CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
"
Professor Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation added: “Drivers will baulk at the idea of paying yet more money to get about but the hard truth is that traffic and traffic jams are forecast to increase.”
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/congestion-charges-back-on-agenda-in-scotland-1-3482719
"
CITY council leader Andrew Burns today ruled out any fresh consideration of congestion charging for the Capital after the idea was raised in an official report on reviving city centres.
Road tolls – overwhelmingly rejected in a referendum in Edinburgh in 2005 – are among a raft of measures proposed by a Scottish Government-commissioned study headed by architect Malcolm Fraser.
...
He said: “In Edinburgh we have just approved the Local Transport Strategy on an all-party basis, which does not include the possibility of localised congestion charging.
"
Can't remember who it was, but I recently read a rather succinct response to someone complaining about traffic jams in the centre of town. It was along the lines of:
"Well, Edinburghers voted against a congestion charge so, in effect, they voted in favour of congestion."
Drivers will baulk at the idea of paying yet more money to get about but the hard truth is that traffic and traffic jams are forecast to increase
Surely the point in the congestion charge is that they don't pay it by not taking the car and taking an alternative i.e. walk, cycle, public transport. If everyone pays it and carries on driving anyway, it's a failed policy.
"Surely the point in the congestion charge is that they don't pay it by not taking the car and taking an alternative"
You're expecting human beings to be logical about their transport choices!
I did vote for the congestion charge, but in retrospect I'm not sure it's a good idea. It would have the effect of allowing access to a publicly funded good (road space in the city centre) on the basis of ability to pay. So everyone would contribute to the upkeep of the roads, but the rich would have preferential access, like in London.
I can't see rationing of city centre driving working, so Copenghagenisation - making access in a car possible but tedious - seems like the best option.
I'm in favour of CC.
It works in London (and a lot of other places).
It may be (partly) true that 'it favours the rich and penalises the poor', but that is not really a good argument. The really poor can't afford cars anyway!
I was against Edinburgh's last plan, partly on the details, but a lot to do (sadly) with my lack of faith in CEC's ability to deliver. Perhaps more due to the improbability of 'citizens voting for it'.
London (I think in Ken Livingston's time) wasn't forced to have a referendum like in Scotland (Jack McConnell?).
So it's completely reasonable that Andrew Burns doesn't want the hassle!
It's also important that CEC's Local Transport Strategy is fit for purpose and implemented 'properly'!
I did vote for the congestion charge, but in retrospect I'm not sure it's a good idea. It would have the effect of allowing access to a publicly funded good (road space in the city centre) on the basis of ability to pay. So everyone would contribute to the upkeep of the roads, but the rich would have preferential access, like in London.
I can't see rationing of city centre driving working, so Copenghagenisation - making access in a car possible but tedious - seems like the best option.
"making access in a car possible but tedious - seems like the best option"
Yes, but this is Edinburgh/Scotland/UK outside London!
Car access to Edinburgh is already possible but tedious!
Obviously we need more tedium - or, a different sort of tedium, where bicycles and pedestrians are also not penalised to an even greater extent than motor traffic.
Humm, maybe the congestion charge is the wrong approach, maybe we should just need end the other motoring subsidies and change the full commercial rate on parking instead, about £10/hr. Why it there so much free parking in the centre of our city? For that matter why is there so much car parking available? It just encourages people to try and drive in.
"Car access to Edinburgh is already possible but tedious!"
To some extent.
But there are still too many places to park in the city centre.
Especially at offices (otherwise there would be less traffic at 'rush' hour).
Revamped George Street has almost as much parking as before.
"where bicycles and pedestrians are also not penalised to an even greater extent than motor traffic."
Yeah that's the key!
As I was saying about the quality and implementation of the LTS.
"
Cllr. Andrew D Burns (@AndrewDBurns)
21/07/2014 11:22
@harts_cyclery @CyclingEdin @SpokesLothian Full LTS (for 2014-19) here: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/41869/item_no_7_2-local_transport_strategy_2014-2019
"
I suspect this EN comment is not an untypical thought -
"
infamous clarity
I don't think that the picture shows congestion at all, just a busy road with traffic moving freely. There's certainly no congestion as such in Edinburgh city centre either, just a couple of busy periods and the start and end of the working day. If all the road restrictions that have been 'experimented' in the city centre were removed we could get the traffic flowing freely at those busy periods too!
"
Plenty of junctions and roads exhibit true congestion from my viewpoint, even excepting those directly affected by rejiggled signal timings. In many places it's only the localised widening of roads into double-laned channels through junctions which prevents queues regularly backing up beyond preceding junctions.
If some restrictions were toothier/better arranged/monitored/enforced (delivering unloading loading parking in bus lanes during rush hours, for example) there'd already be a noticeable improvement in the Rate of Flow (PRAISE BE TO IT). It might be tricky to measure/monitor/enforce but something like single-occupancy penalties (rather than a universal vehicle-rated congestion charge) would specifically target the most selfish road-space-users but also affect the least number of people for the largest reduction in vehicles.
it's only the localised widening of roads into double-laned channels through junctions which prevents queues regularly backing up beyond preceding junctions. <-Very true. Unfortunate that this land-hungry approach to managing congestion also has the side-effect of meaning that "there isn't room for cycling infrastucture" on most of the key arteries into town...
I voted for the CC
sadly I deludely thought there was a chance of success
taking cars into city centres very British. Elsewhere tends to be mopeds.
there is some stealthy closing of George St, Prince St and Royal Mile so maybe this is the strategy?
most roads are still one accident away from gridlock. Many car drivers need to get past the bike so they can be stuck in the traffic ahead.
Behaviour change is what changes attitudes.
Although reducing office parking in the city centre might discourage some driving, I don't think it's a game changer.
At our office on the shore we have free parking for all staff yet we have a ~20% cycle to work rate.
IMO the central reason people cycle here is because of the ability to travel a large distance across town quickly and safely on NEPN, which ends not far away.
NEPN goes to show what a game-changer high speed continuous "long distance" (in relative terms) routes would be. Screwing around with a bit of paint that can easily be parked on, a la QBC, gets us nowhere.
"...it's only the localised widening of roads into double-laned channels through junctions which prevents queues regularly backing up beyond preceding junctions." <-Very true.
Only for as long as traffic stays at current levels. Roads that seemed so wide and quiet when new become busy and congested once everyone is using them, and a road has a natural capacity in vehicles per mile per minute based on interactions with junctions that allow vehicles to join the flow and others to leave the flow.
I voted for congestion charging. I still think that if the daily levy was tiered exponentially through the week, in combination with vehicles identified by ANPR, this would help moderate the numbers per day. Make it relatively convenient for occasional users and crushingly expensive for daily users.
My idling-time when waiting at junctions is often occupied with dreams of what you could achieve with data from city-wide ANPR logs.
I still think that if the daily levy was tiered exponentially through the week
Love it. Ties in with my notion of tiering vehicle excise duty by the fourth power of the axle loading to cover road repairs.
Love it. Ties in with my notion of tiering vehicle excise duty by the fourth power of the axle loading to cover road repairs.
And mine for the controlled zone parking permits to be a function of vehicle footprint, not nominal engine efficiency, to give owners of giant urban "Hybrid" assault vehicles* the wake-up kick in the wallet they sorely need.
* - what Alan Partridge would term "Lexi"
As everyone knows, congestion is cause by others.
At the Barnton junction there is a banner up saying 'stop gridlock here' and links to the campaign to stop the Cammo development.
The thing is everyone using that junction is already causing it to be congested. Even my bike causes a small amount of congestion to others (although much much less than if I'd have been in a car).
The mischievous self is tempted to scrawl something witty underneath it like 'get on your bike' but I don't think they would find it funny.
Rationing roads based on tedium also favours the rich, who tend to have much greater flexibility in when they start and finish work and whether they work from home or not. Price has at least the benefit of transparency which, with number plate recognition, can easily be tiered to reflect size (which contributes most to congestion) and emissions (which is a completely separate class of cost imposed on everyone else even by the poor drivers).
http://timharford.com/2012/05/congestion-tax-is-the-way-to-go/
Sorry
Maybe nothing has happened for 8 years, or there’s a newer thread…
“
URBAN road tolls are likely to be the most effective means for Scotland to cut car traffic in Scottish cities, as the Scottish Government aims to meet targets on climate emissions.
Sustainable transport charity Transform Scotland said that was a conclusion of research they commissioned by Edinburgh Napier University looking into the demand management measures that could reduce road traffic in Scotland.
“
“
NEW: Scottish businesses are ready to commit to traffic reduction
Our new report #TacklingTraffic outlines the role of the Scottish businesses in meeting @scotgov target to cut traffic by 20% by 2030.
https://transform.scot/2022/11/22/winning-business-support-for-traffic-reduction/
“
https://twitter.com/transformscot/status/1594974668477300736
Thread
“
England’s biggest cities outside London should introduce some form of congestion charge to reduce car traffic and boost their economies, according to the National Infrastructure Commission.
The commission called on the government to invest £22bn into public transport in Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol and Leeds, warning that “congested roads and inadequate public transport … constrains their economic growth”.
The NIC said that significant investment in intra-city links would not alone increase transport capacity, and measures such as congestion charging or workplace parking schemes would be needed to deter people from driving into the city centres.
“
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts