£14 million this year (£23 million over two years). Quite a few Edinburgh, Lothians, Borders and Fife projects funded, especially in the current year.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Sustrans Community Link funding announced
(22 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Edinburgh projects (2014/15):
Edinburgh (City of) Council 2,810,000 (also 1,800,000 in 2015/16)
Family Network Signage (City-wide) £40,000
Innocent Railway Path via the Meadows to the Union Canal Cycle Route £500,000
Leith to Portobello (Links Pl to Constitution St) £125,000
Leith Walk Improvements £1,800,000
(Another £1,800,000 allocated to Leith Walk in 2015/16)
Roseburn Path to Union Canal £75,000
Roseburn to Leith Walk via George St. £75,000
The Causey project £75,000
NCN 1 Improvements (A90 Path) £120,000Edinburgh Napier University £25,412
Edinburgh College/Edinburgh Napier Bankhead Avenue Access £25,412
Posted 11 years ago # -
Other local/regional projects:
East Lothian Council 69,000
Broxburn to Whitesands Linking Path 39,000
Smeaton Bing Cycleway 30,000Fife Council 1,200,000 (also 1,245,000 in 2015/16)
Cycle Dunfermline 500,000 605,000 (2015/16)
Cycle Glenrothes 575,000 555,000 (2015/16)
Lochgelly to Ballingry Cycle Route 85,000 85,000 (2015/16)
Nicol Street crossing and cycleway, Kirkcaldy 40,000Midlothian Council 50,000 (also 50,000 in 2015/16)
B6392 Dalhousie Road - Footpath Widening (NCR1) 50,000
Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Eskbank - Cycle/footpath links to Eskbank Station 50,000 (2015/16)Scottish Borders Council 194,000
Borders Rail 1 - Tweedbank Drive to New Rail Station 72,500
Borders Rail 2 - Galafoot Link 20,000
Borders Rail 3 - Winston Road 35,000
Borders Rail 4 - Low Buckholmside 26,000
Borders Rail 6 - Kilnknowe Caravan Park 33,000
Innerleithen - Walkerburn Shared Access Route 7,500West Lothian Council 755,000 (also 1,055,000 in 2015/16)
Almondvale Park Corridor 400,000 400,000 (2015/16)
B8084 Whitburn to Armadale - Cyclepath Provision 10,000 300,000 (2015/16)
Bathgate Hills - Cycling/Walking Friendly Roads 5,000 5,000 (2015/16)
Blackridge NCN75 Realignment and Access to Station 20,000 130,000 (2015/16)
Broxburn Links to Union Canal Towpath 5,000 90,000 (2015/16)
Golf Coarse Road & Braehead Park Links to Union Canal Linlithgow 5,000 25,000 (2015/16)
Linlithgow Academy & Sports Centre Links to Union Canal Towpath 150,000
Livingston Network - Wheeling Ramps to Steps 5,000 10,000 (2015/16)
Polbeth to West Calder - Upgrade Cyclepath 5,000 95,000 (2015/16)
Starlaw West Roundabout to Boghall Roundabout - Cyclepath Provision 150,000Posted 11 years ago # -
Obviously this is good as it's 'new money' for cycling (presume councils have to match 50/50)
And as it was a bidding process it's what the Cycle Team sees as the priorities.
Some things like Innocent to Canal has been a 'priority' for ever!
With £1/2m available there should be something pretty decent and (I hope) not too many 'traffic flow' compromises!
Presumably "Roseburn to Leith Walk via George St. £75,000" is for some sort of feasibility study - unless they have missed out a 0 - OR they are going to try the experimental paint&planter strategy??
Posted 11 years ago # -
With £1/2m available there should be something pretty decent and (I hope) not too many 'traffic flow' compromises!
Presumably CEC has another £500k match funding? So £1 million project in total.
Presumably "Roseburn to Leith Walk via George St. £75,000" is for some sort of feasibility study
Again, with match funding presumably £150k project?
OR they are going to try the experimental paint&planter strategy??
Could be...
Posted 11 years ago # -
So Edinburgh is spending as much on signs as almost all of the spending by Midlothian!
Posted 11 years ago # -
One council notable by its absence on the funding list: Angus. Some nice quiet roads round there suitable for cycling, but also some busy, fast A roads which are horrible to ride.
Posted 11 years ago # -
All good. Some money to improve existing off road routes. Some money for creating off road link or safer route? Eg innocent to union canal, roseburn to leith walk
West Lothian £400k for almonvale park corridor. Wow. A fair bit of that vast and deserted country park is cyclable now. Getting there can be done on NCN75 but with this money you would hope more visitors could be attracted. It is the sort of place that could have lots of different circuits.
Similarly roseburn path to union canal £75k. Can be done already by taking stairs down to lower WoL path and cutting through murrayfield then steps back up to union canal.
Would be nice to see all the different circuits in Edinburgh linked, I know brother of guy wanting to do that. Easy to get from the one in Holyrood park via innocent to one at Jack Kane Centre?
Posted 11 years ago # -
@gembo, £800k over two years. If WL council match 50/50 then that is £1.6 million in total!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Could run from Blackburn to kirkliston for that, with link to union canal at cliftonhall with large bike lift to get you up onto the acqueduct.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Moving the cycle path away from the road and into the park to encourage cycling"
http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/tourism/495/AlmondvaleParkStudy
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Lighting and decorating the underpasses to make them feel safer and more welcoming"
Posted 11 years ago # -
I wonder if what the local authorities proposed would be FOIable. I can't see why not. I'm particularly interested in some of the councils that have got tiny amounts and would like to know if they were unlucky or suggested rubbish/nothing.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Similarly roseburn path to union canal £75k. Can be done already by taking stairs down to lower WoL path and cutting through murrayfield then steps back up to union canal."
crucial point is to make it accessible to families. i believe plan is for a link from russell rd to harrison road (or thereabouts).
£75k probably just scoping? looking at millions to do properly. but done properly would open up a huge swathe of the city to all cyclists. amazing potential.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Also from Sustrans (previously) -
"
Finally while we are happy with the overall approach taken in the LTS we believe that some more radical policies are likely to be needed to achieve the Council’s aspiration to reduce car journeys to 31% of all trips by 2020. For instance we think the Council should be more proactive in reducing on- street parking and reallocating the carriageway space for the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians. This is particularly important in the Council’s plans for the City Centre as laid out in section 4.1. We doubt if the 5 bullet point objectives stated on page 12 can be met without a significant reduction in on- street parking, which is often a barrier to creating high-quality cycle facilities in urban areas. As such we believe that policy Park9 (pg 56) does not go far enough and that the Council should commit to a policy to reduce on-street parking in the city centre rather than just to “consider less on-street parking” at the same time as improving cycling and walking facilities. This is necessary to make it easy to cycle both to and through the City Centre as the Council proposes in its plans for the Family Cycle Network set out in the ATAP.
"
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/scotland/policy/LTS%20Response.pdf
Posted 11 years ago # -
Well you've got to hand it to the ENews subs for increasing controversy (and potentially danger to vulnerable road users).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Of course I don't (usually) read the comments - there are currently only six.
Question is do they take their cue from headline writers or is EN merely pandering to its constituency?
Either way it really is time 'Edinburgh's local paper' was a bit more positive about things that made Scotland's Capital a bit more pleasant to live in.
Posted 11 years ago # -
A few quick comments/points...
1. Obviously great to see many of these projects moving forward, but to clear up any misunderstanding this is not new government funding - it is an announcement by Sustrans as to how existing govt Community Links funding will be allocated.
2. There will be a further bidding round next year (in addition to money already allocated for 15/16). However the amount of money available next year will be less than this year, unless govt puts in more funding. The overall picture is in the small table on page 6 of Spokes 117. Hopefully PoP will help maintain the pressure for more money, though unfortunately the government doesn't start thinking about the next budget much until the autumn, 5 months or so after PoP.
3. The Sustrans table does not make clear that some of the sums allocated are for design, not construction. I'm certain this is the case in Edinburgh for the £75k Roseburn to Canal, for example, and for Roseburn to Leith Walk. I agree with @SRD...
"£75k probably just scoping? looking at millions to do properly. but done properly would open up a huge swathe of the city to all cyclists. amazing potential." [presumably they will scope out options before designing, but for a top solution we are presumably talking bridges over the rail lines]4. In terms of comparing what different councils have got, it is important to remember that this is just one year's allocation. Some councils will have a huge project one year, then very little another year, so just because council A gets much more than B in one particularly year does not necessarily say a great deal about their long-term commitment or capability. This is also a big factor in the Spokes table of how much each council puts of their own funding into cycling [Spokes 117, page 7] - councils, especially small councils, can rise and fall drastically from year to year in the table.
5. Evening News - the article itself sounds ok, it is just the headline that is unfortunate - a common problem, with headlines usually written not by the writer of the article.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"russellelly: I wonder if what the local authorities proposed ...". Others would be interested too
"to know if they were unlucky or suggested rubbish/nothing". What schemes were rejected by Sustrans/Transport Scotland and why?One of the problems of match-funding is that it can only go to those who can match it - the rich get richer and the poor stay the same.
A bidding process, rather than an allocation, means that unproductive work has to be done for bids that are going to lose.
And did bids have to be in before Councils knew what they'll be getting from the Scottish Government to spend on cycling?Posted 11 years ago # -
As ever DdF condenses the 'bigger picture'/context and illuminates the general landscape.
Or (not quite what DdF says) 'not enough money, and planned/spent in a slightly random fashion'.
I don't know how much behind the scenes 'direction' there is (presumably by Sustrans) to 'suggest' that some routes/proposals would be favoured over others as part of a picture beyond the boundaries of individual councils - and 'joining bits up'.
Notoriously (and perhaps understandably) CEC has been reluctant to do many 'cross-border' routes. Of course an argument is 'not many people cycle into/out of Edinburgh'. Well...
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
