I am hearing reports of a section of cycle path in Inverleith Park which was put in a few months ago and has now been dug up on "safety" grounds. Any one know anything about this?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cycle path in Inverleith Park
(42 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Yes, I cycled through last night & the desire line path near the rose garden has gone. Bizarre & unaccountable decision. Before the path was there, the grass showed ample evidence most peds cut the corner anyway.
Posted 10 years ago # -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28446797
Face palm yet again
Posted 10 years ago # -
Interesting really. If the council can back down on this then we should be able to use it to get them to improve other paths they put in? Basically, they did not consult with anyone as it looks like the desire line was proof enough. However, the friends of Inverleith presumably used the lack of consultation to have the spur removed.
Not sure Kim's quotes in the article about the incompetence of council employees will win him any friends in the council. The evening news default position is to criticise the council.
Say CEC was replaced with an anarcho-syndicalist structure and you applied to the committee for some Tarmac to build your own path, where would you put it? I would go straight to WoL path and get it Tarmac but not even everyone on here agrees with that.
Council needs constructive criticism but quite easy to be seen as a nuisance caller if your way of trying to get a point across comes over too heavy?
spokes have patiently ploughed the furrow alongside the council and things are improving slowly. Great that individuals have knowledge and opinion but we need a joined up approach.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"we need a joined up approach"
- to walking/cycling/active travel/transport/etc.
But I don't think that's what you mean...
There's often a fine line between criticising in public and private and also 'welcoming' something that is less than good.
Spokes' method - "patiently ploughed the furrow alongside the council and things are improving slowly" - tends to work, but it's a judgement call (by them and others) whether to 'thank' CEC for things like QBC or point out (more strongly) its inadequacies.
On the actual park path, I suppose I must have cycled along it when I followed Route 20. I found a lot more 'issues' than whether or not to cut this corner!
On balance I am (probably) glad that CEC has listened to 'non-cycling interests'. The whole business of 'shared use' and how to deal with it is a mess - and a compromise. It's time CEC was more willing to 'compromise' (more often) when it comes to road space and 'sharing it out' between bikes and motor vehicles.
The path in the park was part of 'route improvements' to the "Craigleith to Botanic Garden Cycle Route". This involved dubious compromises outside the park.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"A small additional section of path within the Park has been removed following concerns from the public over cycle speeds and potential conflict with pedestrians."
A small additional section of road within Holyrood Park has been removed following concerns from the public over car speeds and potential conflict with pedestrians & cyclists."
FTFY
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yep, need more of that!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Compare and contrast with Trinity Crescent, discussed on the board yesterday where concerns about car speed and crashes are being addressed by widening and straightening the road.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Looks like another tacit admission from the Council that shared use does not work where people are using their bikes for A to B transport (but without any proposals to sort it out with a segregated facility).
I note that the roads around Inverleith Park are some of the widest in Edinburgh. More than ample room for proper on-road segregated cycle facilities, and yet...
Posted 10 years ago # -
has been removed following concerns from the public over cycle speeds and potential conflict with pedestrians.
So, no actual, real conflict? Just the potential?
I do get the feeling that every bit of council stupidity to do with cycling provision is now going to be justified by the cop-out "concerns from residents / the public / motorists" yadda yadda yadda. Odd how concerns from residents / the public / cyclists rarely seems to get such a rapid and concrete response from the council when it involves cars doing 40mph down residential streets.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"This has resulted in installed infrastructure such as the Inverleith Park/Carrington Road connection - and Seafield Street."
As mention in the Shared Use thread!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Seafield Street is really only saved from being hugely rubbish by it being a fairly quiet piece of pavement, pedestrianwise. It's merely "quite rubbish" instead.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Kim is right, the council do need a good roasting about this and their other incompetencies.
Good cop, bad cop tactics.
Posted 10 years ago # -
i haven't used Inverleith Park to cycle through for a few years, saw the installation from a foot perspective recently, and just thought, what a clumsy, wasteful piece of infrastructure, which added no safety to anyone.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think we need to patiently continue to point out where things are not right rather than call anyone incompetent or give anyone a roasting.
If I was called upon to comment and I was representing an organistation (e.g. Pedal on Parliament) I would seek to be positive in the first instance and then put any legitimate point across. I would not stoke Johnson Press hatred of local authorities by giving quotes about incompetence.
The CEC is trying to balance various interests they are not a cycling organisation. THe George St stuff needs supported by us all as car drivers as I have said elsewere - Complaining about an intitiative where there seems to be some momentum to introduce cycling infrastructure will be counter productive.
We need to help CEC to come to a better understanding of the needs of cyclists within travel plans rather than slag them off.
Where possible if speaking to the Johnson Press try to be positive about the great city we live in rather than giving them loose quotes they use to lambast the council. THey love going on about FURY when people are only mildly disappointed.
All of the above assumes an interest in collegiate approaches and social benefit. Feel free to ignore if you are a libertarian who wishes to remove local and or national government.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
The CEC is trying to balance various interests they are not a cycling organisation....
We need to help CEC to come to a better understanding of the needs of cyclists within travel plans rather than slag them off.
I sort of agree with that, but I have two problems.
1) Politically CEC says it wants to do more for pedestrians and cyclists. (I'm not referring back to previous administration that talked about 'a world class cycling city.) But that 'wish' is being dumped on a small section of the council rather than embraced 'holistically'.
2) 'We', as a bunch of amateurs, shouldn't need to constantly point out where they have made mistakes or (at the planning stake) tell them how things could be done better.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I go through there pretty often. That new shortcut curve was very popular with both cyclists and pedestrians, and in fact did improve safety by bypassing the four-way junction there, so reducing conflict. I've no idea why it's been grubbed up again. I've tweeted North Team about it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Where possible if speaking to the Johnson Press try to be positive about the great city we live
Agree! (or don't talk to them). However he was talking to the BBC.
I agree with Kim's sentiments entirely - I don't think anyone can really dispute that the council has spent a lot of money on cycling and a lot of it has gone on rather unhelpful things like the QBC, putting in fences too close to each other as to form an obstruction, an obsession with installing tactile tiles without actually reading the instruction manual, the Broomhouse path... It's a long list!
I'm just as frustrated by the council as he is. If words needed "measured", perhaps "expertise" would have been better than "competence".
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
North Team (@north_team)
24/07/2014 17:34
@ColoniesChris hi, it was removed following concerns from public over cycle speeds and potential conflict with pedestrians, EL"
Posted 10 years ago # -
@kapps, that is a very fair point, it just read like evening news but was on bbc news last night about midnight when I first saw it.
If any one wanted individual of Balerno to comment I would say there is some great cycling infrastructure in Edinburghsuch as the NEPN and it is frustrating that this level of quality infrastructure isn't replicated in some of the other developments.
I do think this is frustrating and also that different depts. don't link up with each other. I just wouldn't describe this as incompetence
Posted 10 years ago # -
Really? There is a long list of items where they have put in infrastructure which has then immediately been replaced or reconfigured because it hasn't been designed or implemented properly. It is a crying shame that the cycling budget is being frittered away in the way that it is.. I would call that incompetence
Posted 10 years ago # -
Tactile pavings appear to confuse many. Chicanes go in to slow cyclists down, we can object and these can get widened. The path in question went in and some friends of Inverleith objected and they took it out. I think it is good there is a process where we can object and get things changed. Setting the story up as if something was done with a lack of competence is just lazy journalism. A couple of lobbyists lobbied the council to get a piece of infrastructure changed. Same thing we do with chicanes. Of course in an ideal world a chicane would go in at a perfect distance that satisfied cyclist and pedestrians.
On a shared path an old person can be very scared of a cyclist hurtling towards them at 8 mph whereas a cyclist is perfectly willing to slow down to a crawl of 8mph to carefully pass a pedestrian.
I'll come round to your work tomorrow and call you incompetent if you like? You probably don't feel you are incompetent and you probably wouldn't like me. As we are trying to build a working relationship with the council employees we should abide by the rules of the forum.?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
On a shared path an old person can be very scared of a cyclist hurtling towards them at 8 mph whereas a cyclist is perfectly willing to slow down to a crawl of 8mph to carefully pass a pedestrian."
Er not sure what you're trying to say.
Of course problem here is potential that cyclists won't slow down.
So does this mean that there will be no more shared use paths anywhere?
"we should abide by the rules of the forum"
Technically the 'abuse rule' is about other CCEers, but 'we' should 'try' to be nice.
Competence here is perhaps more an issue of 'process' rather than individuals. Obviously someone made a decision, which may or may not have been wise/reasonable.
"
Competency is also used as a more general description of the requirements of human beings in organizations and communities.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
The BBC article seems fair to me, although it would have been nice to challenge the out-of-control-dogs-are-alright-jack attitude of the self-appointed "friends", people like that are pretty transparent. Meh.
There's no real question in my mind that the council's implementation of cycle infrastructure in Edinburgh desperately lacks the necessary vision and leadership and is squandering public funds. I started to list examples but I frankly can't be bothered.
Whether or not we should accuse them publicly of their obvious incompetence is perhaps a different story, but to be honest even as someone who regularly gets about by bike, I'd rather a good proportion of the 7% budget had actually been spent on non-cycling projects instead (Barnton golf course, Craigleith, the terrible QBC, Broomhouse path, the list of things we could do without goes ever on...)
When sums of money this large are involved, there does come a time when we have to ask, are we comfortable with this money being wasted just because it's being wasted on the nominal cycling budget? Really?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
24/07/2014 20:21
@CyclingEdin @north_team should the Council not listen to Friends of Inverleith Park?"
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Sean Allan (@seansauzee)
24/07/2014 20:38
@CyclingEdin @LAHinds @north_team who/how do FoIP consult? No info on their website about conflicts on path."
Posted 10 years ago # -
Does anyone have any proposal as to how we can affect a change so that the council learns to spend its cycle budget wisely?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Is that a challenge or a cry of despair?
Posted 10 years ago # -
On reflection, I think it's possible that CEC may be showing a bit more nous than I initially gave them credit for, about removing this little shortcut. In the unlikely event of, say, a small child being hurt by a cyclist on that section, the PR impact would be terrible. It would be spun by the outrage mongers of the press as 'council risks our children's lives by turning our parks into racetracks for irresponsible lycra-clad etc. etc.', and there might even be a campaign to ban bikes from parks entirely. Nothing fires people up more that the thought that their children might be in danger. So the removal of that little section can be seen as a small tactical loss in support of a larger strategic aim. (But of course it would have been even better not to have paid to build it and then later pay to remove it).
Posted 10 years ago # -
I would say it would be good if we could be constructive in suggestions as to how the council can spend the budget rather than being negative. The council gets lots of things wrong for sure but given we have fair bit of expertise amongst us it should be possible to come up with suggestions on how to spend the budget in a better way?
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
