CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years 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.
Simon - so you are dismissing an authoritative, independent report produced by some of the UK's best known transport academics in favour of a couple of blog posts?
Anyway, I had prepared yet another reply, but I've just deleted all that. You might not be able to tell that you are wasting your own and other people's time, but I can see when I'm wasting my own time. So, I'm leaving this thread now.
Simon, i for one dont think you are wasting anyones time, except those that have perceived this thread as doing so, but then they are taking the time to waste time by reading it and responding,somewhat paradoxically.
But really, isnt it simply just great to see how warm and welcome some of the contributors to this wee forum like to try and make you feel?
I havent seen anything else like this thread anywhere in Scotland, and i think as a concept its a pretty good initiative.
And by the way, some of the authoritative, independent report produced by some of the UK's best known transport academics, likely do not have a grasp on what the reality is in this location on the planet, as one size never ever fits all. And Edinburgh does have its quirks.
Keep up the work, dont be disheartened.
And keep posting.
I wont tell you if i leave the thread, as its never worth a mention except to try and make a weak personal point.
Radgeworks
Radgeworks' point is fair, but it's a tricky one. I'd guess (though it's not a given) that we're all in favour of having an Edinburgh cycle network, and of course one or more such networks exist already - on the Innertube map, on the Spokes map, in our heads...even in a sense in the red and green painted tarmac round town. So I can't and don't object to this plan, or of course to Mr Parker spending his own time on it.
That said, I've no hesitation in saying that I don't think the influencing style deployed has much chance of success, and I do think there's a danger of energy that could go into the grind of local politics being spent on an online map with little connection to conditions on the ground.
I believe that change is usually achieved in many small steps through face-to-face encounters. This forum can facilitate those real world events - see the PoP thread - but it can't replace them, and nor can e-mails or letters no matter how much worthy detail they contain.
Aha. If you are still here...
...would you mind, in a couple of paragraphs, explaining (in your own words, please) exactly what we would see (physically see with our eyes on the affected streets, in terms of signs or paint or tabard-wearing marshals) on the day that a cycle network is, in the term you repeatedly use, "introduced" to Edinburgh?
wingpig, I got lost once cycling from Greenwich to Wimbledon. I was following some signs, got to the end of a street, and then nothing. No clue how best to proceed either. I remember thinking that if I knew my direction of travel, at least I would have an idea which way to go next.
In this moment a new idea was born.
Previously it was not possible to code the routes on a cycle network using colours (if the network comprised fifteen or more routes, say). This is now possible, and this has to be regarded as a good thing, because colour coding makes route planning easier.
Added to which, everyone has a sense of direction. So it would be possible for people to navigate their way around without reference to a map every five minutes.
Both of these things I regard as positive.
SRD suggested here that I share a design for a proposed Edinburgh Cycle Network on this forum, which I did.
Now, what I do is draw lines on maps. Ideally, these lines correspond as much as possible with the existing "infrastructure" (whatever that amounts to). Sometimes I need to add bits here and there in order for everything to cohere and look nice.
When I got lost cycling from Greenwich to Wimbledon, this was in 1999. I didn't know anything about how to set about developing an amenable cycling environment, but the publication everyone was talking about back then was Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. And so I read it. And everything I know about how to begin the process of developing an amenable cycling environment is written in this book. (I note that the EU still regard it as their "go-to" manual.)
So I draw lines on maps, and I've read a book, and that's it. And it was suggested that I come onto this forum and show you all some of the lines that I had drawn. And then we worked together to get those lines to fit together better. And I am telling you all of this, because you need to know that I am hurting like mad at the moment, and I am as mad as hell.
You ask me what conditions would be like on the ground once the network has been "introduced". The first thing to say is that I have absolutely no problem at all with the authorities wanting to do more than I suggest. However, I would like to see the network introduced quickly, and if, when wanting to do more, this means everything has to proceed at a snail's pace, I say, No. The second thing to say is that I think everyone is agreed on the destination, which means in practice, Sustainable Safety. But we're starting from where we are, yes?
In terms of the functioning parts (which probably amounts to about 97-98% of the proposed network), I believe - in my opinion, and if you think differently then that's okay, but perhaps you could tell us what you would do instead, rather than just throwing mud about the place and then stomping off - that repeat markers on the road surface are the best short-term solution.
One idea is to incorporate solar light studs into the design. I think these would be particularly useful where the route is away from the main roads.
More important, perhaps, is that the markers are positioned correctly in the road (i.e. not next to the gutter).
Regarding direction signs (which only need to be at strategic locations), I think the blue cycling signs are an eyesore.
This leaves the non-functioning sections to attend to, and I am not in a position to say what they would look like.
I'm at the point of being genuinely bewildered as to what is going on with this thread.
@Simon, if I'm being brutally honest, I get the impression your 'hurting like hell' because of nothing more than some of us disagreeing or critiquing your proposal. I'd go as far as to say that, when first presenting this, you were expecting uniform praise and congratulation from us for your efforts and the fact this hasn't turned out to be the case is not being dealt with well by you.
A core problem is that you really needed to explain better what this proposal is and is not. If it's a 'paper exercise' to imagine a hypothetical better Edinburgh then fine, I see no problem, and I wouldn't side with anyone laying into it just for the sake of it. But when you talk of this as something that's going to be officially proposed, physically implemented etc, then you get the attention of the people here who have that background and knowledge, and more to the point you open yourself up to criticism of your methods if not your objective.
You've likely already concluded I'm just another 'mud slinger' and you're perfectly entitled to express that, just as I am entitled to now say I just don't think you quite get this forum and how debates here tend to work when very informed people become involved.
For what it's worth, I still don't think this network is a bad idea, but I'm not feeling all that obligated to defend it or otherwise contribute to its development, so you can put me down as another who is going to be leaving the thread.
allebong,
I get the impression your 'hurting like hell' because of nothing more than some of us disagreeing or critiquing your proposal
Nobody has said a single word against my proposal. Not a dicky bird.
A core problem is that you really needed to explain better what this proposal is
Really?
You've likely already concluded I'm just another 'mud slinger'
Dude, you were a million miles from my thoughts when I wrote that.
Right. Introduction equates to paint on the road, signs on poles and studs at pathsides, then. Ta.
wingpig,
One of the main features of my proposal is the improvement of cyclists' safety, based on the installation of 'soft' measures in the short-term, and 'hard' measures in the medium-term.
These 'soft' measures mostly equate to regular physical cues. If you are familiar with permaculture principles, the idea with an holistic approach is to begin by making the minimum change for the maximum effect.
The strategy I am proposing is based on the advice contained in Cycling: the way ahead, which says, in big, bold letters on page 2 of the chapter, How to start?, that this minimum intervention approach is "a prudent course to follow". It's a stepping stone, wingpig, not a destination.
Right. Introduction equates to paint on the road, signs on poles and studs at pathsides, then. Ta.
Is that stratagem 3 in Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right?
Interpret it how you wish. I wanted to know what we would see on the day of introduction, to know if there would be things requiring to be physically installed on or around roads or paths, just in case the quoted "introduce" meant something specific.
Simon, if I'm understanding it correctly, the network development would progress from drawing lines on a map to drawing lines on the road and then progressively firming up those lines, moving them from chalk to painted demarcations to solid segregating physical infrastructure on a sort of a Dutch model.
If I've understood correctly, then conceptually I have no disagreement with the approach (there might be disagreements about where the lines should actually go but that's just details). There would be scepticism about the political will to carry it through and I suspect many people would fear that the politicians would stop at the chalk stage. Actually, many people, me included, would feel that politicians would stage a photo opp for the drawing of the chalk lines, take the credit and then leave the cars to remove them. I suspect that sort of scepticism underpins the willingness to accept infrastructure being introduced piecemeal but to want each new piece of infrastructure to be to full Dutch standards from the outset.
Your model doesn't seem to be "piecemeal but perfect". It seems to being universally imperfect. You could call it "inadequate but a start". If that's the idea then I think it's an approach that would leave me thinking that if we accepted "inadequate but a start" what we'd end up with is just "inadequate".
I've refrained from posting in this thread 'til now, but I understand where Simon is coming from. I tried to use the London map three years ago, and realised that without onstreet directions it only worked if you knew the roads already.
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=1419#post-15099
Unfamiliar cities with non-gridlike layouts are incredibly hard to direction-find in. The coloured mapping on paper not translating to the real world is more an implementation issue than a fault in the route planning.
If you pay Rapha £150 and raise £750 for autism charity then they will map a route from Manchester to London for you.
When I did a broadly similar event around London this involved three arrows. One before the junction, one on the junction and one after the junction. This worked quite well on the way out of London, when still fresh but was not so perfect on way back when tired. With sustrans routes I sometimes find there are lots of arrows when you don't need that many and then none when you are further into the journey, so a map is also essential.
As I understand it, the target demographic for this proposed network is not CCEers, rather it is people who do not currently cycle but have a few bikes gathering dust in their stairwells and outhouses. People that could be persuaded to take a family spin to Cramond or Porty of a fine summers day and who might start using their bike more regularly once they find that initial dust-off was enjoyable. The bike hopefully would become
a means to an end for them.
A lot of us on CCE are somewhat bike-OCD and are cycling DESPITE the lack of much infra. So I would think SP can glean some nuggets and detailed practical knowledge from here. But not a good place to spend a lot of effort. The temptation is here, because there is no apathy about cycling here. But you really need to go on Mumsnet/etc, somewhere that has bike apathy, cos that is your target demographic.
@ Instography
Yes, I think that's about it, though I prefer "universally imperfect" to "inadequate but a start". I say this because it is only "inadequate" for a certain demographic of cyclist, but not all demographics.
Also, I think the "chalk stage" — as you call it — is for campaigners; the "paint stage" would be for the politicians. The concern that politicians would "introduce" the network and then leave it there was raised by gembo on page 1 of this thread.
I think this is why Cycling: the way ahead talks about developing the network further (Step 5) "on the basis of priority interventions and a timetable".
I know that we don't have much confidence in our politicians, but I think we do need to have confidence in the process.
This is from Cycling: the way ahead:
Taking a political decision to reduce the space allotted to cars (whether for traffic or for parking) in order to create facilities for cyclists requires a certain amount of skill, entails explanations for the population and has to be implemented gradually. (page 39)
According to its specific features and its resources, each town will have to choose its priorities or specific actions to take. Reproducing apparently effective action taken elsewhere could have negative consequences if the concerted and coherent programme on which such actions have been based is not taken into account. (page 44)
In Portland (which is only just a little bit bigger than Edinburgh), the cycling modal share went from 1.8% in 2000 to 6.3% in just eleven years, an increase of 350%. In large part, this was achieved with basically just a "bare bones" infrastructure.
Now that Portland has established a solid base, the long-term goal is a bike share of around 25%. Crucially, this policy has good political and public support. Roger Geller, Portland's Bicycle Coordinator, has said: "Every indication we have — from user surveys, use itself, and voting habits — suggests that Portlanders staunchly support Portland as a strong and strengthening bicycle city."
They have momentum now, which they wouldn't have had — I fancy — when they started.
As I say, we don't much trust our politicians, but I don't see that this is a reason to say No on their behalf. I used to sell English wine at the farmers' market, and it was very important that people were encouraged to taste the wine (there wasn't much chance they would buy otherwise). Sometimes I would look at people and think to myself, They don't look the type to buy English wine. Thus, I wouldn't even ask them if they wanted to try some. This would infuriate my boss! You don't say No on their behalf, he would say. Let them say No if they want to.
Also, you talk about the willingness to accept infrastructure being introduced piecemeal but to a high standard. Okay, but why not pursue this strategy within the framework provided by a functioning cycle network?
@Arellcat @gembo @le_soigneur
Thank you all for your comments.
Simon
My problem with all this - and one of the reasons I've not commented much (despite it all being my fault) - is that I don't think arrows/signs help much on the ground either. They're okay for walkers, but I'm less convinced for cycling. Proper infrastructure/networks should make it obvious where to go, without the need for careful perusing of signs such as those in the other post.
CCE has hired a new 'sign expert' (probably seconded from sustrans...) so maybe these signs will be better than the old signs, but I have yet to be convinced.
Arrows help me but in my experience if two or more people in your group this helps with arrow spotting
Gembo - fine if you're out for a weekend tour, but not much use if you're trying to get somewhere for a meeting.
I never did write up my attempt to get to/from the tram depot. Classic case of a new building, which hot to be easy to get to, but isn't.
Any unfamiliar route is best done with a guide who knows the way then you can work it out as you go along.
Spokes maps are great too
SRD - I have to disagree. I think signs do have a part to play in converting people. When I transitioned from a car driver to cyclists one of the things I struggled with is route choice.
Too many years of getting round town on the main roads mean that they are now my default choice when heading somewhere. It takes time to retrain the mind into thinking of the quiet back routes.
I see a similar attitude in potential recruits who think the only way from town to the West is along the busy A8 St John's Road -. Completely missing the quiet family network.
But here is the key point for me - the signed routes have to be good enough quality that people have a good experience when they use them. If they get lost because of poor signage or come across poor infrastructure then the trust in the sign postings will evaporate and they'll just return to the main roads or give up completely.
SRD,
I don't think arrows/signs help much on the ground. They're okay for walkers, but I'm less convinced for cycling. It should be obvious where to go, without the need for careful perusing of signs such as those in the other post.
Do you mean arrows/signs such as in this post here?
Proper infrastructure/networks should make it obvious where to go.
I guess you have seen this blog from bicycledutch?
Sara, I'm talking about where to start, not where to end up. There's no doubt in your mind about where to end up, I am sure, but do you have a plan to explain how best to get there?
There are literally just two options: top-down (global or holistic) or bottom-up (adjustment or piecemeal). Are you saying you favour the second option? If so, please be advised that, according to Cycling: the way ahead, it is possible to "go much further than a strictly pragmatic and ad hoc approach", and moreover, "the existence of a plan increases the effectiveness of each intervention made in favour of cycling by the mutual consolidation of the various measures taken or features installed."
Regarding the inexpensive and simple-to-implement measures I am proposing in the short-term, Cycling: the way ahead says:
Given their low cost, the small amount of extra work which they entail and the possibilities of corrections in the case of error, such measures may be adopted automatically. Even if their impact is not massive, it will be real (improvement of cyclists’ comfort, raising the awareness of motorists, encouraging the mass of non-cyclists who are most likely to take up cycling again).
Steffen Rasmussen (City of Copenhagen) said in his testimony to the Greater London Authority: "The key word is an holistic approach and then a separation of functions." (This was the very first thing he said, incidentally.)
Are you basically saying, Okay, but I don't believe this approach would work in the UK? If so, what makes you think this?
Edit: just remembered this blog of yours. Quotes We need joined-up infrastructure close quotes. How can we get joined-up without a network plan?
"In Portland (which is only just a little bit bigger than Edinburgh), the cycling modal share went from 1.8% in 2000 to 6.3% in just eleven years, an increase of 350%. In large part, this was achieved with basically just a "bare bones" infrastructure."
All things are possible if there is political/officer and popular will.
I've watched Portland for a while and been impressed with some of the things they've attempted and achieved.
A lot is down to key individuals wanting to do things.
Perhaps the political governance system makes a difference -
"
The city of Portland is governed by the Portland City Council, which includes the Mayor, four Commissioners, and an auditor.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portland,_Oregon
"
Every year, the city gets millions of dollars from gas taxes and parking revenue to spend as it sees fit on transportation construction. The portion going to bike projects, the mayor told the crowd at the Bicycle Transportation Alliance's Alice Awards, would jump from 4 to 17 percent in the next city budget. "Seventeen!" Adams said, repeating the percentage as the applause grew.
"
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/05/portland_mayor_sam_adams_boost.html
Sam Adams Mayo
As the latest spokes bulletin shows, edinburgh is an excellent example of where plans still don't result in joined up infrastructure.
"where plans still don't result in joined up infrastructure."
Which was one of the key motivations behind the motion in Jim Orr's name -
"
2. Identify whether it is necessary to take more steps to “mainstream” the support and promotion of cycling and active travel across the council.
"
http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11820#post-136083
Not sure that "support" adequately covers what is needed.
Whether the departure of Mr. Orr takes the pressure off whoever has been charged with implementing this remains to be seen.
When I transitioned from a car driver to cyclists one of the things I struggled with is route choice.
Too many years of getting round town on the main roads mean that they are now my default choice when heading somewhere. It takes time to retrain the mind into thinking of the quiet back routes.
You know, for the princely sum of £5.95 you can buy a Spokes map of Edinburgh. It folds easily to be stowed in pocket, bar bag or pannier. On it are marked all the busy roads (red); quiet roads (yellow); off road paths; cycle lanes; and even bike shops. It also has handy chevron markings on roads to show where there are steep hills.
To some extent of course any paper map will become out of date as new off-road paths/shared use pavements sprout around Edinburgh. Progress in this area has been modest though. My edition is about 10 years old but still largely accurate. Even though I know my way around most of the city now, it is still handy to consult when I'm in a less familar part of town. There are also West Lothian, East Lothian, Midlothian and Glasgow maps.
Really I think the Spokes maps are very handy for all kinds of cyclists, but especially for those who don't know which are the quiet roads, which have cycle lanes, etc., or where are the off road paths.
I've watched Portland for a while and been impressed with some of the things they've attempted and achieved.
There's definitely much to admire about Portland. The amount of information they make available online as well is incredible — succeed or fail, good or bad, it's all there.
It's worth noting that their first Bicycle Master Plan, launched in 1973, did not accomplish much. And so
In the spring of 1994, members of the City’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and staff from the Bicycle Program hosted a series of 12 two-hour public forums which were attended by over 600 people. At each of these forums, participants discussed the good and the not-so-good features of bicycling in Portland. The most prevalent view was that isolated cycle facilities may get all the kudos, but it was the lack of connections between these facilities that was the cause of the greatest frustration.
They launched another Bicycle Master Plan in 1996. This is the one that bore most of the fruit.
"
do not base policies about walking and cycling on the views and experiences of existing committed cyclists and pedestrians
"
http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12328&replies=2#post-144911
As heard on Radio 4 -
"
Backcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present.[1] The fundamental question of backcasting asks: "if we want to attain a certain goal, what actions must be taken to get there?"
"
Beautiful.
@ chdot
Did you write that wiki entry by chance?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts