though so not too noticeable fro drivers!).
At the crossing it looks like more space is allocated for cyclists and pedestrtains as in effect you have a pavement and four bike zones - one segregated.
The bus stop has had to move forward and will be on top of bike lane - no doubt people will complain about this (!).
Other segregated section at St Leonards.
Meadows - Innocent Plan © The City of Edinburgh Council by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Meadows - Innocent Plan © The City of Edinburgh Council by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Meadows - Innocent Plan © The City of Edinburgh Council by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Meadows - Innocent Plan © The City of Edinburgh Council by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Kind of humourous. How can one hand be producing this while the other is suggesting the risible Marchmont - KB plans?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts