CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Marchmont to King's Buildings consultation

(113 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Nelly
    Member

    You know, all this tinkering just plays right into their hands - the proverbial 'two bald men arguing over a comb'.

    We can argue til the cows come home about cycle lanes inside/outside parking - both are nonsense.

    None of this plan is really suitable, and eddie_h comment above is correct - this will be another QBIC.

    What we need is road closures (full and partial - i.e. access only), utilisation of wider / quieter roads for segregation, and properly though out solutions.

    IMO (and this is a 5 minute back of a fag packet drawing) its relatively simple Meadows to KB -

    Light controlled crossing at Melville Terrace allowing cycle/pedestrian crossing at Victor Hugo to a bollarded off Livingstone Place, which is parking East side only and double red lines other side up to Sciennes Road.

    Given that they are proposing extending the playground at Sciennes school at this point, crossing into Tantallon Place and then to a (bollarded at tantallon pl end) Hatton place should be easy?

    Lauder Road / S Lauder Road all the way to Relugas Road, light controlled crossings created, parking on one side only again double red lines.

    Finally a bridge (been mentioned before) for bike/peds across to Langton Road (This one might be tricky as its a bit tight but again we might need to be brave and stop parking !) and on up to KB

    OK, I am being simplistic here, but we simply cant accept stupid infra 'improvements' which try and squeeze cars/peds/bikes into spaces which were designed for horse and carriages a century and a half ago - bravery and road closures (even some partial ones)is all that will work IMO.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. fimm
    Member

    Nelly, I agree. Hence my point about "don't bother with door zone cycle lanes, they are worse than useless" as a response.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. MediumDave
    Member

    In addition to the advertised public consultation in Newington Library, there's another opportunity for university denizens:-

    The plans for this route have appeared in the level 3 foyer of the James Clerk Maxwell Building. Apparently the project team will be there on Thursday 23rd between 1200-1400 to receive feedback.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. MediumDave
    Member

    FWIW I shall suggest to them that they simply don't bother with large sections of the scheme, door-zone cycle lanes, gyratory round Oswald Road, pinch point^W^W"refuge island" at the entrance to KB on West Mains Road when coming up from Cameron Toll way and all.

    The early start signals and some extra loading restrictions are at least likely to be marginally useful.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. cc
    Member

    They seem to have totally ignored the cycle path/crossing leading from Langton Road across West Mains Road to King's Buildings. It's not even marked on their map as far as I can see. Given that this new "route" goes along the very same bit of West Mains Road past the very same entrance to King's Buildings this seems par for the course very odd.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. cc
    Member

    In case anyone else gets as confused as the council web maintainers, there is no such place as West Saville Road. Ditto West Saville Terrace. West Savile Road is on the other side of the QBC, nowhere near any of this route. At least the maps get the street names right.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. Min
    Member

    no such place as West Saville Road

    It's just off Princess Street. ;-)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Nelly

    I like your proposal a lot. Trying to funnel everyone to and through the existing crossings of canals, rivers and railways often seems to dominate and limit the thinking on cycle routes. Creating a new non-motorised crossing of the south suburban line is a stroke of genius. (And it might alter the route of the Seven Hills Race....)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    "

    "I wonder why we can't just build a bridge over the south suburban railway" CEC has actually looked at this (can't remember if this was the exact place) but decided it was too expensive (£500k or more).

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2530#post-26912

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. gkgk
    Member

    I wonder how half a million looks compared to the total cycling budget. Aren't they forever spending £100k here and there on cycle infra like adding more car parking spaces on the QBC or turning George Street into a festival cafe street?

    Maybe the £500k is less the issue than the "or more" bit.

    EDIT: Map says there's no obvious crossing that doesn't end in a living room or garden. I suppose cheaper and more direct would be getting some 20mph cameras on the route. Imagine how great that would be! They might remove the not-near-the-shop parking from Blackford Avenue too. That'd take a lot of stress out of the route.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. Morningsider
    Member

    I always try and imagine how these sort of proposals come about. Generally, I imagine the head honcho, sat behind some huge desk shouting at his underlings -

    "Think small - I want mean spirited, meagre, pathetic, the least we can get away with and still call it a cycle route. Dust of those QBC plans and see where we can pare them back a bit".

    How can you plan a cycle route through the Grange where the road is too narrow to have lanes on both sides? How can there be no room for segregated lanes anywhere along the route? How can this be part of the Family Network - I can't imagine I'd be happy with my family using it.

    Also, what's the obsession with routes to the Kings Buildings. It's already easily accessible by bike.

    All that back slapping on 6% of the transport budget being spent on cycling - this is where a reasonable portion of that cash is going.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I cycled West Mains Road yesterday, so it's amusing to look at the 'existing cycle infrastructure' on the plans. I never noticed any of it.

    In my view, the gruel of these plans is sufficiently thin to merit the response 'Please save your money for cycle infrastructure rather than this smear of lipstick on the South Edinburgh pig'.

    I think I will suggest putting the Leith Street Bridge over the South Sub Railway, see what the objection could be.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. algo
    Member

    @david.nutter - thanks for pointing out this brief opportunity for consultation in person. I plan to go and be unequivocal in my objections… I think the project team should be made aware of this thread if they are not already….

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "I plan to go and be unequivocal in my objections…"

    I suspect most people on here will agree/share your concerns.

    Of course CEC is (partly) trying to 'get more people cycling' - which is why it is 'interested in' its 'family cycle network'.

    To some extent it (assumes it) has to judge 'comments' from 'experienced' cyclists as not (always) 'valid'.

    I'm making this up - not very well.

    My 'point is' that (sometimes) things that seem stupid are done for 'good' reasons.

    That is not to say that I think that this - or any other scheme from CEC is particularly 'well thought out'.

    After the QBiC (and the revision to allow more parking) it's clear that CEC is giving in to the wrong pressures.

    So I think saying 'don't waste your (our!) money - unless it makes a significant difference', is probably a sensible line.

    Incrementalism is all very well but if it doesn't add up to much...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  15. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Here;

    https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=West+Savile+Terrace,+Edinburgh&hl=en&ll=55.928892,-3.181277&spn=0.00166,0.002401&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=10.373909,19.665527&oq=west+savile+terrace&hnear=W+Savile+Terrace&t=h&z=19

    Put the Leith Street bridge here, at the end of the alleyway off Relugas Road. It's the right length and even squints the right way to make a link with Langton Road. You'd think recycling to cycle would appeal to the council's cycling officer.

    Then implement Min's plan.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. neddie
    Member

    Or, to turn this idea on its head...

    What about closing the existing bridge and roads to traffic to make a traffic-free cycling route, then building a new bridge/road for cars out of the roads budget?

    Does that sound ludicrous? Why is it that cycle facilities always have to be 'built around' what's already there, instead of taking it back?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    Kilgraston Road now.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. i
    Member

    I stitched the pdfs together to see what it all looks like.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  19. i
    Member

    And in two parts, not much better quality, imgur is quite aggressive with its compression =(

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. MediumDave
    Member

    Just back from a chat with the council project team at KB. They seemed willing to engage and receptive to constructive criticism so hopefully the consultation isn't just a paperwork exercise.

    I concentrated on getting points about cycle lanes outside parking bays and the pinch points across but didn't hog the staff for too long as there were several other folk wanting to talk to them.

    Apparently the Oswald Road Gyratory is intended to reflect the current desire lines round that road network, reduce the number of options that drivers have to consider with the intended consequence of reducing the area's high accident rate. Which makes sense as a goal, though maybe the current design isn't the best way of going about it. IMO all the justifications given were rather driver-centric. Now there's a surprise... :)

    Therefore in my consultation response I'll suggest taking the same approach as George Street (movable planters etc rather than traffic islands). At least that way the design can be easily changed until perfected, and discarded if it can't be fixed.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    "At least that way the design can be easily changed until perfected, and discarded if it can't be fixed."

    Yep.

    That was suggested quite heavily for Leith Walk.

    I still don't if this is 'too hard to contemplate' or whether it's 'too difficult' because of the legal framework around traffic orders etc.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. algo
    Member

    I've just come back from discussing this with the council project team there.

    Apparently this is not the same team as designed the innocent to meadows - this project team is not specifically allocated to cycling - they are from general transport.

    This is not part of the same "network" (i.e. it's not family) as the innocent to meadows. This apparently justified the use of paint as opposed to segregation.

    I really don't think the cycle lane in the door zone on Blackford Avenue is a good idea - I think it will have the negative effect of apparently allocating space where cyclists should be - encouraging close passes and of course introducing the manifold dangers of the door zone.

    The seem to think Kilgraston road is the same width as Marchmont Road - is that right? It doesn't seem so to me, but their plans seem to show that it is.

    Their response to my criticism that bad infrastructure is worse than no cycle infrastructure was that what they were proposing was an improvement to an existing route which many cyclists use. I don't know how they quantify improvement exactly but a lot of this doesn't feel that way to me. I think it's all very driver-centric and centred around the Oswald Road bit, as david.nutter said.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @algo

    It would be very odd if the quality of the work depended on the team doing it.

    Is there still time to submit?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  24. algo
    Member

    yes - still time online and by e-mail. Indeed it would be odd - I mention it as it was their initial response to my question as to why there was such a difference between the two plans… it's probably irrelevant. More relevant is the "network" to which each belongs...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  25. neddie
    Member

    I would prefer that CEC created a short section of quality infra, i.e. segregated, rather than trying to do a crap job of the entire route in one go.

    e.g. as a start, Marchmont Rd could be given segregated lanes in both directions and Grange Ln blocked to motorised vehicles. Then later do Kilgraston, moving south etc.

    I do agree that *all* the junctions on the route should have their bend radii reduced.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  26. algo
    Member

    @edd1e_h I completely agree. I do get the impression that the cycle route has been tacked onto the end of a road redesign for cars…

    Posted 9 years ago #
  27. cb
    Member

    "The seem to think Kilgraston road is the same width as Marchmont Road - is that right? It doesn't seem so to me, but their plans seem to show that it is."

    From an un-scientific glance at Google Earth Marchmont road is significantly wider.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

    "From an un-scientific glance at Google Earth Marchmont road is significantly wider."

    Yes.

    They might be thinking about the space between the lines of parked cars - but even so...

    Reminds me of some grand plans for Princes Street (before the tram idea) which were plotted using maps that hadn't been updated to include the pavement widening!

    Posted 9 years ago #
  29. i
    Member

    Is there good reason to have a bus stop outside Marchmont St Giles Parish Church? It seems tight for space and is close to the previous bus stop.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  30. i
    Member

    If we made Kilgraston road one way for cars, then it would free up space for proper bike paths. Plus it would make cycling and walking even more of an attractive option. Whitehouse Terrace would probably get a bit busier in the short term. The question is should cars go up or down the hill?..

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin