CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

"extensive facilities for cyclists" (and expensive too!) - St. James 'Quarter'

(126 posts)

No tags yet.


1…345

  1. PS
    Member

    This is promising:
    Plans for the huge St James Quarter will see surrounding pavements widened and roadside barriers removed in a move to transform the busy thoroughfare into a more pedestrian-friendly district.

    It is thought the streetscape overhaul will eliminate the need for an aerial footbridge.

    Martin Perry, a director at Henderson Global Investors – the firm behind St James Quarter – said Leith Street would be returned to its former glory.

    “The top of Leith Street used to be one of the busiest shopping areas in Edinburgh and Scotland,” he said

    “Our ambition is to restore it as a high-quality shopping hub and as a vibrant link between the city centre, Picardy Place and Leith.

    “The vision we share with the council is to see roads and pavements renewed and the restoration of shopping at ground floor level on the West side of Leith Street."

    It would be reassuring to hear that dedicated cycling facilities are planned to increase that vibrancy vibe and footfall.

    The Council is trying to facilitate coordination of Leith Walk improvements, Picardy Place/St James Quarter and St Andrews Square - Iain MacPhail gave a brief talk on this to the New Town & Broughton Community Council earlier this week. He made all the right noises (order of priority is 1) pedestrians 2) Cyclists 3) public transport 4) motor cars) but proof of the pudding...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. PS
    Member

    A bit of an update from the Spurtle:
    Here

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    Interesting.

    Will CEC be 'involved' or have rings run round??

    (Or both.)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    how confusing to use TH as an abbreviation of "TIAA Henderson Real Estates" when referring constantly to Thistle Hotels in the same story! The baffling case of TH vs. TH.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. kaputnik
    Moderator

    TRAFFIC

    The new St James Quarter could have 1,650 car parking spaces. Two-thirds of entries and one-third of exits are projected to be via York Place. One-third of entries and two-thirds of exits are projected to be via Leith Street. Residents would have a discrete entry/exit onto Picardy Place.

    A new pedestrian crossing would connect the St James Centre to the Greenside car park across Leith Street.

    Little King Street would be reserved for pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrians and dismounted cyclists could cross through the St James Quarter 24 hours a day.

    Sounds like another Multrees Walk of private "off yer bike" streets.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "how confusing to use TH as an abbreviation"

    Most!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "

    It is understood proposals to extend the terminus from York Place to McDonald Road – a distance of around half-a-mile – have arisen after developers behind the £850m St James Quarter offered more money to the city in contributions than was originally expected. They previously offered to pay for a transport hub as far as Picardy Place.

    "

    http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13830

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    I'm in favour of even a short extension, as personally it would bring the tram usefully near to where I live. Walking distance (or a short bike hop off-peak?).

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. dougal
    Member

    So one day, in the future, it might be possible to leave the train station by Calton Road and get to Leith without going back to Princes Street first.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Plans to make the £850 million St James Quarter a cycle-friendly hub have been praised by campaigners, who say the development will help link-up disjointed city-centre bike routes.

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13886

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/st-james-square-flats-to-be-restored-1-3606096

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/plans-for-st-james-quarter-tenements-unveiled-1-3639855

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. Fountainbridge
    Member

    What are the chances of this turning in to another Caltongate, SOCO or Omni Centre development? What's to stop the site being demolished and sitting empty for 10 years? As far as I'm aware they've not even submitted an outline planning application.

    Whenever a developer offers to do something more than what they absolutely have to, they have an ulterior motive.

    I'm guessing by moving the York Place tram stop it will increase the throughput of the overall junction, and possibly increase capacity on York Place / bus station junction. That will form one of the main access points to the development.

    Original plan for Picardy Roundabout public transport interchange

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. neddie
    Member

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/st-james-quarter-more-flesh-bones

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    So I clicked on

    "

    Illustrative Masterplan Addendum Part 2: Transport. Illustrative routes through and around the development.

    "

    and got -

    "

    Document Unavailable
    This document is unavailable for viewing at this time.

    "

    Hope it's a temporary problem!...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. UtrechtCyclist
    Member

    Broughton Spurtle say they're having problems with the links, but everything is available from https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NGU1HAEWI4900

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. neddie
    Member

    Disposal of Council-owned and inalienable Common Good land to the developer of the St James Quarter

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/st-james-quarter-council-land-deals-go-committee

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. Tulyar
    Member

    Why can't Common Good Land be leased?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. gembo
    Member

    On skimming this, it looks like the pedestrian cut through is it james craig walk? From bus station to what was HMV, that gave you the view of NSAH carbuncle is to be acquired by the council but leased back to the developer for a pound a year. There is still some housing in this little area? However the lanes round the back that only ever saw use when bus station closed are to be sold. I guess these are the vehicular access points?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. kaputnik
    Moderator

    On skimming this, it looks like the pedestrian cut through is it james craig walk?

    That's the one. The remaining bit of the back of George Square Georgian housing faces on to it, now a student prison apartments. I think the intention is to turf the student accomdation company out and restore the block as flats and offices.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Morningsider
    Member

    Tulyar - common good land can be leased. The Waverley Market site (Princes Square) is common good land. The Council didn't really negotiate that hard with the developers though though - rent of one pence a year for a 175 years seems a tad generous to me.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "

    “The masterplan is based on the creation of streets, squares and buildings, each with individual characters but brought together within a unified whole.”

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/how-st-james-revamp-will-change-edinburgh-1-3659292

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    Objections to be in on Friday.

    One particular issue is plan for Leith Street.

    From Spokes objection -

    "

    A) LEITH STREET

    [Transport Statement, 4.3] We object to the Leith Street proposals. Segregated cycle provision from Picardy Place up to Calton Road is welcome, but it must continue up to Waterloo Place, for Princes Street, not end at Calton Road.

    Given the very tight width constraints we appreciate that this means reducing motor traffic from 4 to 3 lanes, with only one lane either uphill or downhill, at least for some of the way. We note that reducing traffic lanes from 2 to 1 in order to install cycle facilities is what the Council has already done successfully at the Mound crossing of Princes Street – despite initially rejecting our suggestion of that, on the grounds of traffic modelling results.

    "

    More at -

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1501-St-James-Centre-Objection-PA-14_5263_AMC.pdf

    Background -

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/2015/01/leith-street-cycling-future-or-not/

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. Fountainbridge
    Member

    I've stuck my objection in. The plans are rather vague to comment on though. I noticed some existing pedestrian crossings had disappeared on certain plans.

    From a pedestrian point of view very little changes around the site unfortunately and definitely a missed opportunity.

    The developers say they'll be improving Leith Street and will no longer need the pedestrian bridge. Can't see how considering it's still 4 lanes wide and no extra pedestrian crossing points.

    Seems to me a way of removing easy access to the Omni Centre car park.

    A once in a generation opportunity to fix things - sadly not going to be this generation.

    ###############################

    With regards to the comment about loosing a lane on Leith street. At the moment there's only one lane at the top end of the street, opening out to 2 lanes further down. Theoretically the road could continue with one lane the entire way down towards Picardy without losing capacity.

    Up hill though there's 2 separate streams of traffic - towards North Bridge and traffic turning along Princes Street. The traffic turning right often becomes blocked. It should be possible to realign the road to allow 3 lanes plus bike.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. neddie
    Member

    The full report on the St James Qtr. decision is available here:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/47631/development_management_sub-committee_1_july_2015_full_meeting_papers

    From:
    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3711/development_management_sub-committee

    Section 3.3(i) (page 24 of the pdf) gives their response to transport matters.

    Section 3.3(l) (page 26 of the pdf) gives their response to the material objections.

    From the transport section:

    On Leith Street as far up as its junction with Calton Road, a segregated cycle route is proposed. Objectors would prefer this is continued to Princes Street. This is not possible at this time for three main reasons. Firstly, at its Princes Street junction, Leith
    Street is narrow. This restricts available space.

    But according to the Dutch experts who visited Edinburgh: "There is always room for cycle tracks"

    Secondly, the needs of other modes of transport have to be met. The street is a major north/south route through the city centre. It accommodates buses as well as cars and other vehicles. Bus lanes are
    needed to ensure that the public transport network can move as freely as possible. Once bus lanes are included, additional lanes are needed for vehicles other than buses, cycles and taxis.

    "vehicles other than buses, cycles and taxis" being (mostly single occupancy) private cars. So basically the needs of private cars are being put before those of cyclists, contrary to CEC's own hierarchy. And undoubtedly, the pavements could do with being widened to meet the needs of pedestrians.

    Combined with the pavements, this means that there is not enough space overall to provide a segregated cycle route within this part of the street. Cyclists will be able to use bus lanes.

    So tough, you'll just have to lump it with heavy machinery.

    Thirdly, the form of the building has planning permission as a result of the outline planning permission. Given this, and that it is appropriate to reinstate the building at this position on Leith Street from an historic environment perspective, it is not possible to make the street wider.

    While it may be possible to implement further measures to improve cycle accessibility along Leith Street in future, it is not possible at this time.

    So basically we can't be bothered doing it now, so we'll just leave that up to someone else to do & pay for, some time never.

    There is plenty of material in there for a blog post or two, I imagine (I don't blog, but hopefully some of the eloquent bloggers out there will write something about this completely lame transport/environmental response)

    Posted 8 years ago #

  26. neddie
    Member

    The Environmental Impacts section makes for interesting reading too (page 23):

    h) Environmental Impacts

    Air quality

    There are air quality impacts resulting from the car park...

    ...Environmental Assessment stated its opinion that certain elements of these proposals will produce adverse impacts on Local Air Quality. Environmental Assessment maintain this concern and would prefer the car park extracts are put at a higher level. Within the scope of the design proposed, such an approach is not possible. Taking into account
    that the decision on the outline planning permission took into account the air quality impacts, it is not reasonable to require further mitigation measures at this stage.

    Sorry, but I don't see how it "not possible" to vent the car park to higher level - these are called chimneys. They used to be built all over Edinburgh. Let them build the chimneys above the car park as monuments to the folly of CEC planners and environmental destruction, instead of trying to "cover up" the pollution issue by hiding the vents and dumping the noxious gases into the Leith St canyon.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  27. mgj
    Member

    Given the gradient of Leith Street, I'd rather have an enforced lane shared with buses rather than a narrow dedicated lane for bikes, both ways, especially after cycling from the foot of the walk.

    I think the planners were saying that there would be room for dedicated cycling lanes, bus lane and general use lane both ways only by shifting the road west into the development (ie towards where the King James hotel and John Lewis are); the other option is to take down the tenements - and I hope for the sake of a short section of dedicated bike lane we are not in a position of arguing for further demolition of perfectly good buildings.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  28. neddie
    Member

    @mgj

    CECs own transport hierarchy (highest priority first) is: pedestrian, bike, tram, bus, taxi, service vehicles, private car.

    It is cars that should be the first thing to be displaced in the event of a "lack of space".

    The solution is to remove one (or both) of the general traffic lanes. No need to demolish any historic buildings in order to accommodate cars.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  29. crowriver
    Member

    Ah yes. That would be "unpopular" though. So clearly impossible.

    Sorry cyclists, tough cheddar.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  30. kaputnik
    Moderator

    that it is appropriate to reinstate the building at this position on Leith Street from an historic environment perspective

    That's pretty convenient logic given the "historic environment perspective" didn't matter one bit when choosing the stone cladding of the development.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…345

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin