Of course there is scope for segregated cycle paths on the Lothian Road to Dundee Street section.
Buses and bikes ONLY is an option.
But...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cycle Network
(360 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Thanks again for all of the input.
I don't think I am imagining things, but it does seem like we are getting somewhere, and it also seems that it wouldn't be too difficult to have a comprehensive, city-wide cycle network up and running within a reasonable time-frame.
It does take me a bit of time to get my head around all of the suggestions you make, and I do have more time in the evening to fully contemplate these things, so it is easier for me to address all of the issues you raise then.
In the meantime, I like to include a city centre circular route in my design (which I code in yellow). Often this is a way to tie up all of the loose ends. If there was to be a circular route in Edinburgh, do you guys have any thoughts as to the course of this route?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm sorry, but I've gone from thinking this is a great idea to thinking it is completely ludicrous.
You can't just lay down a cycle network in a few days, based on 'Google thick green lines' and some thoughts from a few forum posters, and then say, "Look there's only a few non-functioning bits, everything is fine". Oh and BTW you need Bikeability level X, to be an adult and to have balls of steel.
The truth of the matter is that cycling conditions in Edinburgh suck when compared to the rest of civilised continental Europe.
What benefits to cyclists & ordinary people who want to cycle will this 'network' bring?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ edd1e_h
What benefits to cyclists & ordinary people who want to cycle will this 'network' bring?
There are three main benefits of a 'network first' approach.
(i) to establish the network, ensuring that more highly-engineered solutions can be developed within the framework provided by a functioning cycle network;
(ii) to help to reduce potential conflict, firstly by raising the awareness of drivers, and secondly by enabling cyclists to ride in the correct position relative to other traffic; and finally,
(iii) to enable people to optimise their journey by making both route-planning and wayfinding easier.
Importantly — really importantly, I think — a network introduced to a minimum level of functioning would not make cycling conditions any worse than they already are. In fact, it would make them slightly better.
Okay, so I was imagining things.
The truth of the matter is that cycling conditions in Edinburgh suck when compared to the rest of civilised continental Europe.
The 'network first' strategy is the tried and tested method, the one employed by all of civilised continental Europe.
You're against it because things are rubbish now? So what do you think to do? More of the same? More bits and peices? A little bit of something good here, a little bit of something good over there? Is that your plan, Edd1e_h?
No, of course not. What a ridiculous idea.
I am talking about laying a solid foundation and building up from there. What are you talking about?
Posted 10 years ago # -
The difficulty is in the big cities is probably the mix of how we travel is wrong. We need to encourage people to cycle and therefore we need to make the roads safe, and to do that you have to plan, not just one year, it's year on year, it's decade on decade, and other cities manage to do it, and we could do it too. It's very difficult to change the road layout for cyclists in a matter of months; it does take a long time planning, and it can be done, and it's done effectively across Europe.
So that's the first practical step you would take, just to try to encourage people to get out of their cars and onto bicycles?
It only needs people on the margin [to begin with]: the people who are more likely to do it, to encourage them. Of course there are people who won't do it whatever, but if enough people do it, it does make a change. We're talking about things on the margin.
(Interview with Andrew Davis, Director of the Environmental Transport Association, on BBC Radio Five Live)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Simon
I'm not against designing a network. What I don't understand is how the network will be implemented.
How will you communicate this network to the council & those in power & persuade them that they need to build it in a quality fashion, and in a timescale shorter than my lifetime?
For me it is a paper exercise.
I'm leaving this thread now, it's making me angry & frustrated.
Posted 10 years ago # -
More from Andrew Davis:
And it's not just better for the environment, it's better for our own health, it's better for our children's health, and it's better for the movement of traffic generally in a city. It's a long-term plan, and it's not about being anti-cars, because our members are car-drivers, you know, we're not anti-car. It's having the right form of transport in the right place and at the right time. And we need to do it, and we can do it gently and purposefully, that's the point. You know where you're going to go, and you tell everybody this is why we're doing it, and you bring them on board. If you make swingeing changes, no one likes that, it's quite understandable. A change of ramping up petrol prices or blocking roads is not on. It's got to be saying, 'This is where we're going in our cities, and we're going to do it purposefully, and we're telling you why we're doing it.' That's the main thing.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm late to the discussion but I think I must be missing some important part of what the point of this exercise is. Looking at the map it appears that the suggested routes for a proposed cycle network closely align with some of the most busy and unpleasant roads in Edinburgh to cycle along. For example, St John's Road in Corstorphine – you couldn't pay me to cycle along that road.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It is almost a "game": imagine that our councillors have been abducted by aliens (who have also stolen most of the petrol) and replaced by a bunch of Dutch town planners. Not even the Dutch can turn Edinburgh into Gronigen overnight. So where do they start? With a network a bit like the one we are playing with here. It is only the internet...
If you don't want to play Simon's "turn Edinburgh into a cycling paradise" game, don't. Start your own.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I admit I am struggling with the concept too. Far too used to the idea that we need to take the crappiest, narrowest routes, liberally sprinkled with cobbles, parked cars and "cyclists dismount" signs that I can't get my head round the thought of making the most direct route cycle friendly.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I like the idea that we should find a network of theoretically cyclable routes, which put the geographical convenience of the cyclist first, and then strive to improve the infastructure here to make them safe. The problem I have is exactly at what point in the "process" does the improvement of infrastructure come in? You have asked us to rule out one way streets and cobbles, but as SRD points out - some one way streets are prime candidates for cycle-only contraflows.
It is not possible to separate the design of a cycle network and the improvement of infrastructure unfortunately, so am I right in seeing the first network (which rules out one-way streets etc?) as a first approximation to such a cycle network?
I think edd1e_h makes a good point about the superimposed cycle network on existing roads as it stands, and it shouldn't be ignored.. There are some parts of the map which have cycle "infrastructure" (i.e. paint) which are completely terrifying at rush hour.
Posted 10 years ago # -
fimm - I love it - "Fantasy Cycle Lanes". It could be the next Grand Theft Auto, but with more lycra!
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ algo
You have asked us to rule out one way streets and cobbles ...No, what I actually said is that I regard these as non-functioning. Making them work for cyclists would be a very early priority.
A more detailed response this evening.
Posted 10 years ago # -
To be pedantically, importantly, accurate Edinburgh has setts.
"Making them work for cyclists would be a very early priority"
Um, in general, those remaining, are unlikely to be replaced or tarmaced over.
There are plenty of places where they ought to be relaid, but this is very expensive.
In a 'perfect cycling world' it would be nice to have billiard table smooth tarmac and immaculately laid setts, but this is probably less likely than serious restrictions on motor vehicles.
Random graphic (taken today) -
There are better stretches - and much worse!
Posted 10 years ago # -
"If you don't want to play Simon's "turn Edinburgh into a cycling paradise" game, don't. Start your own."
I have to agree with you in principle...and disagree in practice. We all have finite time and will to live - there's an all too tempting danger of investing that limited energy in internet whimsy rather than getting our hands dirty in real world work with <gasp!> politics, Spokes, CTC all the other fine bodies that already exist.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ chdot
Those remaining [setts] are unlikely to be replaced or tarmaced over.
I feared as much, which is one of the reasons why I switched a north-south route away from Dublin Street.
Looking at the 'functionality' map, there are only three streets on which there are setts: High Riggs, Comley Bank Avenue and Dean Park Crescent / St. Bernard's Crescent / Leslie Place.
Okay, what do you think about this?
Posted 10 years ago # -
No, what I actually said is that I regard these as non-functioning.
ah ok - apologies for misunderstanding that makes more sense.... still interested to hear what bounds you envisage exist on improvements and hence what could constitute a possible path.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Simon Parker What are those strips like in the wet? Sometimes, heading west/uphill along the High St., I'll go in the gutter to avoid having my lights rumbled off. Not when it rains, though.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I have just heard this joke. How can you tell the difference between a mathematician and an engineer? Okay, so what you need to do is to ask them what pi is. The mathematician says 3.142... goes on forever, etc, etc - a transcendental number, and so on. Whereas the engineer says, It's about three - but let's call it ten just to be on the safe side.
An extract from Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. It is said that the greatest pain to human nature is the pain of a new idea, but the funny thing is, that part of my proposal which is the most controversial is actually ancient. If you are familiar with permaculture principles, for example, you'll know all about making the minimum change for the maximum effect, working the margins, a holistic approach, and so on.
The innovative part of my proposal - compass colours - meets with very little opposition. The non-innovative part of my proposal - 'network first' - is fiercely resisted. And yet this is the part for which I have mountains of evidence.
To remind everyone, this is a five-step plan:
(1) Think in terms of a network
(2) Plan the network
(3) Study the feasibility of the network
(4) Introduce the network
(5) Develop the network further "on the basis of priority interventions and a timetable". (The key here is sustained investment.)@ algo
At what point in the "process" does the improvement of infrastructure come in?
Making the non-functioning parts function would be done during Step (4); everything else would be done during Step (5).
Another extract from Cycling: the way ahead. Now, the question that needs seriously thinking about is how to treat the functioning parts of the network during Step (4).
You can see from the table above that the introduction of a network of routes is described by a picture of a bicycle going downhill. What this indicates, actually, is that implementation is easy or difficult. You want to make it easy? Then it will be easy. You want to make it difficult? Then it will be difficult. It's all a question of attitude, and it's all up to you.
I get the sense from edd1e_h that the network first approach is never going to happen here - "it is completely ludicrous," he said.
But really, what is the alternative? There are only two ways to develop an amenable cycling infrastructure, and one of them has never before been tried here.
I leave you with a quote from Steffen Rasmussen, Head of Traffic Design at the City of Copenhagen: "The key word is an holistic approach and then a separation of functions."
Posted 10 years ago # -
Can you tell us how this panned out in London please? Is it a work still in progress there, how much buy-in has there been from local authorities and how much take-up by new cyclists?
Posted 10 years ago # -
London is still a work in progress. The latest design is here.
The local authorities like it - the boroughs, I mean. On two occasions they have submitted bids for funding.
Currently, 1859 people have signed a petition in support of it. More than 40% of the signatories are women.
But as I have explained before, the London Cycling Campaign oppose. See here.
Without their support things are difficult, for sure, but this said I still have every reason to hope that things will work out.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Simon - Silly question time...
You have got a copy of the Spokes map, haven't you?
This will show you a lot of the features in which you are interested, including setts, one way streets and existing cycle infrastructure - the sort of thing that might impact minimum functioning.
If you're in a hurry, the Council has extracts of the Spokes map (or very similar) available for download.
Also check out the Council's Active Travel Action Plan, in particular the "Family Network", which appears to be the equivalent of the Quietway routes in London.
(I haven't found a good map of the Family Network, although a rough idea is in the ATAP documents - extracts of the Family Network do appear in more detail in planning proposals from time to time though.)
There's beginning to be some signage of these routes, with route numbering, but the plan or map of these don't appear to be available.
@everyone - there appears to be a useful bit of info on Simon's London map here:
http://www.cyclelifestyle.co.uk/london-cycle-map
The menu item on this page has Q&A, rationale, etc, which may help to give this thread more context.
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Roibeard good find. Definitely worth a browse.
Posted 10 years ago # -
They'll have to be checked back at home as the top of the page is inaccessible in work IE and the menu options are visible but unclickable on my phone.
Is navigation a particular problem in as small a city as Edinburgh? (Particularly compared to the problem of there occasionally being no option to get from A to B except via C, a particularly evil junction.) This is where the Spokes map excels as it shows where purple lines dive above or below the normal cycle-unfriendly road network. The green lines in GoogleMaps' cycling layer are garbage in comparison. OSM shows everything but doesn't highlight cycle-friendlyism as clearly as a Spokes map.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I find this thread very frustrating. The European Commission document Simon is quoting from is aimed specifically at mayors and elected members - the people with the power to make things happen.
Say we develop an amazing cycle network map, what happens next? Take it to the Council - they have their own plans (Local Transport Strategy and Active Travel Action Plan). These have been subject to extensive consultation and budgets are set to deliver their contents (not very quickly admittedly). The Council will not just chuck these away as the Local Transport Strategy is a statutory document and the ATAP is a requirement under the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland 2013.
On top of this - no matter how many times someone says the opposite, delivering a cycle network is difficult. I'm sure someone mentioned the one way section of Fountainbridge (beside Farmfoods). To insert a cycle contraflow would require the following:
Site survey
Develop plans
Draft Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)
Consult on TRO
Possible public inquiry if objections to TRO
Advertise for contractor
Appoint contractor
Undertake workAll we might see is some new paint on the road and a slight remodelling of the junction - lucky to see change from £80,000 from this and liable to take around six months. This is for one minor change to the road network. Imagine this repeated at hundreds of points across the city - it would cost millions and take years. This isn't being negative - it is simply a fact.
You could argue that lots could be done without TROs and a bit of willpower. This is not the case. The only on-road cycle infrastructure than can be installed without a TRO are "advisory cycle lanes" - as used on the Quality Bike Corridor and elsewhere around town. It is pretty clear that almost everyone on here thinks these are next to useless.
Would simply signing cycle routes without infrastructure change really make any real difference? I have never heard anyone say that they don't cycle in Edinburgh as they couldn't find the best way to go. The main reason cited for not cycling is safety - something that this approach does not seem to address in any meaningful way.
I understand the thinking behind the "network first" approach. I think it is a good idea. The Council also seem to like it, as they are committed to developing a "family network" in the ATAP. We rightly criticise the Council for a failure to deliver (quickly), but we can't really just pretend they don't exist or that there aren't legal, financial and political hurdles to overcome in developing a cycle network.
It looks like the next year or so will be quite exciting for cycling in Edinburgh - with plans for George Street and the cross city cycle route being developed. I honestly think we should focus efforts on ensuring these actual developments are the best they possibly can be.
Apologies for the long post.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Apologies for the long post."
No need - all valid.
AND comprehensive and accurate (as we have come to expect from you!)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@wingpig
I thought of another reason for the 'network first' approach. The eastern philosophers talk about the hardest step as being from zero to one. I have said before that there isn't a town or city in the UK which has a functioning cycle network. In other words, we are all stuck at zero.
Introducing a cycle network to the point where it works would take us from zero to one, which is important in and of itself, because as I have said before, now there is a framework in place in which the high-engineered solutions can be developed. But more than this, we now have movement. And if we keep moving, we find that things get easier and easier.
Another thing is that it is relatively much harder to develop facilities for cyclists in isolation. You want to enable two-way cycling down a one-way street? Allow people to see how this would fit in to the bigger picture, and you're much more likely of success.
A network first approach isn't simply about navigation, but I can tell you that about 30% of the population would not be able to read the Spokes map. And this is not just a male - female thing either. A thousand motorists were surveyed for an insurance firm, and fewer than one per cent knew enough to earn a Cub Scout map reader's badge.
The top tip for cycling safely in Amsterdam is: "know where to ride"; the second one is: "see the signs".
Also, I noted from the Ely Cycling Camapaign photo that a small number of people said they would like to cycle more but they don't, because they don't know where to go. But this is in a city of 15,000 people. Edinburgh has a population of nearly 500,000 people.
@ Morningsider
I think you have completely the wrong attitude towards this.
If you have the time, please read this:
http://bikemapper.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/lessons-from-big-apple.html
Would simply signing cycle routes without infrastructure change really make any real difference?
I am not talking about "simply signing routes"!
@ Roibeard
Thanks for all the info - I'll check it out.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Hello to you Simon, i am really just wanting to say, i have enjoyed reading the thread to date, and amongst others, your posts. Its good to see there are various perspectives on these, which is very healthy. I am particularly impressed by your calm delivery of useful data, and what the objective of your network plan hopes to achieve.
I also would like to say to you " stick wi it", as for my tuppence worth its ultimately a good thing your trying to do. Part of the solution is the better part to be. Even just hypothetically speaking. RadgeworksPosted 10 years ago # -
Simon - I read the blog post. It highlights how the then Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation (Janette Sadik-Khan) supported the Green Light for Midtown project, which included expanding pedestrian space in Times Square (initially for six months - now permanent). It has been a great success, as set out in the evaluation report:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/broadway_report_final2010_web.pdf
The key thing here is the project was vigorously pursued by the most senior transport official in the city, with the backing of its mayor and general support from residents and businesses. While the project was implemented quickly it still required a budget and the appropriate processes to be gone through to reallocate the road space and re-route traffic.
I would argue that this simply supports my point that the development of any cycle network, quickly or slowly, requires the relevant authorities to be onboard.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I've said it before (and here I go again) but please can I strongly encourage everyone thinking about mapping of cycle routes to make sure they are aware of the potential of Openstreetmap based solutions.
Reasons:
a) the base mapping is already MUCH better than anything else available for cycling/walking in cities like Edinburgh
b) those involved in making the map are often also passionate about cycling etc - giving you a route into people with a natural tendency to get involved
c) you'll probably end up with a solution where you keep hold of your own data, ending up with something more powerful in the long runIssues:
a) at first look it's not obvious why OSM is so good (the central website doesn't go out of its way to invite you in or show you the possibilities - unlike Google Maps etc.
b) see a!For a good glimpse of OSM based mapping which looks more exciting than you can see on the main website take a look here (no I don't understand all of the page either - you don't need to to get a flavour of possibilities). Also for something more immediately understandable see here for example.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
