I worked for CEC for many years and this is the best understanding I came to. The mistake is to think of the Council as a single entity. It is actually a group of autonomous organisations operating under a single name. There is almost no mechanism for communicating a planning priority from one to another at an operational level. Joined up thinking only happens when a "corporate" decision is taken, for example regarding the Council-wide response to the Equality Act. Also official recognition of anything non-statutory is anathema. It would commit a department to providing training to its staff for example. However, within departments, money is attached to initiatives and policies and is sloshing about. It only needs someone in that department to think of a use for it and ask. Mind you I was in Social Work which was considered a bit of a law unto itself.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Events, rides etc.
Mon 24 March: Spokes Spring public meeting
(66 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
"It is not the little things, like a dropped kerb here or there that make the difference."
Yes and no. These are useful in themselves and symptomatic of the way the council doesn't have a joined-up-strategy-thing.
"Its things like speed and volume of motor traffic, that really make a difference."
Yes, and that was clearly the message of the professor and he had evidence in support.
Most politicians don't (seem to) believe people that want walking/cycling. He said 'ask people if they want reduced speed limits, safer cycling 'facilities' etc. and they say yes. Ask politicians what they think people want and the politicians tend to think that voters are primarily motorists'.
Change is inhibited by politicians fearing that they will be changed (ie not re-elected). This seems to be based on what the Daily Mail/Evening News/etc. say people want, when in fact they are reflecting the interests of the car and oil lobbies.
"One of the major drivers of the increase in cycling we have seen in the last few years in Edinburgh is due to the trams. The tram works made in difficult (in some cases almost impossible) to drive into some parts of the centre of town. The result was a drop in the level of motor traffic entering the city. With the ending of the tram works, CEC missed a real opportunity to keep the traffic out and instead has a policy of "drive into Deadinburgh". The effect of this policy will be to knock cycling and walking back, whilst increasing congestion, a really fail:fail solution."
Yes, but it's worse than that in the sense that CEC COMPLETELY failed to use the tram as signalling the 'New Edinburgh Order' where walking and cycling and reduced car access would continue after the tramwork stopped.
Instead there was constant 'we're sorry for the delay, we'll get things back to the way they were before'.
I'm sure it's useful if 'we' and Spokes members at the meeting write to councillors (as Andrew Burns suggested) to try to persuade them that 'active travel' (inc public transport) is 'a good thing' BUT the simple fact is that most of them are part of the Coalition which already has policies for all this stuff - and they need to be implemented - and Andrew Burns is the Leader of the coalition and the council.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
25/03/2014 11:38
.@CyclingEdin @AndrewDBurns @adamrmcvey Council ATAP 2020 cycle targets (page 32) 15% of work trips; 10% all trips (but Ch of Brussels 15%!)"
Posted 10 years ago # -
CEC COMPLETELY failed to use the tram as signalling the 'New Edinburgh Order' where walking and cycling and reduced car access would continue after the tramwork stopped.
Every junction on the Gyle cycle walking route is circuitous and promotes conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at traffic lights. I found it so frustrating that I just used road on way back.
Cllr Burns quite rightly enjoys the improved NMW path as part of his cycle to work. This is spacious and allows plenty of room for both modes to mix. Even if people walk on cycle part it's easy to go round so it's all very relaxed. Contrast with the entrance to Forrest Road which is very conflicted. (Although CEC are repainting white lines)
Prof Pooley did deliver a talk of interest pointing out that today's motorist is really the logical successor to the personal mobility offered by cycling in the pre-war years.
Basically I started cycling because I reckoned that it was less hassle than pushing my daughter around in a pram. His 'obstacles to cycling' observations were good - storage, safety, self image. Was bit surprised that he reckoned motorists are not affected by 'congestion' charges. Peak fare charges do work on public transport but maybe the users of these systems already feel that their fares are punitive? (Not TfE as they are good value).
Car use even at speeds slower than cycling still offers shelter, security, entertainment and eating options. Car users are masters of their own destiny even if that is only to sit in long queues burning fuel.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I had wondered whether the apparently high use of bicycles and walking during the 1930s and 1940s was because it was War, and there was rationing of everything. I suppose that ultimately it comes back to the simple affordability of things. The effect of 'motorway mania' in the 1960s was painfully apparent in Prof. Pooley's slide, but that mania was probably a response to providing for the popular mode of transport, which rather insiduously affected almost everyone.
But humans are inherently lazy, and labour saving devices are attractive whatever the cost. I could walk, but I cycle because it's faster and less tiring. I could cycle, but sometimes I ride a motorbike because it's faster and less tiring. I could ride a motorbike, but sometimes I take the train because it's faster and less tiring.
Two people I know who are both retired own Bromptons and never use them. They would rather drive, despite the cost of fuel, because every car journey is an 'essential' one: you take the car for the one or two essential activities and then justify it all by contriving other things to do while you're using it. Just go shopping, and use a bike trailer for it? "No. Pedalling a bike up hills is too much like hard work and I'd get all sweaty because I'm all unfit, because I'm too unfit to exercise."
But Prof. Pooley also talked about barriers to cycling (and walking), and those barriers will be general in some cases and location-specific in others. Why is cycling in Edinburgh on the up when our city is full of hills?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Spokes will be putting full presentation on-line, but in meantime here are some of the slides -
Posted 10 years ago # -
And perhaps the most important slide -
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Arellcat why do cities like Zurich and Dublin, which as hill if not hillier than Edinburgh, have much higher cycling rates? It is not topography. Nor is it poverty, they good Berger of Zurich don't ride bicycles to get about because they can't afford to drive...
Posted 10 years ago # -
As for poor implementation, I suspect it's because very few (perhaps none) of the turkey's who are responsible for putting the "infrastructure" in actually cycle themselves. Getting more of these guys on bikes might lead to them thinking about what they are doing. A virtuous circle. So, CEC, give the workers cargo bikes rather than vans.
I had a very brief look at the draft Edinburgh street design guidance that Andrew Burns mentioned a couple of days ago. It looks really promising from a quick flick through. But implementation is key.
Posted 10 years ago # -
There's been quite a few mentions in historic threads of the inability of the council to "reach" places on the cycle paths as they couldn't get Transit vans down it.
As PS says, a few cargobikes would sort that out (and save them plenty on fleet costs)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Andrew Burns' blog
http://andrewburns.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/understanding-cycling.html
For those who think blogs are about shouting opinion, Andrew's in an interesting case study in how to blog without ever expressing an opinion. Unless it be about poetry. He's a clever man.
Posted 10 years ago # -
On another thread, chdot commented:
And/or - as suggested at Monday's Spokes meeting politicians believe what they think people want.As in 'people like the idea of encouraging walking/cycling, 20mph etc. but (too many) politicians think that such things are "vote losers" '.
This made me wonder why politicians think it's a vote-loser?
City Centre wards have very high proportions of people who walk to work, to the shops, to services. And the harrumphing about the risk of increased traffic or ratrunning in the New Town is pretty standard, so it looks like a no-brainer for councillors to back living streets measures. Maybe some retailers get a bit shirty, but that's a small proportion of the vote (and chances are they don't live in the relevant ward).
Perhaps it's more of an issue in the outer wards? But I work in the city centre and very few of my colleagues drive to work - public transport or walking are the top commute methods by far. So anything that improves access to, and movement around, the city centre by those modes (and perhaps even cycling) would surely be seen as a good thing.
Do politicians just follow the "we fear change" mantra when assessing policy? If so, what are they in politics for?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Who.votesin local govt. Elections? Thirty per cent turn out felt to be high. Is it just new town bike hating railings man and EEN journalist shopping by car for school clothes?in my ward the turnouts is high but the voters go straight along party lines.
When the congestion charge was mooted in Edinburgh there was great opposition as would have incurred a charge going from Balerno to juniper green. The buses are frequent and free for many of the electorate but at the time the right to drive a car was very strong. It still is. IMO driving a car should be a privilege that incurs costs. This is actually the situation now with fuel, depreciation, VED and parking fees but anything that infringes on this such as better facilities for cyclists is seen as a vote loser by many politicians. Andrew Burns is therefore trying to quietly introduce better facilities without drawing attention to himself.this stops EEN doing piece on him and his crazy hobby.
Personally, I think changes are happening if very slowly. The council is also building on previous improvements and not resting on its laurels. We should acknowledge this whilst keeping up the pressure.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Do politicians just follow the "we fear change" mantra when assessing policy?"
Seems so!
"If so, what are they in politics for?"
Good question.
OK I'm biased, but I think it's pretty clear (from a wide range of research sources) that encouraging walking/cycling is good for people - their health, environment etc. ALSO medium/long term savings on road repairs, NHS etc. etc.
So even if such ideas were 'not popular' that's for politicians to lead public opinion on.
BUT seems public opinion (at least in Edinburgh) is ahead of them!
Posted 10 years ago # -
@kim
Dublin is flat compared to edinburgh
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ gembo
I was thinking that too. I haven't been far from the centre too much admittedly, but the only moderately uphill section I can think of was heading towards Croke Park, and that was nothing compared to the hills here.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Did he have anything particular to say about the 4th picture in the "Changing the Image of Cycling" slide?
;-)Posted 10 years ago # -
Yeah, Phoenix park has some rolling hills of a very modest nature and there is a hillside at Howth which is as far north as the DART goes. Maybe also beyond Bray which is as Far south as the DART goes there are the Wicklow Hills, I think maybe Samuel Beckett lived up that way as a boy. The mouth of the Liffey that Dublin has been built on is wide and flat.
Zurich may have more hills, I have not been. I have a beer mat from the James Joyce pub in that city. Shuts at 9pm. I am a James Joyce fan and he is buried in the Fluntern Cemetry in Zurich but never seriously been tempted to go. Did go to Galway to the Nora Barnacle museum very nice town.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Did he have anything particular to say about the 4th picture in the "Changing the Image of Cycling" slide?
;-)He did. With a rueful smile. Something like he was aware that its source advert had caused some controversy, but the picture it presented was an improvement on most people's image of cycling.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Can we please stop going on about the red herring of hilly cities. Sure, it's easier to cycle in flat cities, but the lack of cycling in Edinburgh is by far and away down to the fact that no meaningful on-road infrastructure has been built to encourage cycling in the city's history. Until on-road infrastructure is taken seriously by the Council, and I hope that the message is slowly getting through, then any hope of a cycling boom is forlorn. Needless to say, the good Professor pressed this point home. Speed limits are coming down, but on their own won't prpoerly encourage cycling.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I should say, that the other thing that was discussed a lot was actually restricting car usage in the city centre. I asked about this as well. I think there's a real case to made for, in the first instance, pedestrianising (with cycling allowed) the Old Town between the West Port, Princes St, the Bridges and at least Chambers St.
Posted 10 years ago # -
the lack of cycling in Edinburgh is by far and away down to the fact that no meaningful on-road infrastructure
Agree with you, Graeme. "It's too hilly" is a knee-jerk response on a par with "the weather's too bad".
Having to cycle up a hill is a much more fearful thing when combined with heavy traffic. I suspect Leith Street on its own is enough to put a lot of people off the idea of cycling. However, give people segregated infra and a knowledge of gearing and the hills become much less of an issue.
And your pedestrianisation idea is pretty much what we'd have if we were in any progressive European city.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Can we please stop going on about the red herring of hilly cities. Sure, it's easier to cycle in flat cities, but the lack of cycling in Edinburgh is by far and away down to the fact that no meaningful on-road infrastructure has been built to encourage cycling in the city's history.
Absolutely. And part of people's "fear" of hills is that they don't want to be having to pedal slowly up a hill with a lorry or a queue of impatient cars right behind them. A segregated path up a hill is far less daunting prospect.
Posted 10 years ago # -
PS & Stickman, yes, absolutely. I cycle my road bike fast and going up Cramond Road South (currently the diversion for NCN1) even for me is deeply unpleasant (and I used to be a courier, for goodness sake!). The idea that a family or under-confident cyclists will just get on their bikes if we use words is ridiculous. The evidence from the Professor based on extensive questionnaires and shadowing people's trips is that unless they feel unthreatened by traffic and safe they won't cycle.
Posted 10 years ago # -
For 'under-confident cyclists' of course I just mean 'folk'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
And part of people's "fear" of hills is that they don't want to be having to pedal slowly up a hill with a lorry or a queue of impatient cars right behind them. A segregated path up a hill is far less daunting prospect.
Absolutely!
Most people have bikes which allow them to get up most any hill at a slow and comfortable pace, but are obliged to do it with motor traffic up their tails at a minimum of 20mph and most likley trying to weave around potholes, parked vehicles and other obstructions.
See also Liberton Brae, where the council have helpfully provided a "cycle lane" that you can sometimes see under the parked cars as you are forced into the door zone by passing motor vehicles as you toil slowly up hill.
Posted 10 years ago # -
What I've never seem answered is how do the Dutch deal with the dangers posed by cyclists going downhill? Even I do 25mph+ on the road bike and I will brake when I get to about 30.
Posted 10 years ago # -
What I've never seem answered is how do the Dutch deal with the dangers posed by cyclists going downhill? Even I do 25mph+ on the road bike and I will brake when I get to about 30.
They'd think you were jolly irresponsible. Unfortunately in this country, we don't seem to differentiate between fast cycling and wheeled pedestrians, primarily because we have an environment which excludes wheeled pedestrians completely. No-one cycling in a Dutch or Danish city would cycle that fast on cycle lanes. If you want to cycle that fast in the city you'd go on the road.
Posted 10 years ago # -
" I think there's a real case to made for, in the first instance, pedestrianising (with cycling allowed) the Old Town between the West Port, Princes St, the Bridges and at least Chambers St."
Once again, violent agreement from me on this one.
I'm the son of a geographer and I have inherited my dad's love and fascination with maps - old, new, whatever. I can spend hours poring over a map, even of an unfamiliar place. If it's somewhere I know then I can get lost in a map all day (often to my wife's exasperation). One of my little pleasures is pondering ideas like this*. It could so easily be done if there was the will or the bravery.
*although I realise that there was a thread along these lines which ended very badly recently!
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
